First Amendment Right

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Look up 'Assault', Lotus, then admit you're wrong.

**** it, I'll do it for you, you'll probably get sidetracked by a picture of a kitten:

In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.

I said "attacking the person." The person was not attacked. A sign was.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I said "attacking the person." The person was not attacked. A sign was.

Cool! So when I drive my fist into your Ann Taylor blouse (hypothetically) then I'm attacking your blouse, not you?

Awesome!

P.S. You didn't get the part about what assault comprises, I see?

[NC_Skins]

After listening to the police officer's testimony on the stand, I'm not sure how the judge could have dismissed this case. In fact, he probably should have never been the one presiding over this case due to conflict of interest. NO doubt he gave the guy that assaulted him a free pass on this.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

After listening to the police officer's testimony on the stand, I'm not sure how the judge could have dismissed this case. In fact, he probably should have never been the one presiding over this case due to conflict of interest. NO doubt he gave the guy that assaulted him a free pass on this.

Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?

Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?

Im no lawyer, and i dont think you are, but based off some of what the judge said it sounded like conflict of interest to me. Perhaps OM can chime in?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Why do you capitalize Muslim and not Christian? Is there a grammar rule behind that or are you purposely doing it?

Im no lawyer, and i dont think you are, but based off some of what the judge said it sounded like conflict of interest to me. Perhaps OM can chime in?

There is no insidious reasoning behind the word Christian not being capitalized. I hope you weren't insulted. I will be sure to to dot my Is and crossing my Ts and capitalize the first letter of anything affiliated with Jesus in the future.


You don't have to be a lawyer to know what conflict of interest is. What exactly is the conflict of interest in this instance?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

Conflict of interest? So what you're saying is you can't be a christian judge and rule on a matter between a christian and a Muslim due to conflict of interest?

Do you understand what conflict of interest means?

Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.

The judge is a methodist or mormon (apparently) or some other superstitious group and so his bias as a theist allowed him to override common sense.

The religiously inclined tend to stick together when faced with Atheists, that's been my experience.

They hate me far more than they hate each other, which I appreciate.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The judge is a methodist or mormon (apparently) or some other superstitious group and so his bias as a theist allowed him to override common sense.

The religiously inclined tend to stick together when faced with Atheists, that's been my experience.

They hate me far more than they hate each other, which I appreciate.

For the most part, I was ignoring this thread. So much epic fail that it is just not worth "wrestling with the pig".

With that said, RR - your opinions of the "religiously inclined" are for you to hold, but the prejudice and intolerance you display towards the spiritual choices of others speaks damningly of your own beliefs and is no better than the wrong you claim they do you.

So, in your atheistic paradise, it is fine to lump all "religiously inclined" together? It is okay to paint all those who believe that something exists beyond our finite senses as superstitious fools who believe in unicorns and magic? All who follow a religious paths are but dupes who are simply not smart enough to see the world as you do.

We poor religiously inclined fools, if only we were as brilliant and wise as you.

The intolerance and lack of understanding displayed by this and your multitude of other similar comments convinces me that, whatever your guiding ethos is, I am damn glad it's not mine and I certainly hope it never becomes that which is held by the majority of humankind.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes, I do know what conflict of interest means and your point is valid in regards to your example. What is evident is that he allowed his bias to dismiss this case.

What is his bias and is it the same as his judgment?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

What is his bias and is it the same as his judgment?

Well, how is it he completely ignored the officer's testimony in his decision? No explanation to why his testimony was ignored?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Cool! So when I drive my fist into your Ann Taylor blouse (hypothetically) then I'm attacking your blouse, not you?

Awesome!

P.S. You didn't get the part about what assault comprises, I see?

It was a move on a SIGN, not a BLOUSE. Do you see the difference between those two words? It's pretty simple.

And you can crow all that you want about the definition of the word "assault." Since I never mentioned that word, and the defendant was not charged with that, it makes no difference to me or to the story.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

It was a move on a SIGN, not a BLOUSE. Do you see the difference between those two words? It's pretty simple.

He was wearing a sign and a fake beard that was glued on.

Originally Posted by Lotus

And you can crow all that you want about the definition of the word "assault." Since I never mentioned that word, and the defendant was not charged with that, it makes no difference to me or to the story.

Yes, you did, in comment #3, I think, but regardless assault was what happened. That's what the cop said it was, initially.

The definition of 'assault' is what the assailant did. He wasn't 'just talking', he grabbed the Perce. The sign and beard were attached in a similar fashion that your blouse would be attached.