First Amendment Right

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

How can you say that it was an inept decision? Why do you use the word "attack"? There is no evidence in the article or in the video that Perce was choked outside of Perce's own claim. Without evidence you can't convict someone...because this is America. Now, maybe Perce was in fact choked, but none of us here have evidence to come to that conclusion, and perhaps the judge did not either.

I apologize for only posting one source, there are currently so many, but if you read court records you'll see the Judge dismissed the evidence of a police officer on scene who said the attacker admitted he grabbed Perce when he interviewed both Perce and Talaag. I believe that's still assault by definition, unless moslems are now held to a different standard.

ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed...

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I apologize for only posting one source, there are currently so many, but if you read court records you'll see the Judge dismissed the evidence of a police officer on scene who said the attacker admitted he grabbed Perce when he interviewed both Perce and Talaag. I believe that's still assault by definition, unless moslems are now held to a different standard.

ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube

In the article you posted, the police officer said that the alleged assailant admitted to grabbing the man's SIGN and FAKE BEARD. That is different from attacking the person.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

In the article you posted, the police officer said that the alleged assailant admitted to grabbing the man's SIGN and FAKE BEARD. That is different from attacking the person.

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.

[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?

[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.