Quantcast

Man, there have been some serious "Wow..." moments recently in online news...

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
read about this one earlier. what this article fails to mention is that the video didn't actually capture the assault, so the judge threw it out based on "lack of concrete evidence" :rolleyes: (point is, it wasn't quite as cut and dry as the article you posted made it seem).
So did the person deny that he choked the other individual? Were they not able to find any witnesses?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
Here's the video:



On the flip side, the judge apparently said:

'I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what's on our mind, not to p*** off other people and cultures, which is what you did.
'You are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.
'You've completely trashed their essence, their being. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive.'
Which is interesting, because while the courts have ruled that "fighting words" are not covered under the First Amendment, that exemption has been growing smaller (see: Westboro Church's right to protest). So while it was dismissed for lack of evidence (I'm pretty sure that if the guy were *actually* being assaulted he wouldn't be able to call out in a calm voice "look, I'm being assaulted!"), there might be something to appeal?
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,388
27,608
media blackout
So did the person deny that he choked the other individual? Were they not able to find any witnesses?
Didn't say if any witnesses testified, or if he was treated for injuries. If either had happened, I'm suspect it would have been mentioned, seeing as how its kind of important. Part of the article I read made it out to seem like a case of "he said she said".
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,388
27,608
media blackout
Which is interesting, because while the courts have ruled that "fighting words" are not covered under the First Amendment, that exemption has been growing smaller (see: Westboro Church's right to protest). So while it was dismissed for lack of evidence (I'm pretty sure that if the guy were *actually* being assaulted he wouldn't be able to call out in a calm voice "look, I'm being assaulted!"), there might be something to appeal?
from the cnn article I read, the guy was stating things like "I am the prophet Mohammed! Zombie from the dead!". Clearly offensive to muslims, but I don't think those could legally be considered "fighting words"
 

SacredYeti

Monkey
Sep 12, 2011
156
0
San Diego, CA
read about this one earlier. what this article fails to mention is that the video didn't actually capture the assault, so the judge threw it out based on "lack of concrete evidence" :rolleyes: (point is, it wasn't quite as cut and dry as the article you posted made it seem).
And that's why I mentioned it being a Yahoo article. They have, how to word this... "special" writers.
 

4xBoy

Turbo Monkey
Jun 20, 2006
7,430
3,536
Minneapolis
If you want to dress offensively to another group of people as a joke, be built like a brick s--t house, and be ready to fight.

I wouldn't rip on Islam to Muhammad Ali even today, unless I was built like Tyson.

But F- sheeple and their religion, what ever it is.