Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 139

Thread: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

  1. #111
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    It wasn't assault, though.

    I've defined assault as anti-social physical contact.

    You haven't been able to come up with a consistent definition for assault.
    I think "anti-social" is a bit vague. Batter definitions may work better: "The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact."

    The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

    [ . . . ]

    Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact.
    battery legal definition of battery. battery synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    If you grab something hanging around someone's neck and try to yank it off of them, that would do the trick. The sign wasn't his, it wasn't his right to remove it from another's person, especially by violent force.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
    I think "anti-social" is a bit vague.
    That is where we differ. Subjective doesn't have to mean vague.

    The premise of democracy is that societal norms can direct a government.

    The reason we have trial by jury is because we trust society to normalize behavior.

    “It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” - John Adams


    However, I believe I understand the root of our differences on the matter. It really comes down to a matter of perspective in approaching the case.

    I see the case by looking at the intention of the perpetrator. What degree of crazy is on display?


    Take your granny-assaulter for instance. That's one crazy dude. He needs to be locked up or corrected.

    Our muslim here isn't so crazy. His actions are more aligned with what a sane person would do in the same situation, given his religious beliefs and the actions of the atheist. He might be a little off, but assault is a serious charge, and I don't think his actions warrant that kind of corrective response.


    On the other hand, you are looking at this case by focusing only on the act committed.


    Here is one question: What is the purpose of the law?

    I would say this - to protect society from anti-social people who go around committing assault. Thus, it becomes important to identify said anti-social people.


    A similar but distinct question: What is the purpose of enforcing the law?

    In my view, the purpose is to remove crazies from the rest of society, to correct them when possible, and to provide a disincentive to others to break the law.


    Given those two questions, I think my interpretation of the law is superior.

    I'm sure you'll disagree, however.
    Last edited by Peter Grimm; 02-26-12 at 10:59 PM.

  3. #113
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    That is where we differ. Subjective doesn't have to mean vague.

    The premise of democracy is that societal norms can direct a government.

    The reason we have trial by jury is because we trust society to normalize behavior.

    “It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” - John Adams


    However, I believe I understand the root of our differences on the matter. It really comes down to a matter of perspective in approaching the case.

    I see the case by looking at the intention of the perpetrator. What degree of crazy is on display?


    Take your granny-assaulter for instance. That's one crazy dude. He needs to be locked up or corrected.

    Our muslim here isn't so crazy. His actions are more aligned with what a sane person would do in the same situation, given his religious beliefs and the actions of the atheist. He might be a little off, but assault is a serious charge, and I don't think his actions warrant that kind of corrective response.


    On the other hand, you are looking at this case by focusing only on the act committed.


    Here is one question: What is the purpose of the law?

    I would say this - to protect society from anti-social people who go around committing assault. Thus, it becomes important to identify said anti-social people.


    A similar but distinct question: What is the purpose of enforcing the law?

    In my view, the purpose is to remove crazies from the rest of society, to correct them when possible, and to provide a disincentive to others to break the law.


    Given those two questions, I think my interpretation of the law is superior.

    I'm sure you'll disagree, however.
    Good, and interesting analysis. I think I have a better understanding of your position, and our core differences, too. My idea of the purpose of the law is to determine what a persons rights are with respect to other people, and that whatever we come up with, it be applied evenly, and it should be aimed at promoting the maximum level of freedom . . . even for people who are jerks.

    I also probably think the assailants actions were crazier than you think they were, since he was trying to control someone else's actions, rather than controlling his own. He could have just as easily walked away, but he lacked the capacity to either control his anger, or to accept that other people have different ideas than his, and some of them may be offensive, and that's not something he can change.

    Like the alcoholics say: The serenity to accept the things you cannot change.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    This news source is slanted so take with a grain of salt

    Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …

    Fighting words aren't covered under the first amendment.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    its very simple: I have the right to call Muhammed a ****ing filthy monkey-raping pig, if I want to. And NOONE has the right to physically assault me, harrass me, or stalk me because of it.

    yep, that 1st Amendment is a great thing.

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    its very simple: I have the right to call Muhammed a ****ing filthy monkey-raping pig, if I want to. And NOONE has the right to physically assault me, harrass me, or stalk me because of it.

    yep, that 1st Amendment is a great thing.
    I thought I made this clear. FIGHTING WORDS

    The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

    If you are trying to incite an immediate breach of peace, you GOT NO RIGHTS.

    Halloween parade = crowded place, children, etc... I honestly have no idea if this fits, but the point I'm trying to make is to say civil right are unlimited is just not the case.

    Sorry, bud, the first amendment has its limitations.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    no, you can't use the excuse "dem iz fightin' words"...to justify assault.

  8. #118
    Educator Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-02-13 @ 01:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    704

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I thought I made this clear. FIGHTING WORDS

    If you are trying to incite an immediate breach of peace, you GOT NO RIGHTS.

    Halloween parade = crowded place, children, etc... I honestly have no idea if this fits, but the point I'm trying to make is to say civil right are unlimited is just not the case.

    Sorry, bud, the first amendment has its limitations.
    I don't think that applies to broad, public speech. I mean, cross burnings, burning the American flag, the Westboro Baptist Church, rap music, porn, etc. are all legal. He didn't say "Hey I ****ed your mother last night, sand monkey" or something. Those are fighting words. "I don't believe Mohammad was a prophet" aren't fighting words, and this is far more the latter, than the former.

    "I think Mohammad was a Zombie" isn't unprotected speech, nor should it be. We're not a theocracy, yet.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
    Good, and interesting analysis. I think I have a better understanding of your position, and our core differences, too. My idea of the purpose of the law is to determine what a persons rights are with respect to other people, and that whatever we come up with, it be applied evenly, and it should be aimed at promoting the maximum level of freedom . . . even for people who are jerks.

    I also probably think the assailants actions were crazier than you think they were, since he was trying to control someone else's actions, rather than controlling his own. He could have just as easily walked away, but he lacked the capacity to either control his anger, or to accept that other people have different ideas than his, and some of them may be offensive, and that's not something he can change.

    Like the alcoholics say: The serenity to accept the things you cannot change.
    Are the rights of others something for us to determine? Does freedom need to be promoted, or is freedom the natural state of man?

    My argument there is that rights are inherent to each of us, and we are born free.

    Governments, institutions, corporations, and slave masters rob us of our God-given freedom.

    In that context, how is the ideal of personal freedom under threat in this case?

    Inaction on the judge's part should lead to greater freedom. Action by the judge restricts our ability to moderately correct deviants outside the mantle of government.

    Also, is freedom limited to the individual, or can communities or groups also experience freedom? Human beings are social creatures, and societies are built on commonly accepted norms.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then ...(edited

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    ...Governments, institutions, corporations, and slave masters rob us of our God-given freedom.....
    there is no such thing as "God-given freedoms".

    not even the Founding Fathers of the USA put that idea into law.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •