• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

BooRadley said:
If the main issue you have is defining assault, then whether or not the victim in this was being a jackass is irrelevant. Put it this way: if an old lady was walking down the street with a sign that said "Have a nice day," and someone came and tried to yank it off her neck, choking her with the chord that it was hanging by, would that be assault? If so, then so is this.

If not, then, while I disagree with you, I at least see your point and acknowledge it's value.

If it's assault, then whether or not it was justified assault is the question, and we can stop arguing about the difference between a massive beatdown and what happened here, because the court cannot leave the determination of just punishment up to a mob.
Click to expand...

We can't divorce common sense from the application of the law. The old lady in your example isn't acting in a way that would provoke any reasonable person.

The atheist in our case study is acting in such a way.

This raises the bar on the definition of assault, in my opinion. The atheist is acting in a way that invites confrontation, therefore he bears some responsibility for the consequences.

I would charge the muslim with assault if he had struck the atheist with a closed fist, or inflicted actual physical harm on him. Not as it stands.

We can look at it another way.

How anti-social would someone need to be to assault the old lady in your example? Bat**** crazy, pretty much.

How anti-social would you say the muslim's actions were in comparison? Clearly, his actions are much more understandable.

The one is clearly a danger to society, the other is arguably a rational actor.
 
Peter Grimm said:
We can't divorce common sense from the application of the law. The old lady in your example isn't acting in a way that would provoke any reasonable person.

The atheist in our case study is acting in such a way.

This raises the bar on the definition of assault, in my opinion. The atheist is acting in a way that invites confrontation, therefore he bears some responsibility for the consequences.

I would charge the muslim with assault if he had struck the atheist with a closed fist, or inflicted actual physical harm on him. Not as it stands.

We can look at it another way.

How anti-social would someone need to be to assault the old lady in your example? Bat**** crazy, pretty much.

How anti-social would you say the muslim's actions were in comparison? Clearly, his actions are much more understandable.

The one is clearly a danger to society, the other is arguably a rational actor.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's my point more or less. Obviously I don't think that assault is justified, but this atheist was more or less asking for trouble. So what if he has the "right" to do it? I guess the KKK has a right to go out and yell hateful messages about non-whites, but that doesn't make it respectable - and if a KKK member were to get hit, I wouldn't feel that sorry for him.

And what gets me is that this incident is being portrayed as "persecution of atheists", when that's not what it is at all. It some stupid punk trying to piss people off and getting more than he bargained for. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's moral, but the mentality of these atheists is that they're exempt from any moral standards because "religious people are stupid/religion is a like/(insert lame as reason here)" - which ironically makes them much stupider and less ethical than the religious people who they think they're so much better than. They're just a new supremacist movement.
 
Last edited:
SLAMRAAM said:
No the guy who killed her was one of the original members of American Atheists.
Click to expand...

David Roland Waters worked as a typesetter for American Atheists, he was not a founder.

Please verify for me, you are saying that because you do not align yourself with the KKK bceause they have murdered? I do believe that whatever religious group you align yourself with you will find murderers.
 
Last edited:
SLAMRAAM said:
Then by that standard, Neo-Nazis are only hating "Jewish extremists" when they go around wearing Swastikas and claiming the Holocaust was a hoax.
Click to expand...

No that is not on point. Parading around in a costume and declaring a misconception, falsehood or beleif are not the tactics I am talking about.
 
Mya said:
So you think its OK to grab somebody by the throat and choke him just like that? because he doesn't agree with you? :roll:
Click to expand...
Neither of those things happened. It appears you have fallen victim to propaganda.
 
Peter Grimm said:
We can't divorce common sense from the application of the law. The old lady in your example isn't acting in a way that would provoke any reasonable person.

The atheist in our case study is acting in such a way.

This raises the bar on the definition of assault, in my opinion. The atheist is acting in a way that invites confrontation, therefore he bears some responsibility for the consequences.

I would charge the muslim with assault if he had struck the atheist with a closed fist, or inflicted actual physical harm on him. Not as it stands.

We can look at it another way.

How anti-social would someone need to be to assault the old lady in your example? Bat**** crazy, pretty much.

How anti-social would you say the muslim's actions were in comparison? Clearly, his actions are much more understandable.

The one is clearly a danger to society, the other is arguably a rational actor.
Click to expand...

The action of the assailant is either assault or not assault, regardless of the actions of the victim.

You may say it's "justified assault", which I think would be a pretty terrible thing to say, but the decision of whether or not choking someone is assault has nothing to do with whether or not you feel the person deserved it. The assailant wasn't being threatened in any way, so it wasn't self-defence. It was just simple assault.

Also, no, a "reasonable" person would not have assaulted the victim in this case. A reasonable person would have though "oh, my, what an asshole" and kept on walking.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

Why was the judge so quick to condemn the atheist?

Sure, there are moronic atheists out there that feel the need to mock the religious. I agree with the judge that atheists who do that deserve some ridicule of their own.

However, just because you are offended by an atheist that doesn't mean you can lay your hands on him.

Furthermore, I don't get why the judge didn't vote for the atheist. The atheist was the one who was attacked---choked. Does this set a new precedent that if I choke an theist, and the judge hearing the case agrees with me/my religion, I can get away with it?

Perhaps we don't know enough on this issue, but from what I've seen the judge chose poorly.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

I sure don't see any winners here. The athiest guy was being a provocative jerk. The Muslim fellow shouldn't have attacked him. The Judge made the wrong ruling.

One the other hand, youtube got a few extra hits, eh?
 
BooRadley said:
The action of the assailant is either assault or not assault, regardless of the actions of the victim.

You may say it's "justified assault", which I think would be a pretty terrible thing to say, but the decision of whether or not choking someone is assault has nothing to do with whether or not you feel the person deserved it. The assailant wasn't being threatened in any way, so it wasn't self-defence. It was just simple assault.

Also, no, a "reasonable" person would not have assaulted the victim in this case. A reasonable person would have though "oh, my, what an asshole" and kept on walking.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Offended Muslim chokes atheist: Where's the outrage from the Left?

Gardener said:
I sure don't see any winners here. The athiest guy was being a provocative jerk. The Muslim fellow shouldn't have attacked him. The Judge made the wrong ruling.

One the other hand, youtube got a few extra hits, eh?
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone wearing a pregnant nun's costume during Halloween being accused of provoking someone else to attack.

Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”
Click to expand...

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BooRadley said:
I think "anti-social" is a bit vague.
Click to expand...

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:
Peter Grimm said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...


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.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BooRadley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thunder said:
there is no such thing as "God-given freedoms".

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


It's a philosophical position that some of us take.

If you want to read up on it, it's called "natural law." Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, as you already know but out of duty I should mention, the Declaration of Independence contains this memorable line: "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights."

I would hold that philosophical view regardless. It is nice to know that the founding fathers shared it, however.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's a philosophical position that some of us take.

If you want to read up on it, it's called "natural law." Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, as you already know but out of duty I should mention, the Declaration of Independence contains this memorable line:


I would hold that philosophical view regardless. It is nice to know that the founding fathers shared it, however.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of Natural Law is that it is not derived from religion, maybe I am wrong.
The quote you provide seems to be in contradiction to some other quotes from our Founding Fathers (not necessarily just those who signed the Constitution).
"we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights." (this quote includes "creator" which implies we were created by something larger than "us". Here are some quotes that imply some of the Founding Fathers disagree with having a "creator" or organized religion:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
---Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
----John Adams

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
--James Madison
Click to expand...
 
taxigirl said:
My interpretation of Natural Law is that it is not derived from religion, maybe I am wrong.
The quote you provide seems to be in contradiction to some other quotes from our Founding Fathers (not necessarily just those who signed the Constitution).
"we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights." (this quote includes "creator" which implies we were created by something larger than "us". Here are some quotes that imply some of the Founding Fathers disagree with having a "creator" or organized religion:
Click to expand...

It's not so much an argument for religion as an argument that our rights are inherent. In other schools of thought, people have no rights but those granted to them by the government. There is a distinction.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's not so much an argument for religion as an argument that our rights are inherent. In other schools of thought, people have no rights but those granted to them by the government. There is a distinction.
Click to expand...

I guess I see that believing you have no rights unless you are granted them by the government is very similar to various religions that say you "can" or "cannot" do something, or else.... x consequence.

What if I want to be separate from that? What if I don't acknowledge that the government or a creator has control of my rights to begin with (separatism).
 
taxigirl said:
I guess I see that believing you have no rights unless you are granted them by the government is very similar to various religions that say you "can" or "cannot" do something, or else.... x consequence.

What if I want to be separate from that? What if I don't acknowledge that the government or a creator has control of my rights to begin with (separatism).
Click to expand...

I guess the question you have to answer is where do your rights come from? Are they given to you by somebody else, or are they yours to begin with?

I'm going with option 2. I think every person on earth is born free, and it's only other people and governments that take away those freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom