Man Admits to Attacking Atheist; Judge Dismisses Case

[Diz~]

How does that show that he admitted he assaulted Mr. Perce? He said that he told his son he was going to show them he was willing to 'fight' for his prophet. The word 'fight' and that sort of language is used all the time to describe normal arguing. The article confuses two details: the Muslim immigrant testified in court that he told the man to stop. That's all that is actually confirmed, but the article uses that detail interchangably with the police officer - who was the one to press charges, so he cannot prove himself to be correct without corroboration - who claimed that the Muslim immigrant told him that he assaulted him. The article uses the police officer's word as fact even though he was only one side of the case.

So what you saying that the assault didn't happen? If then, that fine. The Muslim guy is free to go if no attack took place. I just don't agree that anyone have any right to assault a person no matter what religion they have, or how offensive it may be to the one with the religion.

 

[Malanu]

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Remember the legal definition of assault includes simple touching without permission. We often forget that a simple "chest poke" with your finger is assault. If a fist makes contact then it becomes assault & battery.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Completely and utterly disgusting... but, sadly, hardly surprising especially if you've read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". One particularly frightening example details a plan by an Atheist to organise a protest march in opposition to a religious march and being told not only would he not get protection from policemen in the town but that they might actively join in any assault against the protest.

Anyone with this attitude is a fundamentalist in the sense of "he has attempted to divert thee from thy God" kind of way because any remotely rational religious person would realise the following: Atheists don't proselytise, are as difficult to get into a movement as cats are to herd and do NOT wish to actively stop religious people worshipping if they freely choose to.

I'd just like to point out that the second part of your statement contains some exaggerations. First, some atheists do "proselytize" or convince others to become atheists. That seems to have been part of what the parade being discussed in this thread was about (unless you argue it was just for atheists to have fun). Second, some atheists do have a problem with theists worshiping. I don't wish to generalize this onto all atheists, because I've had quite a number of good discussions with some, but some atheists are bothered by religion's continued existence.

 

[CSolarstorm]

The Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)

Police reports are generally inadmissible in criminal cases. F.R.E. 803(8); United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977). This is a civil case, however, so this prohibition will not apply. See Truesdale v. Klich, , 2006 WL 1460043 (N.D.Ill.,2006) (police reports, which recorded first-hand observations of testifying officers, were admissible in civil trial under the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule); Bolduc v. United States, 265 F.Supp.2d 153 (D.Mass.,2003 (same). The evidence contains hearsay within hearsay. Officer’s police report, a hearsay document, contains Plaintiff’s hearsay statement. Hearsay within hearsay is admissible as long as each embedded hearsay statement falls within one or more hearsay exceptions. F.R.E. 805.

Great find, Malanu. I have to give you due credit. But have a slew of questions about it:

1. Police reports are admissable, but are they required to be accepted? It seems to me that with this allowance codified, it would either be the judge's discretion, or something that the prosecutor would have to invoke, to say 'hey, pay attention to this police report, you have to according to ____!'

2. The officer was not at the scene of the crime, as you know, but Mr. Perce walked quite a ways to find him. The report contains the police officer's account that that the guy confessed to him once Mr. Perce found an officer. This is heresay about what the defendant said. How would the defendant's official testimony in court not override heresay evidence from the police? If the report contained direct details of the officer witnessing Mr. Perce being assaulted, I could understand that, but since it's a report about what he said, even if the judge accepted the police report as evidence, it seems to me that the judge is right, that the police report and the defendant's testimony are evenly matched and he has two conflicting testimonies.

3. Isn't it of some concern to allow a police officer both the role of prosecutor and the sole source of proof when it comes to the guilt of the defendant? If the police can press charges and then prove them guilty of those charges with only their sources and no corraboration, then what's the point of the judge? The judge is not just free to exercise his discretion carefully, but obligated to play some part in deciding the verdict so that the police don't become the judge.

So what you saying that the assault didn't happen? If then, that fine. The Muslim guy is free to go if no attack took place. I just don't agree that anyone have any right to assault a person no matter what religion they have, or how offensive it may be to the one with the religion.

No, I'm not saying the assault/harassment didn't happen. -_- I definately don't agree that anyone has a right to assault a person based on being offended.

But you're wrong about one thing. People are punished when they are prosecuted in a court case. It's not that the guy is free to do if he didn't harass anyone. The guy is free to go if nobody can prove to the court that he harassed someone. We cannot be at the scene of every crime, and people are innocent until proven guilty, so the court has to confirm the crime happened.

Anyone with this attitude is a fundamentalist in the sense of "he has attempted to divert thee from thy God" kind of way because any remotely rational religious person would realise the following: Atheists don't proselytise, are as difficult to get into a movement as cats are to herd and do NOT wish to actively stop religious people worshipping if they freely choose to.

Many religions claim that they don't proselytise. When group proselytises, they just think of it as telling the truth. It isn't proselytising unless somebody else does it. This group mentality of 'us or them' is just as present in the organized, hiarchal athiesm that led to products like 'Parading American Athiests' or the 'The God Delusion'. It may be true that athiests are less prone to it, but it can happen to them to, or we wouldn't have athiests calling others delusional, or parading as zombies of religious figures.

 

[Malanu]

1) I'll have to say I don't know, It would probably require the Lawyer to sight the precedence to get eh Judge to take it seriously.

2) It would take proving purjury by the defendant I would think.

3) Testifying to what was said at the scene and good investigation of witnesses would help. There were after all people present, if there were more than one person testifying to one or the other story, that also would strengthen the evidence one way or the other.

The judge is supposed to make that ruling after seeing all evidence pertaining to the case. By dismissing evidence before reviewing it the judge failed his duty to uphold the law. If he reviewed it and then said, "Nope, not good enough." I would be more forgiving.

 

[Diz~]

No, I'm not saying the assault/harassment didn't happen. -_- I definately don't agree that anyone has a right to assault a person based on being offended.

But you're wrong about one thing. People are punished when they are prosecuted in a court case. It's not that the guy is free to do if he didn't harass anyone. The guy is free to go if nobody can prove to the court that he harassed someone. We cannot be at the scene of every crime, and people are innocent until proven guilty, so the court has to confirm the crime happened.

So the Court find him innocent then? Then he can go if he innocent.

But if he wasn't innocent after all, then the judge mess up if he ignore the evidence which I read that there was a video tape of it unless I misread something.

All I want to know is whether or not the attack did or did not happen. I can care less what the Judge think since it seem like a really mess up verdict.

 

[Ambre]

So the Court find him innocent then? Then he can go if he innocent.

But if he wasn't innocent after all, then the judge mess up if he ignore the evidence which I read that there was a video tape of it unless I misread something.

All I want to know is whether or not the attack did or did not happen. I can care less what the Judge think since it seem like a really mess up verdict.

There is a video tape. The video tape shows nothing. All you can hear are some sounds (which was what we were debating what it was), then you see the accuser walking in front of the video. The video can actually prove or disprove nothing, which is the reason it was forbidden from the trial.

The officer wasn't at the scene at the incident, so his word has no baring.

So now it is a he said she said trial. I believe that the man was assualted, but his case was tried poorly, and the judge could only rule in the defendants favor. I think what most people are upset about is the fact of the judges statements after ruling, not counting the fact that judges do this thing all the time. Then it turned into a religion debate (have enough of those.), and then into a full fleged argument.

 

[Sadib]

Did the Muslim man really admit to attacking the atheist? If not, why is BigLutz a lying liar who lies?

 

[CSolarstorm]

Did the Muslim man really admit to attacking the atheist? If not, why is BigLutz a lying liar who lies?

The police officer that pressed charges claims that the Muslim man admitted to him that he attacked the athiest. It wasn't proved in court, media seems to believe it, it's your call whether you believe it or not.

 

[Neferka]

Maybe the judge had a point about the lack of evidence, I don't really know (the video didn't show much - although with all those people at the parade you'd think there'd be an eyeball witness or something ^_^; )... The part that really bugs me is the judges interpretation of the first amendment where he says that it 'does not permit people to provoke other people. Wow... 0_o I guess that judge has never heard of the Westboro Baptist Church. I doubt very highly that if the grieving relative of a dead solider choked one of the Westboro people they wouldn't get away with a provocation defence.

 

[VIA]

Assault is illegal period. People want to restrict free speech because they want to live in a country where no one says anything against them(raticate7) but thats not how it works. Im sorry that you were born in the wrong time, you would've done so much better in the dark ages. This guy was saying offensive stuff but that does not give anyone permission to physically harm him.

 

[mattj]

I guess the cop should have charged him with assault then. Luckily for him, that's not what he had to defend himself against in court. Its also not what the court case dealt with. This was not a case of a man being charged with assault and getting away with it.

 

[Dragon Trainer X]

Geez, it' like Scar from FMA all over again...

I am a Christian, and I'm proud of it (a brony, however...). I do not, however, expect everyone else to follow my god as well, even though I go to a school specifically for it. It's really sad that people kill others over religious beliefs or having none. Why can't everyone just accept each other for who they are? It really hurts me to read about this stuff all the time.