NY cops and burqa-clad Muslim women scuffle at amusement park on Eid

[Raja.Pakistani]

Terry Jones did NOT break any laws that would require his arrest.
Simple and straightforward

Yes that's what you said before but then I asked : Is it within the laws to burn the religious scriptures of Muslims in church? Are hate and bigotry acts not crimes in united state? Has he got freedom to play with feelings of Muslims ? If you argue that he has the right to burn a religious book in public places then this right comes without any responsibility so your statement that rights comes with responsibilities become invalid

 

[VCheng]

.......... Is it within the laws to burn the religious scriptures of Muslims in church?

Yes. Feel free to burn a Bible in a mosque and the same protections apply.

Are hate and bigotry acts not crimes in united state?

There are specific legal definitions for hate crimes, and this case did not meet them.

Has he got freedom to play with feelings of Muslims ?

Yes. Feel free to spout similar rhetoric going the other way.

If you argue that he has the right to burn a religious book in public places then this right comes without any responsibility so your statement that rights comes with responsibilities become invalid

Your statement is illogical.

 

[AmberDutt]

Yes that's what you said before but then I asked : Is it within the laws to burn the religious scriptures of Muslims in church? Are hate and bigotry acts not crimes in united state? Has he got freedom to play with feelings of Muslims ? If you argue that he has the right to burn a religious book in public places then this right comes without any responsibility so your statement that rights comes with responsibilities become invalid

I dont think burning any book, religious or other wise is a criminal offence in USA. Playing with feelings is outside the purview of criminal law, but can be used as emotional cruelty plank for a civil suit by a citizen.. However Police has no role to play there.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Yes. Feel free to burn a Bible in a mosque and the same protections apply.



There are specific legal definitions for hate crimes, and this case did not meet them.


Yes. Feel free to spout similar rhetoric going the other way.



Your statement is illogical.

My statement is very logical. If its not crime or if its not wrong act then why president Obama condemned his act ?

---------- Post added at 07:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------

Politically, morally and socially, he was widely condemned for his despicable act.
.

why when he did not commit any crime?

---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 AM ----------

There are specific legal definitions for hate crimes, and this case did not meet them.

can you define some?

 

[VCheng]

................
can you define some?

Under current federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

There was no person attacked by Terry Jones, and there is no law against burning religious texts or even the US flag in USA.

Political or moral condemnation is separate from the legality of a person's act.

 

[Thomas]

No.

The NYPD initiated and executed the plan within the law. The CIA was never involved in surveillance of US citizens within US borders.

you are correct, and though many do not agree with the law itself. The patriot acted expanded the ability of the Governemnt to monitor groups.

Take this website as an example. If the servers are located in the U.S. and certian people seem to make threats agianst the U.S. or it's allies. The FBI can surreptitiously monitor and track the posters. If overseas then the NSA gets invloved. And if you think the Government doesn't bother itself with this little old website you would be very mistaken.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Under current federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

There was no person attacked by Terry Jones, and there is no law against burning religious texts or even the US flag in USA.

Political or moral condemnation is separate from the legality of a person's act.

Read the bold part of your defination
No person lol then why Muslims got angry if he did not attacked any person or did not hurt the feelings of anyone ? If what he did was disgraceful act or was morally wrong then violation of morality is definition of crime

He attacked the religion Islam and he did hate crime after burning the holy scripture of Muslims in public places and he should be responsible for many deaths caused by his provoking act. Did not he know the consequence of the Quran burning? Where is the responsibility part here which you were taking about earlier?

 

[roadrunner]

It would probably have been possible to charge Terry Jones with something.

He might then challenge it (freedom of expression etc).

That situation reminds me of person A telling person B that person C robbed him, then person B assualting person C.

Should person A be charged? I would say yes (along with person B).

 

[AmberDutt]

you are correct, and though many do not agree with the law itself. The patriot acted expanded the ability of the Governemnt to monitor groups.

Take this website as an example. If the servers are located in the U.S. and certian people seem to make threats agianst the U.S. or it's allies. The FBI can surreptitiously monitor and track the posters. If overseas then the NSA gets invloved. And if you think the Government doesn't bother itself with this little old website you would be very mistaken.

Oops... I expect some level of drop in certain kinds of posts now...

---------- Post added at 08:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

It would probably have been possible to charge Terry Jones with something.

He might then challenge it (freedom of expression etc).

That situation reminds me of person A telling person B that person C robbed him, then person B assualting person C.

Should person A be charged? I would say yes (along with person B).

Provided the prosecution can prove that he told Person B this with an intent to provoke him to assault person C.. Else, no cigar...

 

[roadrunner]

^^ if noone told person A about the robbery then he would have to have seen it. if the robbery didnt occur then person A would have invented it. he would have instigated the incident and would be guilty in most courts along with person B.

In the pastor's case. Does he normally go round burning religious books. if he does then he might get let off. but i think he would not, so he would need to provide an explanation for why he wanted to burn a religious book so publically. I cant think of any reason except to provoke people.

 

[RKhan]

you are correct, and though many do not agree with the law itself. The patriot acted expanded the ability of the Governemnt to monitor groups.

Take this website as an example. If the servers are located in the U.S. and certian people seem to make threats agianst the U.S. or it's allies. The FBI can surreptitiously monitor and track the posters. If overseas then the NSA gets invloved. And if you think the Government doesn't bother itself with this little old website you would be very mistaken.

Lol. I know for a fact that the government keeps tabs on this site. The anti US rhetoric alone is enough not including joy over dead service members and support of terrorist organizations.

 

[AmberDutt]

^^ if noone told person A about the robbery then he would have to have seen it. if the robbery didnt occur then person A would have invented it. he would have instigated the incident and would be guilty in most courts along with person B.

In the pastor's case. Does he normally go round burning religious books. if he does then he might get let off. but i think he would not, so he would need to provide an explanation for why he wanted to burn a religious book so publically. I cant think of any reason except to provoke people.

You are presupposing in your example that person A lied.. In a court of law you would still have to first prove that he lied and then prove that he lied with an intent to provoke. No matter how obvious it may look to the accuser, the burden of proof is still on the accuser to prove beyond even a single reasonable doubt that it was done intentionally to provoke. Till then, as i said, no cigar...

Fortunately the law goes beyond what an individual like you and I can think.. Having not done something in past, does not prevent someone from doing something now. Also, when American law allows for burning of American flag, Holy Koran is not a big deal either (for the law that is).

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Lol. I know for a fact that the government keeps tabs on this site. The anti US rhetoric alone is enough not including joy over dead service members and support of terrorist organizations.

And I wont be surprised if declaration as professionals by some of the US members is a part of that since, under US law, information obtained without identifying yourself correctly sometimes is not usable in a court of law.

 

[RKhan]

And I wont be surprised if declaration as professionals by some of the US members is a part of that since, under US law, information obtained without identifying yourself correctly sometimes is not usable in a court of law.

As long as it's not obtained through illegal purposes it's usable. Actually in some cases even evidence found through illegal means has been used.

 

[yousaf goebbels]

americans cops are so shameless and frustrated just like their soldiers who used to play sex games in abu gharib,gitmo and bagram......these are the great american values obama brags about everytime he comes on media.

 

[acetophenol]

test post test post