Two gunmen carrying explosives attack anti Muslim art contest in Texas

[presence]

On April 21, the FBI said it sent a notice


to law enforcement in Texas and elsewhere notifying them of the event. The notice said "the event will likely ... provoke threats" based on past "acts of violence in response to depictions of the Islamic prophet Mohammad."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/garland-sh...ense-initiative-spent-10000/story?id=30784649

 

[wizardwatson]

You are seriously blaming the mental defectives at the art contest, for these two psychopaths shooting at them?

I mean, this really wasn't satire, or a joke?

Are you an adult? I seem to remember you actually running for office a while back.

Is it possible in a conflict scenario for two people to be at fault or is there always a good guy and a bad guy like in the movies?

Remove retards with guns = no conflict
Remove retards inciting violence by drawing cartoons = no conflict

Two set of bad guys. No good guys. Are we keeping up?

 

[presence]

The event featured speeches by American Freedom Defense Initiative president Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker known for his outspoken criticism of Islam. Wilders received several standing ovations from the crowd and left immediately after his speech.



Wilders, who has advocated closing Dutch doors to migrants from the Islamic world for a decade, has lived under round-the-clock police protection since 2004.

http://www.chieftain.com/news/3572416-120/shooting-event-fbi-harn

 

[presence]

Remove retards with guns = no conflict
Remove retards inciting violence by drawing cartoons = no conflict

Two set of bad guys. No good guys. Are we keeping up?

Mutual Combat


As recently as 2010, in State of Iowa v Christopher Spates, Justice Ternus of the Supreme Court of Iowa wrote that for the defence of mutual combat to apply, there must be mutual use of deadly weapons:

"Mutual combat is more than a reciprocal exchange of blows. It requires a mutual intention, consent, or agreement preceding the initiation of hostilities. A charge on mutual combat is warranted only when the combatants are armed with deadly weapons and mutually agree to fight. Thus, an express or tacit agreement to engage in violence, while sufficient, is not required; it is enough that there was a concurrent or mutual expectation that a street battle would ensue....
"To constitute mutual combat there must exist a mutual intent and willingness to fight and this intent may be manifested by the acts and conduct of the parties and the circumstances attending and leading up to the combat."
​

In People v Jones (2007), Justice Wolfson of the Appellate Court of Illinois wrote on behalf of his court in stating that (emphasis added):

"Mutual combat is defined as a fight or struggle entered into by both parties willingly or a mutual fight upon a sudden quarrel and in hot blood upon equal terms where death results from the combat. The evidence must show the confrontation was mutual, and both parties participated in the fight. Mutual combat does not apply where the defendant's retaliation was out of all proportion to the provocation, especially where the defendant used a deadly weapon to commit the homicide."
​

Consider also this 1982 statement by Justice Shadur of the United States District Court (Illinois) in United States ex rel Bacon:

"It is well settled that serious provocation may arise from a mutual combat. Our Court of Appeals has quoted the definition of mutual combat as one into which both parties enter willingly, or in which two persons, upon a sudden quarrel, and in hot blood, mutually fight upon equal terms. Two other conditions must be satisfied as well: 1. the accused cannot have instigated the fight; and 2. retaliation by the accused must not be disproportionate to the provocation."
​

Or this from Justice Kanner of the District Court of Appeal of Florida in the 1959 case Glenn Eiland v State of Florida, where there was no mention of weapons, deadly or otherwise:

"Mutual combat is predicated upon the proposition that both parties involved are at fault, neither being the aggressor more than the other, and if in such combat one slays the other, such killing is manslaughter."
​

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MutualCombat.aspx

Fighting Words

Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

 

[wizardwatson]

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MutualCombat.aspx




https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

Presence, I agree, but getting some of these other yahoos to agree seems to borderline on impossible. To them, if I tell a drunken man in a bar who's daughter was raped that she was a whore who deserved it he's violating my free speech if he cold-cocks me and he's totally at fault for the entire incident. That's the line everyone's taking.

Thank you for taking the time to look that stuff up though. Maybe someone will read it and understand.

 

[AuH20]

Presence, I agree, but getting some of these other yahoos to agree seems to borderline on impossible. To them, if I tell a drunken man in a bar who's daughter was raped that she was a whore who deserved it he's violating my free speech if he cold-cocks me and he's totally at fault for the entire incident. That's the line everyone's taking.

Thank you for taking the time to look that stuff up though. Maybe someone will read it and understand.

It's not like they took the exhibit to Mecca. That would have been entrapment. It was in freaking Texas at a select location.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you an adult? I seem to remember you actually running for office a while back.

Is it possible in a conflict scenario for two people to be at fault or is there always a good guy and a bad guy like in the movies?

Remove retards with guns = no conflict
Remove retards inciting violence by drawing cartoons = no conflict

Two set of bad guys. No good guys. Are we keeping up?

Um. The art people are idiots, but they are not at fault. The only people at fault for the shooting, are the shooters.

The whole idea behind free speech is to say things that are unpopular. You don't have constitutionally guaranteed speech to talk about the weather. Just because someone says something offensive does not mean they are at fault when an offended person decides to shoot them.

This is insane.

Back when people were accusing Ron Paul of "blame America first" I explained to people that was false, that nobody blames the victim simply because we recognize the motivation for blowback.

I guess I was wrong to say 'nobody.'

 

[wizardwatson]

It's not like they took the exhibit to Mecca. That would have been entrapment. It was in freaking Texas at a select location.

There's millions of Muslims in America. Hindus too, believe it or not. Buddhists, Taoists, and others.

What exactly is your point?

 

[AuH20]

There's millions of Muslims in America. Hindus too, believe it or not. Buddhists, Taoists, and others.

What exactly is your point?

Claims of instigation would have greater validity if it was done in front of a mosque.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Claims of instigation would have greater validity if it was done in front of a mosque.

To be fair, what other reason could there possibly be to hold a 'Muhammed Drawing Contest" if not explicitly to piss off Muslims?

And instigation is irrelevant. We don't go around shooting people because they say something offensive.

 

[mad cow]

There's millions of Muslims in America. Hindus too, believe it or not. Buddhists, Taoists, and others.

What exactly is your point?

There are millions of Christians in America,Mormons too.

Would you be defending a couple of crazy Mormons if they walked into a Broadway showing of Parker and Stone's The Book Of Mormon with AK-47's and started mowing down the audience or two vicious Christians who did the same thing at an art gallery showing of Piss Christ?

Would you claim that the insane murderers and the audience at those events were equally guilty,50-50?

 

[wizardwatson]

To be fair, what other reason could there possibly be to hold a 'Muhammed Drawing Contest" if not explicitly to piss off Muslims?

And instigation is irrelevant. We don't go around shooting people because they say something offensive.

And I said I AGREE with the bolded statement. Violence is wrong. Instigating is also wrong. Nowhere have I said it's ONE person's fault. The entire situation was created by both parties and couldn't have happened without both parties. It was mutual combat as presence has backed up. No one was righteous. Period.

Do you feel that if you say both sides are bad you are in the wrong or something? Is that somehow condoning jihadists?

 

[wizardwatson]

There are millions of Christians in America,Mormons too.

Would you be defending a couple of crazy Mormons if they walked into a Broadway showing of Parker and Stone's The Book Of Mormon with AK-47's and started mowing down the audience or two vicious Christians who did the same thing at an art gallery showing of Piss Christ?

Would you claim that the insane murderers and the audience at those events were equally guilty,50-50?

Both guilty, yes. What the hell does "equally" mean? You do realize that the two dead people are the guys with the guns, right?

 

[presence]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court case involving hate speech and the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A unanimous Court struck down St. Paul, Minnesota's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, and in doing so overturned the conviction of a teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family.

[h=2]Contents[/h]

• 1 Facts and procedural background
• 2 Decision
  • 2.1 The majority decision
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 Further reading
• 6 External links

[h=2]Facts and procedural background[/h] In the early morning hours of June 21, 1990, the petitioner and several other teenagers allegedly assembled a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs.[SUP][1][/SUP] The cross was erected and burned in the front yard of an African American family that lived across the street from the house where the petitioner was staying.[SUP][1][/SUP] Petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time, was charged with two counts, one of which a violation of the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance.[SUP][1][/SUP] The Ordinance provided:
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]“[/TD]
[TD]Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Petitioner moved to dismiss the count under the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance on the ground that it was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based, and therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment.[SUP][2][/SUP] The trial court granted the motion, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, rejecting petitioner's overbreadth claim because, as the Minnesota Court had construed the Ordinance in prior cases, the phrase "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words under the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision.[SUP][3][/SUP] The Minnesota Court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly content based because "the ordinance is a narrowly tailored means towards accomplishing the compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order."[SUP][4][/SUP] Petitioner appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.[SUP][5][/SUP]
[h=2]Decision[/h] Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Byron White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Harry Blackmun and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined in full, and Justice John Paul Stevens joined in part. Justice Blackmun wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, which was joined in part by Justice White and Justice Blackmun.





Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in R.A.V.


[h=3]The majority decision[/h] The Court began with a recitation of the relevant factual and procedural background, noting several times that the conduct at issue could have been prosecuted under different Minnesota statutes.[SUP][6][/SUP] In construing the ordinance, the Court recognized that it was bound by the construction given by the Minnesota Supreme Court.[SUP][7][/SUP] Therefore, the Court accepted the Minnesota court's conclusion that the ordinance reached only those expressions that constitute "fighting words" within the meaning of Chaplinsky.
Petitioner argued that the Chaplinsky formulation should be narrowed, such that the ordinance would be invalidated as "substantially overbroad."[SUP][7][/SUP] but the Court declined to consider this argument, concluding that even if all of the expression reached by the ordinance was proscribable as "fighting words," the ordinance was facially unconstitutional in that it prohibited otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addressed.[SUP][7][/SUP]
The Court began its substantive analysis with a review of the principles of free speech clause jurisprudence, beginning with the general rule that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech,[SUP][8][/SUP] or even expressive conduct,[SUP][9][/SUP] because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.[SUP][10][/SUP] The Court noted that while content-based regulations are presumptively invalid, society has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are "of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."[SUP][11][/SUP]
The Court then clarified language from previous free speech clause cases, including Roth v. United States, Beauharnais v. Illinois, and Chaplinsky that suggested that certain categories of expression are "not within the area of constitutionally protected speech," and "must be taken in context."[SUP][12][/SUP] The Court's clarification stated that this meant that certain areas of speech "can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content (obscenity, defamation, etc.) — not that they are categories of speech entirely invisible to the Constitution, so that they may be made the vehicles for content discrimination."[SUP][13][/SUP] Thus, as one of the first of a number of illustrations that Justice Scalia would use throughout the opinion, the government may "proscribe libel, but it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing only libel critical of the government."[SUP][14][/SUP]
The Court recognized that while a particular utterance of speech can be proscribed on the basis of one feature, the Constitution may prohibit proscribing it on the basis of another feature.[SUP][15][/SUP] Thus, while burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against outdoor fires could be punishable, burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against dishonoring the flag is not.[SUP][15][/SUP] In addition, other reasonable "time, place, or manner" restrictions were upheld, but only if they were "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech."[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP]
The Court recognized two final principles of free speech jurisprudence. One of these described that when "the entire basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech is proscribable, no significant danger of idea of viewpoint discrimination exists." As examples, Justice Scalia wrote,
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]“[/TD]
[TD]A State may choose to prohibit only that obscenity which is the most patently offensive in its prurience — i.e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity. But it may not prohibit, for example, only that obscenity which includes offensive political messages. And the Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President, since the reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment (protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur) have special force when applied to the person of the President.[SUP][18][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The other principle of free speech jurisprudence was recognized when the Court wrote that a valid basis for according different treatment to a content-defined subclass of proscribable speech is that the subclass "happens to be associated with particular 'secondary effects' of the speech, so that 'the regulation is justified without reference to the content of the … speech'"[SUP][19][/SUP] As an example, the Court wrote that a State could permit all obscene live performances except those involving minors.[SUP][20][/SUP]
Applying these principles to the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, the Court concluded that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional. Justice Scalia explained the rationale, writing,
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]“[/TD]
[TD]Although the phrase in the ordinance, "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others," has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court's construction to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to "fighting words," the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies only to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use "fighting words" in connection with other ideas — to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality — are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.[SUP][21][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Court went on to explain that, in addition to being an impermissible restriction based on content, the Ordinance was also viewpoint- based discrimination, writing,[SUP][21][/SUP]
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]“[/TD]
[TD]As explained earlier, see supra, at 386, the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. St. Paul has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression—it has not, for example, selected for prohibition only those fighting words that communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious) manner. Rather, it has proscribed fighting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas. That possibility would alone be enough to render the ordinance presumptively invalid, but St. Paul’s comments and concessions in this case elevate the possibility to a certainty.[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Displays containing some words, such as racial slurs, would be prohibited to proponents of all views, whereas fighting words that "do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender — aspersions upon a person's mother, for example — would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc., tolerance and equality, but could not be used by those speakers' opponents."[SUP][21][/SUP] The Court concluded that "St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules."[SUP][21][/SUP]
The Court concluded, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."[SUP][22][/SUP]

 

[presence]

Staged event.

I suspect the idiots that were killed were recruited and armed by the same folks that promoted the "art show".

It is not hard to find half-wits and soup them up. for just about anything.

as to the "Free Speech" issue,,,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
Fighting Words


Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

The event was deliberately provocative.

In my research I've found that fighting words only relate to personal speech not public speech. So the fighting words would have to be addressed toward a (living) person.

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[SUP][2][/SUP] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

 

[mad cow]

Both guilty, yes. What the hell does "equally" mean? You do realize that the two dead people are the guys with the guns, right?

Of course I realize who the two dead guys are,they would be the guilty parties and as I have said,I celebrate their deaths.

Both sides are not guilty,Just the worthless POS murderous scumbags that got blown away in Texas are,or the insane murderers attacking the audiences in my two examples.

You have posted several times in this thread that you think both sides are guilty,I don't care if you think it is 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever.I vehemently disagree.

 

[wizardwatson]

Of course I realize who the two dead guys are,they would be the guilty parties and as I have said,I celebrate their deaths.

Both sides are not guilty,Just the worthless POS murderous scumbags that got blown away in Texas are,or the insane murderers attacking the audiences in my two examples.

You have posted several times in this thread that you think both sides are guilty,I don't care if you think it is 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever.I vehemently disagree.

Both guilty of creating the situation. Do you think when the contest organizers stand before God they will be able to slick-talk this freedom of speech nonsense? No. They will be guilty of hating their brother in their heart just like the wanna-be jihadists. And people who "celebrate" their deaths should be cautious as well. You are morally accountable for every idle word and thought you have to God.

Matthew 5:21-22 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - Jesus

 

[mad cow]

What's your opinion of the beautiful girl wearing the short shorts while jogging who gets raped?Guilty?

How about the woman carrying a purse in a poor neighborhood who gets purse snatched?Guilty?

Or the man who gets curb-stomped for wearing a Redskins jersey in Dallas?Guilty?

Did they all 'create the situation'?

 

[UWDude]

What's your opinion of the beautiful girl wearing the short shorts while jogging who gets raped?Guilty?

How about the woman carrying a purse in a poor neighborhood who gets purse snatched?Guilty?

Or the man who gets curb-stomped for wearing a Redskins jersey in Dallas?Guilty?

Did they all 'create the situation'?

I can tell you this. Every person in that contest, and especially Ms. Geller, love it when they hear Muslims are killed int he middle east. They love it when they hear a predator drone killed a wedding full of Muslims. I guarantee you, in their hearts, every single one of them hate Muslims like nothing else.

And they are murderers. They conspire with the US government to commit murder. They have murder in their heart. They are murderers.

 

[mad cow]

And they are murderers. They conspire with the US government to commit murder. They have murder in their heart. They are murderers.

I think murderers should be locked up in prison for a long,long time.Unless they are caught in the act of murdering or attempted murdering where,hopefully,like those two worthless POS scumbags in Texas were,they are killed in the attempt.

So tell me,you accused the participants of this gathering in Texas of murder,should they all be locked up for decades?