Im also suspect that all 'long pauses' were removed, although the tape is 37 minutes long,,,,,there is no telling what was really edited out or what it adds to the context,,

don't buy that

if he is in this country for even a brief time he knows that any type of violent act or physical aggression is actionable. Also, it is his responsibility to know what the laws are and he should be firmly disciplined.

religious extremists of all ilks warned that they must behave under the law in this country

including the presiding judge - who may require discipline and removal if this story is true - regardless of his religious leanings

religion is not above the law in the U.S. - that is what provides us the freedom to practice the religion of our choice. muslims who do not like that have several options on another continent

muslims who appreciate the freedom to practice their religion here can only be successful if they are able to understand that religion is not the law or above the law here AND that others do not have to abide by or accept their POV. I am sure there are plenty of muslims here who do that with little or no difficulty. It is the extremists who give all religions a bad name

When a person of authority is accosted in such a situation its seen as someone attacking that authority and is dealt with harshly,

Remind anyone of the blaming the victim from rape cases where they say the person was asking for it based on the way they are dressed?

Your honor, I had no idea that driving while intoxicated was against the law..........

........I had no idea that taking something from the store that I didn't pay for was wrong..........

Blink blink blink

You got the point.

Tell me a civilized country that does not look at assault in a negative light.

At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Regardless of whether the guy hit the other, doesn't matter.

He had no right to put his hands on another person just because he doesn't like something

...

Moral of the story....even if you are offended by someone's actions, you can't put your hands on that person

Though you are right to say that it doesn't matter to whether he meets the definition of battery, its wrong to say that it simply doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

How could you say it doesn't matter whether he hit him? Do you really think that all sign-grabbers should always be treated exactly the same as people-hitters? That would really diminish the significance of hitting people. So yes, it does matter which form and degree of battery this way.

I would be seriously upset if a judge dismissed charges of a person who struck another person.

And while grabbing the sign is still illegal and wrong, I'm not nearly as upset that he wasn't found guilty as I would be if he had struck the atheist.

Actually, the man in the parade WAS denied free speech, because the judge ruled that by dressing as a religious figure, he was creating "hate speech" and deserved to be assaulted. The judge upheld Sharia law, which states the assault was not only justified, but demanded.

The judge basically ruled that while you may mock Jesus, the Pope, Isis, Thor, Odin, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you man NOT mock Mohammed, or you risk justifiable assault.

And THAT, my friend, is not upholding the 1st Amendment.