Radical Orlando Imam Says 'Some Journalists Need to Be Beheaded'

[guest11]

I think you cannot pull fire alarm in public place out of nothing. Because fire alarm serve a specific purpose, and pulling it willingly without fire would or could be contribute to inciting panic, hence reckless endangerment.

Cannot vouch for it tho, my wife is asleep lol have to ask her tomorrow morning.

That's a wise decision.

 

[livingdead]

US tolerates terrorists that do not target their people. There are a number of surprising cases like Abdullah Masid, Pacha Khan Zadran and Muslim Khan having links to US. As long as a terrorist makes threats to other countries and not the US he is tolerated. That is the only logical explanation. Therefore clerics like these say things to fit in while they support terrorism in their own lands.

freedom of speech goes much further than europe in the USA..

 

[Mentee]

Not really sure the nuts and bolts in specific law and no time to read or ask for the appropriate term (My wife is a Lawyer of Common Law System) but most incitement require a "guilty mind" (or mens rea in law term)

How do you proof of a "Guilty Mind" with a few words said, notice that what he actually said is "Some Journalist needed to be beheaded" the question itself lies on his intention, whether or not he was actually behind this ideology (beheading journist) Problem is, he does not provide specific detail on this action.

Now, if he was to be charged with inciting violence (or incitement) the argument lies in the intented target but not audience. i.e. How do you go about beheading journist? This act is lacking. And since you cannot be inciting violence to a random subject (You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is hurt is because of the incitement or by other factors) Any lawyer would have argue that, it's a neither or all situation, and you cannot prove each case by intention, as there are none with his word.

Now if he published a hit list of sort or how to find their target to be beheaded or even what kind of knife is needed to behead someone, then that would be a different ball game...



I think you can yell fire in a crowded place............

Fire can mean a lot of things....

Hmmm what iam getting from you is that without actus-Rea I can get away with any thing----so if I say some juices need to be gassed ----- would I be able to set up
mens rea as a defence?

 

[jhungary]

Hmmm what iam getting from you is that without actus-Rea I can get away with any thing----so if I say some juices need to be gassed ----- would I be able to set up
mens rea as a defence?

Oh well, think of it like this.

If I said "Some Journalist odd to be beheaded." Over on national television.

Tomorrow, you beheaded, say Ayaz Amir (The only Pakistani Journo I know) and now you said I incite you to behead Ayaz Amir.

Problem is, you cannot proof, beyond reasonable doubt that this is my decision, not yours, to kill Ayaz Amir, I said, "some Journalist", the board definition of "some" means not all, or not particularly whoever in mind, and this is your sole interpretation to choose Ayaz Amir for the beheading, I can put up a defence and say I did not tell you to kill him, that means the only thing that anyone can proof is your guilty mind to kill Ayaz Amir, because he is now dead.

You also cannot proof beyond reasonable doubt that I have malice, I did not tell you, teach you, or instruct you how to kill him in my original sentence, hence whatever ways, form and method you choose is yours to choose.

And finally, you cannot proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that I have motive to incite your killing, I may have no beef with Ayaz Amir, which make the decision to kill him your own.

Hence, without malice, motive and means, you cannot charge me inciting violence.

This is how court works...

 

[Mentee]

Oh well, think of it like this.

If I said "Some Journalist odd to be beheaded." Over on national television.

Tomorrow, you beheaded, say Ayaz Amir (The only Pakistani Journo I know) and now you said I incite you to behead Ayaz Amir.

Problem is, you cannot proof, beyond reasonable doubt that this is my decision, not yours, to kill Ayaz Amir, I said, "some Journalist", the board definition of "some" means not all, or not particularly whoever in mind, and this is your sole interpretation to choose Ayaz Amir for the beheading, I can put up a defence and say I did not tell you to kill him, that means the only thing that anyone can proof is your guilty mind to kill Ayaz Amir, because he is now dead.

You also cannot proof beyond reasonable doubt that I have malice, I did not tell you, teach you, or instruct you how to kill him in my original sentence, hence whatever ways, form and method you choose is yours to choose.

And finally, you cannot proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that I have motive to incite your killing, I may have no beef with Ayaz Amir, which make the decision to kill him your own.

Hence, without malice, motive and means, you cannot charge me inciting violence.

This is how court works...

Lexophile? If not , then you qualify to be one

 

[jhungary]

Lexophile? If not , then you qualify to be one

no..........just that my wife is a barrister.......

 

[RoadRunner401]

Marcus Robertson was a gang leader and bank robber. Robertson’s online Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary.’ Police believe that Robertson’s Timbuktu Seminary is used to dispense his radical teachings, sources told Fox News. Robertson, who was a former US Marine and undercover FBI agent before turning into a radical Imam. was released from prison last year despite warning from officials and prosecutors.

Let's see shall we now, his qualifications to be a Muslim Imam;

A gang leader named Marcus Robertson, bank robber and an FBI informant, nothing Suspicious there, who is running a Online seminary and teaching a religion he never practiced or knows nothing of, clearly the man qualifies to be Muslim Imam is released from jail and is on fox news representing Muslims and Islam.

Fox Inventing Muslims since 1990s.