Michigan Federal Judge Allows Muslim Violence Against Christians; Dearborn Stoning Caught On Video

Michigan Federal Judge Allows Muslim Violence Against Christians; Dearborn Stoning Caught On Video – Jihad Watch

.

.
A severe blow for the freedom of speech, and victory for the advance of Sharia blasphemy laws here. “Michigan Federal Judge Allows Muslim Violence to Suppress Christian Speech; Immediate Appeal Filed,” from the American Freedom Law Center, May 14:

A Michigan federal judge today dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently assaulted by a hostile Muslim mob while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States. Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.

The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed the lawsuit against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for refusing to protect the Christians from the attack and threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the lawsuit. The judge also denied AFLC’s motion requesting that the court issue an order preventing the Wayne County Sheriff and his deputies from restricting the Christian evangelists from displaying their banners and signs on the public sidewalks outside of this year’s Arab Festival, which will be held in June. In the ruling, the judge stated the following: “The Court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The First Amendment was dealt a severe blow today as a result of this ruling. Indeed, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive by engaging in violence. And pursuant to this ruling, the Christian speakers are now subject to arrest for engaging in disorderly conduct on account of the Muslim hecklers’ violent response to their speech. In short, this ruling turns the First Amendment on its head.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added: “This fight for our fundamental right to freedom of speech does not stop here. We have filed an immediate appeal of this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. While Judge Duggan may have been the first judge to rule on this issue, he won’t be the last. Indeed, we are prepared to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary because it is imperative that our free speech rights not be subject to mob rule. This is the United States, not Benghazi.”

At least for now.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

CA Law Allows Convicted Rapist To Go Free Because Woman Wasn’t Married

CA Law Allows Convicted Rapist To Go Free Because Woman Wasn’t Married – KABC

An obscure state law on rape has freed a convicted rapist from prison.

The law is controversial because if the victim was married during the crime, the suspect would remain guilty. However, because the victim was not married at the time, the suspect was not guilty.

The appellate judges admitted they did this reluctantly, but their hands were tied by a law many people didn’t even know existed.

After seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, a man enters the bedroom of an unmarried woman and has sex with her while pretending to be her boyfriend.

According to a California appellate judges’ ruling:

“Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes.”

“This provision of the law where it only applies to a married woman as a victim really dates back to the mid 1800s, and while the legislatures had many opportunities to amend and revise the rape statute, for some unexplained reason they never got around to amending this particular statute,” said ABC7 legal analyst Dana Cole.

The night began for the victim, identified as Jane Doe, at a party drinking several beers. She left the party with her boyfriend, Victor, grabbed some fast food, and headed home where friends joined them.

According to court documents, Jane invited her boyfriend to spend the night, but since he didn’t have a condom, they decided against it and she fell asleep. Victor then left the room to go home.

Prosecutors say Jane then woke up to the sensation of having sex. When the light coming through a crack in the bedroom illuminated the face of the person having sex with her, she realized it was not Victor and tried to push him away.

Despite the struggle, the defendant, Julio Morales, continued and eventually left the room after Jane’s cries.

Morales later told police “she probably thought I was her boyfriend.”

The appellate judges said the jury that convicted Morales may have done so based on bad information from prosecutors.

“The law really requires the person be someone who impersonates her husband. And that was not the specific fact of this particular case,” Cole said.

“An impersonation of anyone to rape should be a felony,” said Patti Giggans, executive director of Peace Over Violence.

Giggans says she’s determined to now work with Sacramento lawmakers on closing this loophole.

“I think there is now a heightened interest to take a look at something like this so I have a feeling we will be able to make a difference on this law,” she said.

Morales has already served three years behind bars for his original conviction. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office says it is looking into the possibility of re-trying the case.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story