Prosecutors fear riot at Good Friday mosque protest

[Faygo Kid]

Source: The Detroit News

Detroit — Wayne County prosecutors are arguing a Good Friday mosque protest by a controversial Florida pastor could incite a riot and are moving to require him to a bond before his demonstration.

Judge Mark W. Somers of Dearborn's 19th District Court on Friday ordered Terry Jones to appear Thursday to answer prosecutors' claims that his planned protest of the Islamic Center of America on the Dearborn/Detroit border could spark violence. The hearing is set for 3 p.m.

Prosecutors want a "peace bond" from Jones to pay for additional police officers during his demonstration outside the mosque. The complaint doesn't specify an amount, but Jones has said Dearborn police want him to pay $100,000 in overtime costs.

"The greatest threat is the likelihood of a riot ensuing, complete with the discharge of firearms, unless this proposed bond is granted," according to the prosecutors' complaint. . .

Read more: http://www.detnews.com/article/20110418/METRO/104180394/Prosecutors-fear-riot-at-Good-Friday-mosque-protest

---

When is this jerk's 15 minutes going to be up?

[Arctic Dave]

1. A "peace bond"? WTF is that?

I in no way support this knucklehead but I sure he'll don't approve of free speech extortion.

[Rage for Order]

4. Can you imagine how much the "peace bond" would be for protestors at the RNC?

Where in the Constitution does it state that you only have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble if you can afford it?

[truthisfreedom]

12. Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to incite people to violence?

That's what the guy's up to. He's as much as admitted it.

[Rage for Order]

14. "He's as much as admitted it."

Can you point me to the part of the article where he admitted that he intends to incite violence? I must have missed it.

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

16. "Did our action provoke them?...We knew they might act with violence."

<snip>

Yet Terry Jones, the pastor who organized a mock trial that ended with the burning of a Koran and led to violence in Afghanistan, remained unrepentant on Saturday. He said that he was “saddened” and “moved” by the deaths, but that given the chance he would do it all over again.

“It was intended to stir the pot; if you don’t shake the boat, everyone will stay in their complacency,” Mr. Jones said in an interview at his office in the Dove World Outreach Center. “Emotionally, it’s not all that easy. People have tried to make us responsible for the people who are killed. It’s unfair and somewhat damaging.”

<snip>

“Did our action provoke them?” the pastor asked. “Of course. Is it a provocation that can be justified? Is it a provocation that should lead to death? When lawyers provoke me, when banks provoke me, when reporters provoke me, I can’t kill them. That would not fly.” {Cerridwen: this paragraph makes no sense to me; is he pissed he can't just go out a kill whoever he wants? Seriously, WTF?!}

<snip>

Mr. Jones said the decision to hold the mock trial of the Koran on March 20 was not made lightly. “We were worried,” he said. “We knew it was possible. We knew they might act with violence.”

<quite a bit more at link> (emphasis and comment added)

[Bragi]

19. I don't see why it matters what Jones thinks

He is engaging in free speech. If people who take offense to what he says threaten or engage in violence, it is they who are acting illegally, not the person who is engaging in legal free speech.

Put another way, speech doesn't become constitutionally unprotected just because someone who might take offense threatens violence. If that were the case, then mobs would be deciding the limits of free speech, not laws.

[Cerridwen]

23. It goes to show the type of person he is.

That was the "be all and end all" of my providing quotes and a link.

Just in case you're not aware of it, he's doing his damnedest to deny free speech to others while "exercising" his own.

Right now, his actions are endangering many people and Christian Science Monitor has an article saying he's aiding the taliban with his crap.

[Bragi]

24. He's a bad man with bad thoughts engaging in free speech

As for the Taliban, they have managed to conduct war against the US for almost a decade now. I don't see how Jones makes anything there any worse.

[Cerridwen]

26. The irony of your subject versus your sig line is entertaining.

Thanks.

As to the taliban thing, that was just one of many articles I read and I thought I'd share.

As your sig line notes, we don't have unabridged free speech in this country. We have selectively enforced free speech and we even award dollar bills the rights of speech.

This guy is one of those who uses the rules to break the rules, i.e, uses the letter of the law to break the spirit of the law. How it plays out will be interesting.

[Rage for Order]

20. I was referring to the article in the OP that this thread is based on

It says:

Jones gained notoriety last year for threatening to burn a Quran to protest a proposed Islamic center near the site of the former World Trade Center in Manhattan. He backed off that plan, but burned a copy of the Islamic holy book at his church in April, an act that was captured online and is blamed for an outbreak in violence in Afghanistan.

In an affidavit, Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad feared Jones could do it again.

"I believe Pastor Jones intends to engage in conduct that will put his safety and that of the public at risk," Haddad wrote. "Intelligence received leads me to believe that Pastor Jones will jeopardize the safety of the public by committing an act against the person or property of another in the former of burning a Koran."

Jones has denied that his intent and said he only wants to protest extremist Islam and Sharia, the law of the religion. His staffers today said he hasn't received a copy of the complaint. But he has said he plans to protest, even if the city of Dearborn denies his permit.


To be clear, I don't like Mr. Jones and I don't support his protest. However, if we allow the government to begin charging people money to stage a protest then we will have surrendered one of our most fundamental rights. He has a right to protest whether I like what he says or not. The creeps at the Westboro Baptist "Church" have protested in a far more offensive manner than anything this guy has done or likely will do, yet none of their protests have been met with violence. There's no reason to assume that Mr. Jones's protest will be met with violence either.

[Cerridwen]

21. You asked where he had admitted to knowing what he was doing...

I provided a link and some quotes.

The guy knows what he's up to and doesn't much give a shit who dies because of it.

edit for misspelled word in subject.

[Rage for Order]

27. "Stirring the pot" and "provoking" are far different from "inciting violence"

Lady Gaga is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/16/lady-gaga-judas-listen_n_850015.html">being provocative with her new song and video, Judas. The American-born cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/05/american-born_yemeni_imam_urge.html">is inciting violence. He urges his followers to kill American civilians, and he praises those who have killed Americans, like the Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan. Certainly you can see the difference between "stirring the pot" and "inciting violence".

[Cerridwen]

28. I sure can. As long as I don't intend for the wasps to attack when

I bang on their nests, I can claim innocence when they do. I never intended to get stung or to get others standing with me stung so it's all okay because, gee, who could have known?

BTW, those are some nifty comparisons you have going; could you lower the bar just a wee bit more, please? We don't have enough insanity happening in the country we need to make room for more.

The thing about guys like this, they always get someone else killed then claim they were 'innocent,' or at the very least, 'not guilty.' "Who knew they would react that way even though we thought they might react that way which is why we're now walking around armed because we're afraid they might react that way toward us next time rather than some strangers we don't know and/or don't care about."

The guy's playing with fire and others are the ones who are dying.

[tidy_bowl]

48. Very bad analogy...

In case you haven't noticed, wasps are insects that react with basic instincts, humans have the ability to think and rationalize. You're welcome.

[Bragi]

25. I agree /nt

[No Elephants]

33. Knowing someone may react violently to your speech is different from "inciting to violence."

[leftynyc]

31. A demonstration is not incitement

The freeking neo nazis prove that all the time. Let him do his thing, ignore him and that's how he loses. React with violence and they're giving him exactly what he wants. Not very smart.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. I think the authorities should...

sit down with the Muslim leaders & tell them if they simply ignore him it would be the most powerful thing to do to him...He is a sick & twisted person who's number one objective is to cause violence to prove a point and probably more so just to get attention!

[Bragi]

10. I'm all for that

I don't think it will happen, though.

[SkyDaddy7]

30. I don't either but if the Muslims only knew how powerful...

doing nothing in a situation like would be! Especially in America!

[WatsonT]

40. Responding with violence would do wonders to prove Mr. Jones' case

Responding with nothing would do wonders to disprove it.

[WatsonT]

36. Frankly if they're willing to riot over this

then I don't want them around.

Hopefully the two groups will kill each other off after that.

Take the response most everyone has to the WBC: despise, maybe yell, but mostly ignore.


/people who play these games are idiots that we don't need in this country. Likewise people who respond to these games with violence are idiots that we don't need in this country.

[Bragi]

9. So potential victims of violence need to pay up?

So Jones needs to post a bond because people who don't like him may commit acts of violence against him, if he exercises his lawful right to free speech. Right? If so, I can see problems with this.

[WatsonT]

37. "Free speech extortion"

You answered your own question.

[Recursion]

45. A deposit placed by the organizer of an event

to insure that the event remains peaceful.

Some cities ask for them when non-residents organize rallies. (Anyone is free to say whatever he wants on the sidewalk; it does take a permit to actually organize and lead a rally of hundreds of people.)

[madamesilverspurs]

2. Idjit "pastor"

is hoping for violence to extend his "fame." Maybe he'll reconsider if the prospect is made too expensive. And maybe pigs will sprout wings.


-

[customerserviceguy]

3. His 15 minutes will be up

when both the press and the Muslims choose to ignore him. He seems to draw undue amounts of attention from both groups.

[Bragi]

11. The media have been unable to shut him down

Read up. The MSM have done their best to try to silence this guy, but he keeps showing up.

[customerserviceguy]

15. All they have to do

is STOP COVERING HIM. He's an attention whore (no disrepect intended to sex workers who truly make the world a better place, compared to him) and they are feeding his now-massive ego. They created the monster, and now they're sustaining it.

[Bragi]

17. They tried that

They tried a blackout, but non-MSM non-US news sources eventually got the story out.

See http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/making-sense-of-news/126878/florida-quran-burning-afghanistan-violence-raise-questions-about-the-power-of-media-blackouts/

Also this one: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/making-sense-of-news/126616/how-the-quran-burning-story-skipped-the-u-s-as-it-spread-from-gainesville-around-the-world/

[customerserviceguy]

29. Well, then it's going to have to be all of the press that does that

And the Islamic press is giving this nutjob the gasoline he needs for his fire. Maybe if Muslims simply carped about it and went on, like the christians did with "Piss Christ", the story would die, and this boob would return to the obscurity that he so richly deserves.

[No Elephants]

42. A news blackout, even a voluntary one, is also troubling First Amendment ground.

Did the public deserve to know FDR had to be carried on and off the ship where he met with Churchill? Probably, even though the public may have done the wrong thing with that info.

[Bragi]

43. I totally agree

When media collaborate to blackout an event, they are failing to do their job, which is to report events, not hide events. media blackouts are anti-democratic.

This results in keeping people who depend on their reporting ignorant, while people with other sources eventually learn about what happened anyway through the distorted lens of whoever wants to push out the information.

[bongbong]

5. repig's version of Jesus's sayings

"Blessed are the billionaires, because they are better than 99.99% of humanity."

"Blessed are the war makers, since there is no profit in peace."

"Blessed is conflict, anger, misery, hatred and arrogance, because my favorite people - the repigs - are filled to overflowing with those."

"Liberals are evil socialists because they care about the poor."

[bluestateguy]

6. Troublemakers like this SHOULD have to pay for their own police protection

and that includes the Phelps Klan.

There is not enough money in the budget to protect these outside agitators anymore.

[Bragi]

7. Just people we disagree with?

Should protection be withdrawn from anyone who might be a victim of mob violence? Does the mob or its members have any responsibility not to become violent? How would this have worked during the civil rights protests of the 60s?

[truthisfreedom]

13. I feel he's inciting violence. There is a difference.

It's not about free speech when your purpose is to incite violence.

[Bragi]

18. Inciting violence is different

Inciting violence means engaging in speech that is intended to rile up a listener so that they violently attack an innocent person or group.

It doesn't mean engaging in legal free speech that results in an offended party violently attacking the speaker.

An individual or a mob that violently attacks someone is responsible for their illegal actions, not the speaker who used their legal free speech rights so as to give offense.

[No Elephants]

35. Your feeling is not consistent with SCOTUS cases, nor have you shown

his purpose is to incite violence, as opposed to his purpose being to make a religious statement.

Knowing someone may react violently to your speech does not = inciting violence. Otherwise, advocating an end to Jim Crow in the South in the 1950's and 1960's would not have been speech protected by the First Amendment.

People were beaten and murdered over that--and those participating knew very well that might happen. Ditto Nazis marching in a town where many Holocaust survivors live--or almost anywhere, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois


Any controversial speech may well result in a violent reaction nowadays. The First Amendment would be in sad shape indeed if all controversial speech were unprotected speech. For that matter, Obama campaigned 2007-2008 under an unusual number of death threats. He knew someone might try to kill him if he kept running. Was his campaign unprotected speech?

Maybe folks just shouldn't kill because of Danish cartoons or Florida Koran burnings. At some point, the SOLE blame for a violent reaction to speech that is not expressly calling or violence has to rest solely on those who react violently or urge others to react violently.

Any imams and others who may urge Muslims to react violently to Danish cartoons or Florida Koran burnings are a different story. They ARE inciting violence.

[Recursion]

46. Yeah, sorry, that won't cut it

He feels the same way about the imam. No dice.

[leftynyc]

32. That's a very disturbing post

Just who gets to decide who deserves their first amendment rights? Who deserves protection? Who are you willing to give that power to?

[Bragi]

34. Agreed

What's particularly troublesome is that people want to restrict legal free speech on the grounds that some listeners might attack the speaker.

That would basically allow mobs to set the limits on free speech. I prefer that the constitution and the courts make those decisions.

[WatsonT]

39. Isn't it obvious?

Decent people are allowed to protest.

Bad people are not.

Decent will henceforth be defined as "agrees with me" and Bad will mean "Disagrees with me".

What's the problem with that?

:sarcasm:

[WatsonT]

38. Define trouble makers

Peace protesters in largely pro-war areas?

Pro-union activists in largely anti-union communities?

Black/gay/womens rights types in areas less than receptive to such messages?

If you define trouble makers by the actions of others than potentially anyone is. And if you define it by their message then it is entirely subjective and prone to abuse by local and federal officials.

[canetoad]

22. What kind of christian is this guy anyway?

Good Friday is one of the busiest days in the christian pastor's work year. What's he doing having a protest when he should be working?

[queerart]

41. Christian Terrorist.....

He smiles while jabbing people in the eye.....


Because he knows the government, & the police will protect him...


The government, and law enforcement always protect these Christian Terrorists.....


Like the police are not stretched enough just dealing with day to day business......


Why doesn't he man up, and have his flock drop him by helicopter in the center of the Middle East, so he can pull this shit at the first Mosque he stumbles upon?

[WatsonT]

44. How is he a terrorist?

Asshole sure, but he isn't killing anyone. Or threatening to kill anyone.

[CBHagman]

47. Please, a richly deserved obscurity for Terry Jones...

...the nuisance, that is, and not the Monty Python alum.

[truthisfreedom]

49. Terry who?

I'm practicing for his forthcoming obscurity.