Detroit Man Arrested, Cited For Burning Koran

Of course, the Detroit PD used different statutes

(USA Today) A man born in Iraq who says he has a history of psychological problems has admitted to burning Qurans in a Detroit suburb on three separate occasions over the past month.

Ali Hassan Al-Asadi, 51, was arrested on June 25 outside the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Mich., after he burned a Quran while holding a wooden club, Dearborn Police Lt. Douglas Topolski said Monday. (snip)

Al-Asadi was charged with littering and the release of soot, both misdemeanors. He was released on a $500 bond after pleading guilty and faces a sentencing on Aug. 5 in 19th District Court in Dearborn.

One has to wonder what would have happened had Al-Asadi burned a Bible. Or an American flag.

Al-Asadi told the Free Press on Monday that he burned a dozen Qurans over the past year at several locations because he has increasingly negative views about Muslims in general and because he had a financial dispute with an Iraqi-American Muslim.

And he’s engaged in what would be Constitutionally protected Free Speech, where it a Bible or Flag.

Imam Husham Al-Husainy, head of the Karbalaa center, thanked police for arresting the man who burned Qurans outside his center. Al-Husainy said he doesn’t know Al-Asadi.

Of course he did.

We’ll see if the Detroit PD replies by the time I intend to post this.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Detroit Man Arrested, Cited For Burning Koran”

  1. Jeffery says:

    If a person holding a club stood in front of a church burning Bibles I suspect the police would intervene. It appears that would be a volatile situation that could escalate quickly to real violence.

  2. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    yet J misses the whole point of the post. Again.

    They could have arrested him for brandishing the club, but they didn’t. Did they?

    No, they arrested him for “littering” and “releasing soot”… what the hell that means.

    Vehicles and places with kitchens release soot. Glass factories and metallurgy businesses release soot.

    Who knew that was a law that people could be arrested for? Guess Detroit jails are going to be full now that the police are arresting for “soot” now?

    And, no, liberals do not consider the flag as litter or soot. They see it as meaningless and without worth. So, no, he would not have been arrested.

  3. Jeffery says:

    gumballs,

    You seem continually angry.

    The article didn’t say he was brandishing a club only holding a club, which is not illegal. I’m speculating that holding a club AND burning the Quran in front of a mosque encouraged the police to be creative in defusing the situation, so they arrested him for littering to get him out of there. The police have some leeway in their actions and they handled this situation without violence.

    He didn’t burn a flag or a Bible, in fact, the article didn’t mention that anyone did.

    What would the police do if the situation involved a man holding a club and burning Bibles in front of churchgoers? We can’t know for sure, but I suspect they would get him out of there, too.

    If you walked out of your church and a crazy man with a club was burning your Holy book, what would you do?

  4. Nighthawk says:

    Like was said, Jeffy misses the point.

    I swear, this guy just argues for the sake of argument no matter what is posted here.

    Most sane police would have simply taken the guy into custody and determined if he was a danger to himself or others. If they find out he is no danger they would have let him go. Situation diffused peacefully. No, they charged him with crimes, made him post bail and sending this to court.

    If what he did was a crime then they need to arrest anyone who lights a cigarette, uses a fireplace, burns their trash, etc.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Baby-doll Nightie,

    It seemed to me that Teach was saying that the police were protecting the Quran by arresting the man but would not have protected the Bible.

    Do you think the post was about soot?

  6. david7134 says:

    Actually in most cities, starting a fire is a crime. The problem is that it is variably enforced. The point here is that liberals seem to be able to use fire in any demonstration, or in the case of the Occupy movement, to cook their meals and other uses. No one was arrested. Then you have someone who finds the religion of hate to be repugnant and demonstrates this fact in a way that brings attention, and he is arrested. If you don’t see the duplicity, then you might be stupid.

    For those wondering, I really feel that Jeff is a child. And, he is perpetually angry and bigoted and racist.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    If a person holding a club stood in front of a church burning Bibles I suspect the police would intervene.

    And they would be wrong to do so. That’s the point that you seem to miss.

    After all, Teach clearly states: And he’s engaged in what would be Constitutionally protected Free Speech, where it a Bible or Flag.

    It appears that would be a volatile situation that could escalate quickly to real violence.

    So you believe in mob rule rather than the rule of law and governments protecting the rights of citizens?

    Furthermore, the idea that this protected speech could have escalated quickly into violence which is why the police took action is shown to be a lie by the charges themselves. If the police really had thought there was a chance of violence, they could have charged the guy with disturbing the peace, and maybe even some sort if “incitement” law.

    (Most likely neither would have stuck as the burning is clearly protected speech.)

    But the police went after the littering and “release of soot” charge because they wanted to stop the man’s speech.

    The real problem besides the actions of the police is once again we see how liberals like Jeffery hate the idea of free speech.

  8. …encouraged the police to be creative in defusing the situation…

    Defusing the situation. Huh. What was the situation? Oh, right, burning a Koran. Admittedly, an asshole move, same as burning a Bible or an American flag. But, still Constitutionally protected Free Speech.

    Defusing the situation? What law was he breaking? Is it the job of law enforcement to stop someone who isn’t breaking the law?

  9. Jeffery says:

    He WAS breaking the law. Littering and public burning. Maybe he WAS brandishing the club and the police went with a much lesser charge. Maybe all charges will be dropped if the man agrees to get some help.

    I agree that the police are selective in enforcement – and we should be glad – who am I to criticize their judgment in this, as they were there and I wasn’t. As I said they were likely being protective of the mentally disturbed man. Maybe the two officers were afraid of having to confront 300 pissed off mosque goers.

    g2, Yes, you idiot, like most liberals I prefer mob rule. I love free speech! It’s just you saying such stupid shit that irks me!

  10. gitarcarver says:

    g2, Yes, you idiot, like most liberals I prefer mob rule.

    Okay, let’s for a moment assume that you are being sarcastic as it is so hard to distinguish your sarcasm and your normal stupidity.

    (After all, if you were being serious and stupid, you would be proving the point that you are against free speech.)

    Did I miss something or did your cat hop on the keyboard while you were distracted by something shiny and write:

    Maybe the two officers were afraid of having to confront 300 pissed off mosque goers.

    That was you, right?

    So even if you want to say that you were being sarcastic, you are contradicting your support the idea of a bunch of people – a mob – being able to shut down the legally protected free speech of this man. Your own words (or that of your cat) show your true feelings.

    But your point is even dumber when you consider that a you are arguing that the police should stop a person’s legal activities because of the chance of illegal activities of others.

    That’s how stupid you are being.

    I love free speech!

    Except when it comes to situations like this, when people disagree with your religion of AGW, etc.

    It’s just you saying such stupid shit that irks me!

    In your little bigoted and hateful world, “stupid shit” is defined as “anything that Jeffery disagrees with.”

  11. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    First off, this dude was charged with “littering” and “release of soot”. it was not for burning a book or starting a fire. “soot” is specific. If he had fully burned the book to ash, then he might not have been charged with “releasing soot”? And, if he was there with the burning book, he can’t be charged with littering.

    And yes J, if he was brandishing or even just holding a club, it could have been termed a weapon based on its intent and the context. But, they charged him with “releasing soot”. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as just strange?

    Why not a charge of disturbing the peace?!!?!??!

    Now, if he was just sitting there, yelling, burning a book of his, and had a “club” in his hand, then he broke no “significant” laws. (that was for J).

    Had he been proved to have been a liberal and the book been a bible, he would have been protected by the police.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5751 access attempts in the last 7 days.