Jury Throws Out Muslim Man's Frivolous Lawsuit - Can You Believe It?

Would you sue if someone called your favorite piece of artwork "garbage?" Apparently Muslims feel that they can and should sue at the slightest provocation.

HAYWARD — A federal jury has rejected the lawsuit of a Muslim businessman who accused two Hayward police officers of making derogatory remarks about Islam.

Easa Begzad, who owned a Foley Street factory that manufactured Afghan sweets, sued the city of Hayward for allegedly violating his civil rights after police detained and hospitalized him following a police call to his business in 2002.
But after a civil trial that lasted nearly two weeks, a jury in U.S. District Court in San Francisco returned a verdict late Thursday afternoon in favor of the two officers. The jury rejected Begzad's demands for $1 million from the city.

Begzad could not be reached for comment Friday, and his Fremont attorney, Salim Khawaja, also did not return calls.
Randolph Hom, an assistant city attorney for Hayward, said the testimony of Begzad and the two people who claimed to see or overhear the incident did not stand up in court.

"The key to the victory was that the jury believed the officers and rejected the testimony of Begzad, his friends, family and treating physician," Hom said Friday in a written statement. "Cases like this often turn on the credibility of witnesses."

What would have happened if the jury had believed the witnesses? Would the city have been required to pony up $1 million? Why did the case even go to a jury. Immediately it should have been dismissed as frivolus, without merit, and a waster of the court's valuable time.

Read the Rest.

Would we have bought Russian products during the Cold War or products from Nazi Germany during WWII.? Aren't we are war now with Jihadists that are honored all over the Muslim world? Over at JihadWatch, Hugh Fitizgerald gives a solution: Don't buy their products or shop where they are sold.

CAIR keeps asking Muslims to keep careful records of any slights to Islam, and clearly, by its own activities -- for someone's or some country's deep pockets are making CAIR quite ready to go to court at a moment's notice. But the number of cases like this that are frivolous can be controlled if the expense of trying such a case is somehow pushed back onto the plaintiff. If it cannot or will not be done by the law, private parties can make sure that those who bring such lawsuits suffer.

How? By instituting their own private boycotts. No one need buy these "Afghan sweets." No one need stock them in their stores. Customers can make known in the friendliest possible manner to store-owners who carry them that they will find it difficult to continue to shop at such-and-such a store, if it carries such goods. One is, after all, free to buy or not to buy, free to engage the services of, or not to, and economic considerations are only part of why we choose a store or not. In 1956, would you have bought Soviet goods, had there been any to buy? Would you, in 1939, bought a Voigtlander camera? Of course not. Why not do something to discourage the likes of Ease Begzad, and his friends, the tellers of tale tales, hoping to make a cool million from remarks they apparently fabricated.

And even had they not fabricated them, the idea of such a lawsuit is idiotic. It should never have gotten anywhere. Why did it? On what grounds?