Oh? You BEAT some guy dressed as Muhammad because it OFFENDED you? US Judge says "OK"

[darin]

Unreal. Get ready for a new war of independence, folks.

US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

...a Pennsylvania judge...just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade.
The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country.a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade.
The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country.

Muslim judge Mark Martin

ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740

[SassyLady]

WTH???

This is where tolerance and diversity have brought us.

[logroller]

I don't agree with the judge's reasoning in the least. However, this video is hardly conclusive evidence of an assault.

[SassyLady]

I don't agree with the judge's reasoning in the least. However, this video is hardly conclusive evidence of an assault.

If the judge dismissed the case because there was no assault then it would be a moot point. Sounds like he had a personal agenda that went beyond that.

[logroller]

If the judge dismissed the case because there was no assault then it would be a moot point. Sounds like he had a personal agenda that went beyond that.

I completely agree, taking the opportunity to give the man a tongue-lashing for what he perceives as uncouth is unwarranted IMO; but that's not a violation of law for the same reason insulting religion isn't--free speech. We don't seem to be given he whole transcript of what was presented in court, only this one snippet and I have to question why that may be. For all we know the prosecution played up the role religion played in the matter in an attempt to incite emotions and the judge found that to be immaterial to the case and was compelled to address it.

I gather it was a harassment charge; but the argument seemed to indicate a perversion of the good Samaritan defense-- that the alleged perp thought the man is violation of the law and sought to ID him and bring it to the attention of authorities. The bias of the reports seems hell-bent on portraying this as Sharia law being applied in lieu of the US law; which doesn't appear to be the case-- as there wasn't a violation of US law or Penn law. Not saying the judge shouldn't have stuck to the facts and censored his personal opinion on the matter, but he didn't break any laws either.

[jimnyc]

I completely agree, taking the opportunity to give the man a tongue-lashing for what he perceives as uncouth is unwarranted IMO; but that's not a violation of law for the same reason insulting religion isn't--free speech. We don't seem to be given he whole transcript of what was presented in court, only this one snippet and I have to question why that may be. For all we know the prosecution played up the role religion played in the matter in an attempt to incite emotions and the judge found that to be immaterial to the case and was compelled to address it.

I gather it was a harassment charge; but the argument seemed to indicate a perversion of the good Samaritan defense-- that the alleged perp thought the man is violation of the law and sought to ID him and bring it to the attention of authorities. The bias of the reports seems hell-bent on portraying this as Sharia law being applied in lieu of the US law; which doesn't appear to be the case-- as there wasn't a violation of US law or Penn law. Not saying the judge shouldn't have stuck to the facts and censored his personal opinion on the matter, but he didn't break any laws either.

I posted this same story in another thread. The Muslim man assaulted another man for dressing as Muhammed as a zombie. They both called police. The policeman met with witnesses and even watched a video. He wrote his report and the Muslim man was charged with assault. The judge threw the case out of court stating that the Muslim man had a right to do what he did in defense of his religion and/or Muhammed.

If you lay your hands on someone, there should be no way to get off, whether they made fun of your prophet or not. Tossing the assault charge out of court based on shariah which defends such actions, I believe is unlawful, and if not it certainly should be.

[jimnyc]

Here is the other thread - http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...lting-Mohammad

The video is longer in that one too and includes a short interview with the officer that was on scene.

[Gunny]

I posted this same story in another thread. The Muslim man assaulted another man for dressing as Muhammed as a zombie. They both called police. The policeman met with witnesses and even watched a video. He wrote his report and the Muslim man was charged with assault. The judge threw the case out of court stating that the Muslim man had a right to do what he did in defense of his religion and/or Muhammed.

If you lay your hands on someone, there should be no way to get off, whether they made fun of your prophet or not. Tossing the assault charge out of court based on shariah which defends such actions, I believe is unlawful, and if not it certainly should be.

In almost ANY other instance that comes to mind, they don't get off. This case is a simple travesty of justice.

I'm just wondering if I can cite this as case law the next time I see someone making fun of MY religion and kick their skinny little butts ...

[logroller]

I posted this same story in another thread. The Muslim man assaulted another man for dressing as Muhammed as a zombie. They both called police. The policeman met with witnesses and even watched a video. He wrote his report and the Muslim man was charged with assault. The judge threw the case out of court stating that the Muslim man had a right to do what he did in defense of his religion and/or Muhammed.

If you lay your hands on someone, there should be no way to get off, whether they made fun of your prophet or not. Tossing the assault charge out of court based on shariah which defends such actions, I believe is unlawful, and if not it certainly should be.

Jim you outta watch the video yourself.
First off, the officer said he shouldn't have confronted him; mentioned nothing of an assault. And secondly the charges were harassment, not assault.
Penn law

§ 2701. Simple assault.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he: (1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; (2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; (3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or (4) conceals or attempts to conceal a hypodermic needle on his person and intentionally or knowingly penetrates a law enforcement officer or an officer or an employee of a correctional institution, county jail or prison, detention facility or mental hospital during the course of an arrest or </pre> any search of the person.

SO there must be actual, or intent to cause, bodily injury for assault...
The zombie guy exclaims 'he's choking me' and then it sounds as though the man ceases contact-- therefore when injury seemed imminent-- he stopped.
As to the actual charges, harassment

§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: (1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; (2) follows the other person in or about a public place or places; (3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose; (4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures; (5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner; (6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or (7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than </pre> specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

Now this charge hinges on 'intent to harass, annoy or alarm another' ...which is tricky because the actions of the man immediately following the incident indicate he thought the zombie muhammad was acting unlawfully-- so his intent was stopping a crime. The fact it wasn't a crime doesn't mitigate his intent. Like I said, its perverse, but let me pose another scenario: let's say you're on a plane and notice the guy next to you has a gun and believing this to be a violation of law you try to take it away; only the person did, in fact, have a lawful reason for possessing the gun. Is that harassment?

[jimnyc]

Jim you outta watch the video yourself.
First off, the officer said he shouldn't have confronted him; mentioned nothing of an assault. And secondly the charges were harassment, not assault.
Penn law
SO there must be actual, or intent to cause, bodily injury for assault...
The zombie guy exclaims 'he's choking me' and then it sounds as though the man ceases contact-- therefore when injury seemed imminent-- he stopped.
As to the actual charges, harassment
Now this charge hinges on 'intent to harass, annoy or alarm another' ...which is tricky because the actions of the man immediately following the incident indicate he thought the zombie muhammad was acting unlawfully-- so his intent was stopping a crime. The fact it wasn't a crime doesn't mitigate his intent. Like I said, its perverse, but let me pose another scenario: let's say you're on a plane and notice the guy next to you has a gun and believing this to be a violation of law you try to take it away; only the person did, in fact, have a lawful reason for possessing the gun. Is that harassment?

You are correct, it appears that's what they went with. I've always considered it to be assault of someone tries to choke another. Regardless, harassment then, it shouldn't be being tossed out of court stating that a Muslim has the right to attack in such a manner over an insult. Apparently the judge stated "Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion." No matter how one expresses their freedom of speech, it should NEVER give someone else the right to lay their hands on them.

And the Muslim "thinking" he was stopping a crime doesn't make it ok for HIM to break the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it.

[logroller]

You are correct, it appears that's what they went with. I've always considered it to be assault of someone tries to choke another. Regardless, harassment then, it shouldn't be being tossed out of court stating that a Muslim has the right to attack in such a manner over an insult. Apparently the judge stated "Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion." No matter how one expresses their freedom of speech, it should NEVER give someone else the right to lay their hands on them.

And the Muslim "thinking" he was stopping a crime doesn't make it ok for HIM to break the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it.

You're correct, nor was that the court's reason-- it was dismissed for lack of evidence, saying, its a matter of "he said, she said" since the officer didn't take any statements from the defendant. He admonished the officer too, saying, had a crime occurred, he should have stopped it and been more diligent in documenting the scene.
I'm telling you Jimmy, this is getting blown out of proportion. The reasoning of the judge for admonishing the plaintiff was that he[the plaintiff] defended his own actions, stipulating to the court that muhammad arose from the dead and this was a depiction of that-- which the Judge said, uh, no he did not. I have a copy of Koran here and it says nothing of the sort-- far from it, it mentions no graven images of the Prophet; you should do a little research before you go about claiming that your free speech rights having been violated. Of course you have right to insult another culture, but that's not the essence of free speech, and when you're statements are blatantly false-- it makes you look like a doofus. I'm paraphrasing, but here's a link which covers a bit more context than the blaze does--http://cumberlink.com/news/local/cum...9bb2963f4.html

[jimnyc]

You're correct, nor was that the court's reason-- it was dismissed for lack of evidence, saying, its a matter of "he said, she said" since the officer didn't take any statements from the defendant. He admonished the officer too, saying, had a crime occurred, he should have stopped it and been more diligent in documenting the scene.
I'm telling you Jimmy, this is getting blown out of proportion. The reasoning of the judge for admonishing the plaintiff was that he[the plaintiff] defended his own actions, stipulating to the court that muhammad arose from the dead and this was a depiction of that-- which the Judge said, uh, no he did not. I have a copy of Koran here and it says nothing of the sort-- far from it, it mentions no graven images of the Prophet; you should do a little research before you go about claiming that your free speech rights having been violated. Of course you have right to insult another culture, but that's not the essence of free speech, and when you're statements are blatantly false-- it makes you look like a doofus. I'm paraphrasing, but here's a link which covers a bit more context than the blaze does--http://cumberlink.com/news/local/cum...9bb2963f4.html

This man, the judge, insinuates that mocking another persons religion is not a protected free speech right. In other words, any athiest making fun of Christians would be afoul of the law? I don't see where the man who was attacked was breaking the law and the judge shouldn't have been protecting Islam while chastising a man who was utilizing his freedom of speech. Here are his words from your link:

“In many other Muslim-speaking countries — excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society,” he says on the tape. “In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society. Here in our society, we have the Constitution, which gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights

“It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others,” Martin says. “I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so we could speak what’s on our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures, which is what you did.

“I don’t think you are aware, sir, there’s a big different between how Americans practice Christianity. I understand you’re an atheist, but see Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being....

“And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I find it offensive.

“But you have that right, but you are way outside your boundaries of your First Amendment rights.

So since the judge is a Muslim, and the defendant a Muslim, and they both believe that this man dressing as Muhammed was "very offensive" and against the "very essence". Too bad that being offensive towards muslims and their very essence AREN'T against the law and are actions that are in fact protected by the 1st. It's 3000% clear that this judge made his comments and decision based on his Muslim beliefs and the belief of the Muslim defendant.

[ConHog]

I think I could actually be convinced that making it legal to kick someone's ass (within reason) for being offensive was okay; BUT when you start making it okay for some but not others, that's when I part ways.


And of course that is NOT the current law, so who does this judge think he is?

[logroller]

This man, the judge, insinuates that mocking another persons religion is not a protected free speech right. In other words, any athiest making fun of Christians would be afoul of the law? I don't see where the man who was attacked was breaking the law and the judge shouldn't have been protecting Islam while chastising a man who was utilizing his freedom of speech. Here are his words from your link:



So since the judge is a Muslim, and the defendant a Muslim, and they both believe that this man dressing as Muhammed was "very offensive" and against the "very essence". Too bad that being offensive towards muslims and their very essence AREN'T against the law and are actions that are in fact protected by the 1st. It's 3000% clear that this judge made his comments and decision based on his Muslim beliefs and the belief of the Muslim defendant.

3000%...Exagerate much? Thank you for demonstrating the effect the prosecution's argument was intended to provoke. What is clear is there was insufficient evidence to support a harassment charge--the rest is just spin.

[jimnyc]

3000%...Exagerate much? Thank you for demonstrating the effect the prosecution's argument was intended to provoke. What is clear is there was insufficient evidence to support a harassment charge--the rest is just spin.

What you see as spin I see as bias on the part of the judge. He shouldn't be placing ANY religion above another, and lecturing based on his religion, or implying punishment based on religion or say what is ok based on religion. As AMERICANS we have the right to dress in a mocking manner, or we don't. We have the right to get physical with a person when they do as much, or we don't. But no where in there should religion play a part, and a judge certainly shouldn't be making fun of the plaintiff in court because of his lack of knowledge of a religion. And personally, I have zero doubt that this judge would have lectured in the same manner had he been an atheist, Christian or any other religion.