Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[jimnyc]

Many have stated shit like this would eventually start to happen. If this is correct, this judge should be removed immediately.


Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

I also found this video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cb4h7Qc3oh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Gunny]

Many have stated shit like this would eventually start to happen. If this is correct, this judge should be removed immediately.



http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

I also found this video:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cb4h7Qc3oh8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

Fuck Muhammed.

How soon should I expect a "visit"?

The judge should be removed from the bench immediately, and the victim of the assault should appeal the ruling.

And yeah, some people have been saying it would eventually happen. But there's no such thing as a slippery slope, remember?

[Intense]

Many have stated shit like this would eventually start to happen. If this is correct, this judge should be removed immediately.



http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

I also found this video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cb4h7Qc3oh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Clearly the Judge does not belong on the Bench. The Ruling is beyond absurd. The Perpetrator should be brought up on Federal Charges. Maybe his Lawyer would better serve Society, too, by driving a cab.

[Noir]

What an idiot of a judge.

[Abbey Marie]

What?!!!

[ConHog]

Many have stated shit like this would eventually start to happen. If this is correct, this judge should be removed immediately.



http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html

I also found this video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cb4h7Qc3oh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If true, you don't go far enough, this judge should be imprisoned for encouraging further violence. PERIOD.

[SassyLady]

The truly scary part is that the Muslim that attacked the costumed man also called the cops to report a crime....he thought it was a crime to depict Mohammed in this manner. Now that the judge has made his ruling, I'm sure that a few more Muslims will think it's a crime to parody Mohammed and it will be criminal if they don't attack that person.

Is it time to start being intolerant and cut back on diversity?

[Gunny]

The truly scary part is that the Muslim that attacked the costumed man also called the cops to report a crime....he thought it was a crime to depict Mohammed in this manner. Now that the judge has made his ruling, I'm sure that a few more Muslims will think it's a crime to parody Mohammed and it will be criminal if they don't attack that person.

Is it time to start being intolerant and cut back on diversity?

I think one side ALREADY is being intolerant. The leftist know-it-all's in our society just refuse to accept the facts staring us in the face. I think it's time to be intolerant to intolerance -- the kind the Muslims and wannabe-elitist, out of touch with reality lesftist snobs show at every turn.

Want to talk intolerance? This case is a perfect example. Or you can watch MSNBC nightly or listen to NPR. They run a smokescreen of bullshit, attacking conservatives, accusing them of being what they, the left are most guilty of.

[avatar4321]

The victim can't appeal the case. The victim isn't a party. It's just the commonwealth and the defendant.

I would suggest that the victim pursue civil charges. and if the charges weren't dismissed with prejudice or there was no finding of "not-guilty" refile the charges and get another judge.

[Intense]

The victim can't appeal the case. The victim isn't a party. It's just the commonwealth and the defendant.

I would suggest that the victim pursue civil charges. and if the charges weren't dismissed with prejudice or there was no finding of "not-guilty" refile the charges and get another judge.

Federal Charges. The Left does it all the time.

[Gunny]

Federal Charges. The Left does it all the time.

That would work if white people had civil rights ....

[trobinett]

For a preview of where our society is heading, just look at England, and their large Muslim population. I think you'll find it hard not
to see what happens in a free society that has to interact with Muslim's, NOTHING GOOD.

[Wind Song]

Let's see if I get this straight. The uproar is that the judge shouldn't have thrown out the assault charge on the basis of the racist/anti-islamic provocation?

Does the instigator's speech consitute "fighting words"?

[Wind Song]

That would work if white people had civil rights ....

Sound's racist. Are you saying white people don't have rights?

[jimnyc]

Let's see if I get this straight. The uproar is that the judge shouldn't have thrown out the assault charge on the basis of the racist/anti-islamic provocation?

Does the instigator's speech consitute "fighting words"?

"fighting words" LOL - do you have ANY law that you can cite that allows one to touch another person because what the other person said amounted to "fighting words"? NOTHING ever gives one the right to lift their hands to another, other than in self defense.

[Wind Song]

"fighting words" LOL - do you have ANY law that you can cite that allows one to touch another person because what the other person said amounted to "fighting words"? NOTHING ever gives one the right to lift their hands to another, other than in self defense.


The judge threw out the assault charge because of the racist provocation. You don't like that? Oh well.

You probably don't believe in hate crime law either.

[jimnyc]

The judge threw out the assault charge because of the racist provocation. You don't like that? Oh well.

No, he tossed it out because of lack of proof.

Are you going to cite the law?

[jimnyc]

You probably don't believe in hate crime law either.

Hate crimes, which this wasn't, still don't give anyone the right to hit another person or place their hands on another person.

[Wind Song]

No, he tossed it out because of lack of proof.

Are you going to cite the law?


No, I'm not going to cite the law.


Lighten up.

Why should the judge have to fear for his safety for making a call that appears to favor a Muslim?

[Wind Song]

Hate crimes, which this wasn't, still don't give anyone the right to hit another person or place their hands on another person.


Too bad. The judge dismissed the harassment charges. Does it bother you that he called the instigator a "doofus"?

[jimnyc]

No, I'm not going to cite the law.


Lighten up.

Why should the judge have to fear for his safety for making a call that appears to favor a Muslim?

I don't think he should, and never said as much. I'm just stating that you cannot lift your hands to another person, EVER, unless in self defense. EVEN IF the other person makes fun of the douchebag muhammed.

[Wind Song]

Hate crimes, which this wasn't, still don't give anyone the right to hit another person or place their hands on another person.


What is your stance on hate crime? Is it necessary or not? My guess is you don't support it.

[jimnyc]

Too bad. The judge dismissed the harassment charges.

Yep, it is too bad. The plaintiff should have scraped up some witnesses from that night and had the muzzie craphead convicted. Either way, it's still legal to make fun of the muslims and their made up prophet, and no one should ever fear being hit or harassed for doing so.

[Wind Song]

I don't think he should, and never said as much. I'm just stating that you cannot lift your hands to another person, EVER, unless in self defense. EVEN IF the other person makes fun of the douchebag muhammed.

This post of yours sounds racist.

[jimnyc]

What is your stance on hate crime? Is it necessary or not? My guess is you don't support it.

Attacking someone, based on the hate crimes, is wrong too. I don't support any assaults, and hate crimes are generally assaults of some kind. So of course I support those laws. But dressing up as a fake prophet IS NOT even close to a hate crime.

[Wind Song]

Yep, it is too bad. The plaintiff should have scraped up some witnesses from that night and had the muzzie craphead convicted. Either way, it's still legal to make fun of the muslims and their made up prophet, and no one should ever fear being hit or harassed for doing so.


I hope you enjoy making fun of Muslims and are not harmed for it. What is your stance on hate crime?

[jimnyc]

This post of yours sounds racist.

It was, I'm not a fan of most Muslims, especially those who go nuts over muhammed and think we're in the stone age.

[jimnyc]

I hope you enjoy making fun of Muslims and are not harmed for it. What is your stance on hate crime?

I WISH a muslim would try and lift their fingers towards me, I can only wish. And I already answered you several times, I have no issue with the laws behind hate crimes. If someone beats up another, solely because they are of another race, or another religion, they need to be brought forth on charges. WTF does that have to do with this thread?

[Wind Song]

Attacking someone, based on the hate crimes, is wrong too. I don't support any assaults, and hate crimes are generally assaults of some kind. So of course I support those laws. But dressing up as a fake prophet IS NOT even close to a hate crime.

You support hate crime laws? I'm still not clear from your post.

I think this Muslims actions are perfectly understandable. The doofus wanted a fight.

[jimnyc]

You support hate crime laws? I'm still not clear from your post.

I think this Muslims actions are perfectly understandable. The doofus wanted a fight.

Maybe understandable to you, but her in America you cannot lift your hands to others because you don't like what they say, or the way they dress.

[Wind Song]

It was, I'm not a fan of most Muslims, especially those who go nuts over muhammed and think we're in the stone age.


Thanks for admitting your racism. Would you intentionally provoke a Muslim by dressing up as Mohammed?

[Wind Song]

Maybe understandable to you, but her in America you cannot lift your hands to others because you don't like what they say, or the way they dress.

Not so long ago, it was acceptable to beat up a gay man and the police would do nothing. In many cases, the police would harass gays.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for admitting your racism. Would you intentionally provoke a Muslim by dressing up as Mohammed?

Sure, why not. Should I fear doing so?

[jimnyc]

Not so long ago, it was acceptable to beat up a gay man and the police would do nothing. In many cases, the police would harass gays.

And that has WHAT to do with this thread?

[Wind Song]

I WISH a muslim would try and lift their fingers towards me, I can only wish. And I already answered you several times, I have no issue with the laws behind hate crimes. If someone beats up another, solely because they are of another race, or another religion, they need to be brought forth on charges. WTF does that have to do with this thread?

The Muslim reacted to a hate provocation. One you seem to approve of. Yes?

What about cross burning? OK to burn a cross on a Mosque lawn?

What other provoking acts do you approve of?

[Wind Song]

And that has WHAT to do with this thread?

I'm saying that since hate crime legislation has been enacted the law sometimes protects people who are harassed for being gay.

Why not Muslims?

The judge appeared to favor a Muslim in this case rather than your average white asshole. Is that what bothers you the most? The call this time favored a Muslim.

[jimnyc]

The Muslim reacted to a hate provocation. One you seem to approve of. Yes?

What about cross burning? OK to burn a cross on a Mosque lawn?

No, how many times do I need to tell you, NO ONE should be able to EVER lift their hands to another, other than self defense. Dressing up in a parade DOES NOT equal a hate crime and doesn't give ANYONE the right to lift their hands to that person.

Cross burning on their lawn would be harming their property and therefore against the law. Burn Qurans on your own property if you like.

[jimnyc]

I'm saying that since hate crime legislation has been enacted the law sometimes protects people who are harassed for being gay.

Why not Muslims?

You can make fun of gays in a parade, or dress as one, and that's NOT a hate crime. Follow a guy around side streets, make fun of his gayness, then beat him up while calling him a faggot - that's a hate crime.

Dressing as a fake prophet named muhammed is NOT a hate crime, no matter how many times or ways you ask.

[Wind Song]

You can make fun of gays in a parade, or dress as one, and that's NOT a hate crime. Follow a guy around side streets, make fun of his gayness, then beat him up while calling him a faggot - that's a hate crime.

Dressing as a fake prophet named muhammed is NOT a hate crime, no matter how many times or ways you ask.

I'm not saying what the guy did dressing as Mohammed was a hate crime. I'm saying his behavior was deliberately provocative for a hate motivation. In other words, he got what he asked for.

[fj1200]

Not so long ago, it was acceptable to beat up a gay man and the police would do nothing. In many cases, the police would harass gays.

It was legal to beat up a gay man?

[jimnyc]

I'm not saying what the guy did dressing as Mohammed was a hate crime. I'm saying his behavior was deliberately provocative for a hate motivation. In other words, he got what he asked for.

Deliberately dressing as a fake prophet, and laughing at muslims, is not a crime. The muslims reaction, if it were to lift his hands in response, is a crime. The next time, a witness might testify, and little bearded muzzie will be convicted, and the fake muhammed will walk away laughing.

[Wind Song]

No, how many times do I need to tell you, NO ONE should be able to EVER lift their hands to another, other than self defense. Dressing up in a parade DOES NOT equal a hate crime and doesn't give ANYONE the right to lift their hands to that person.

Cross burning on their lawn would be harming their property and therefore against the law. Burn Qurans on your own property if you like.


Cross burning is a hate crime because it is an attempt to tell people of a minority class they are unwelcome in the community. It is NOT just a crime of simple arson or property damage.

You indicate you would LOVE for a Muslim to provoke you. Wouldn't that be the same as the guy in the costume, wishing he would inflame Muslims to that point?

[jimnyc]

Cross burning is a hate crime because it is an attempt to tell people of a minority class they are unwelcome in the community. It is NOT just a crime of simple arson or property damage.

You indicate you would LOVE for a Muslim to provoke you. Wouldn't that be the same as the guy in the costume, wishing he would inflame Muslims to that point?

No, I said I would love for a muzzie to lift his hands to me, which is against the law, then I beat him in return, and we both get in trouble. I never said a damn thing about lifting my hands to the cockroach because he insulted me with a costume. In fact, as a Catholic, I don't even give a crap that next to the cockroach was another guy dressed as a zombie pope!

[Wind Song]

No, I said I would love for a muzzie to lift his hands to me, which is against the law, then I beat him in return, and we both get in trouble. I never said a damn thing about lifting my hands to the cockroach because he insulted me with a costume. In fact, as a Catholic, I don't even give a crap that next to the cockroach was another guy dressed as a zombie pope!


Catholic racist? I see. How does that work?

[jimnyc]

Catholic racist? I see.

Yep, and one who doesn't break the laws. I exercise my freedom to speak my mind though.

[Wind Song]

Yep, and one who doesn't break the laws. I exercise my freedom to speak my mind though.

I respect and admire you for your honesty and ability to see yourself clearly.
:salute:

[jimnyc]

I respect and admire you for your honesty and ability to see yourself clearly.
:salute:

I see myself crystal clear. We have laws in this nation already. This cockroach even stated afterwards that he thought it was a crime to insult muhammed here in the US. He likely thinks we abide by shariah law here. Tough shit for him. We get to make fun of the fake prophet here, whether he likes it or not.

[gabosaurus]

We get to make fun of the fake prophet here, whether he likes it or not.

OK, but don't be surprised if fanatics who worship the fake prophet take advantage of their American right to own weapons and start blasting people. In the name of religion, of course.

[Wind Song]

I see myself crystal clear. We have laws in this nation already. This cockroach even stated afterwards that he thought it was a crime to insult muhammed here in the US. He likely thinks we abide by shariah law here. Tough shit for him. We get to make fun of the fake prophet here, whether he likes it or not.

I think the guy dressed up as Mohammed was as much deserving of the term, "cockroach" as the Muslim you despise. To you, Modhammed is a fake prophet, to a Muslim, he is holy.

To LSD, Joseph Smith was a saint, to you, he isn't.

Having a different POV is fine. Deliberately trying to provoke fights is not.

[jimnyc]

OK, but don't be surprised if fanatics who worship the fake prophet take advantage of their American right to own weapons and start blasting people. In the name of religion, of course.

And of course that would be against the law. Are Catholics running around blasting people when the Pope gets made fun of? Did you see a Catholic run out in the street and try and lift his hands to the zombie Pope?

Some of us live in current times, while other religions with fake prophets still live in the stone ages.

[jimnyc]

I think the guy dressed up as Mohammed was as much deserving of the term, "cockroach" as the Muslim you despise. To you, Modhammed is a fake prophet, to a Muslim, he is holy.

To LSD, Joseph Smith was a saint, to you, he isn't.

Having a different POV is fine. Deliberately trying to provoke fights is not.

Whether you believe it's "right" or not is irrelevant. Even if his actions are "wrong" - the cockroach DOES NOT have the right to lift his hands to him. The Constitution allows him to dress in that manner, but nothing allows physical retaliation.

[Wind Song]

Whether you believe it's "right" or not is irrelevant. Even if his actions are "wrong" - the cockroach DOES NOT have the right to lift his hands to him. The Constitution allows him to dress in that manner, but nothing allows physical retaliation.

Whether it's "right" or not is relevant. What that man did dressing up as Mohammed, (which should earn him a title like "cockroach" as much as the Muslim) was wrong. It was wrong for the Muslim to retaliate, but it is understandable.

That bozo in the suit was spoiling for a fight.

[jimnyc]

Whether it's "right" or not is relevant. What that man did dressing up as Mohammed, (which should earn him a title like "cockroach" as much as the Muslim) was wrong. It was wrong for the Muslim to retaliate, but it is understandable.

That bozo in the suit was spoiling for a fight.

breaking law, harassing, assault = wrong

exercising 1st amendment rights, within the law = right

You can't argue with this. You either break the law or abide by it. There aren't excuses to the law other than self defense when it comes to lifting your hands.

[Wind Song]

breaking law, harassing, assault = wrong

exercising 1st amendment rights, within the law = right

You can't argue with this. You either break the law or abide by it. There aren't excuses to the law other than self defense when it comes to lifting your hands.


Yes, I can and will argue that provoking someone else into violence by hate motivated speech and actions is morally wrong.

You know perfectly well some of our laws aren't moral. The Judge made a legal call, on the basis of the charge not being proved. You don't like it.

That Muslim man fell prey to a bozo, a man who was spoiling for a fight. Muslims must learn to resist that kind provocation.

I wonder if you could do it. Sounds like you would fight when provoked whether it is legal or not. Why should this Muslim do anything less than you would?

[jimnyc]

Yes, I can and will argue that provoking someone else into violence by hate motivated speech and actions is morally wrong.

You know perfectly well some of our laws aren't moral. The Judge made a legal call, on the basis of the charge not being proved. You don't like it.

That Muslim man fell prey to a bozo, a man who was spoiling for a fight. Muslims must learn to resist that kind provocation.

I wonder if you could do it. Sounds like you would fight when provoked whether it is legal or not. Why should this Muslim do anything less than you would?

If I hit someone who is expressing their first amendment rights, I would expect to be arrested.

[logroller]

The Muslim reacted to a hate provocation. One you seem to approve of. Yes?

What about cross burning? OK to burn a cross on a Mosque lawn?

What other provoking acts do you approve of?
Hey-OOOOOOOO! Hyperbole alert. Why not go for the gusto and bring up a Nazis?


I'm not saying what the guy did dressing as Mohammed was a hate crime. I'm saying his behavior was deliberately provocative for a hate motivation. In other words, he got what he asked for.
So insulting another person's culture is provocative enough to warrant physical recourse-- So you'd be Ok with an American ripping the Hijab off a Muslim woman because I personally find concealing one's face provocative?

another guy dressed as a zombie pope!
A much better costume BTW, his makeup was way better-- everybody knows zombies are grayish, not green. What a doofus that guy was. If anything, I could understand why a zombie would have attacked him; one, because that's what zombies do, and two because how insulting of zombies, right?


OK, but don't be surprised if fanatics who worship the fake prophet take advantage of their American right to own weapons and start blasting people. In the name of religion, of course.
Why would they use a weapon and risk jail when they can just choke him and walk free?


I think the guy dressed up as Mohammed was as much deserving of the term, "cockroach" as the Muslim you despise. To you, Modhammed is a fake prophet, to a Muslim, he is holy.

To LSD, Joseph Smith was a saint, to you, he isn't.

Having a different POV is fine. Deliberately trying to provoke fights is not.
Having a different POV isn't deliberately trying to provoke fights.


Whether it's "right" or not is relevant. What that man did dressing up as Mohammed, (which should earn him a title like "cockroach" as much as the Muslim) was wrong. It was wrong for the Muslim to retaliate, but it is understandable.

That bozo in the suit was spoiling for a fight.
Dressing up as Muhammed= morally wrong to some
Choking guy for being immoral= morally wrong and illegal.


Yes, I can and will argue that provoking someone else into violence by hate motivated speech and actions is morally wrong.

You know perfectly well some of our laws aren't moral. The Judge made a legal call, on the basis of the charge not being proved. You don't like it.

That Muslim man fell prey to a bozo, a man who was spoiling for a fight. Muslims must learn to resist that kind provocation.

I wonder if you could do it. Sounds like you would fight when provoked whether it is legal or not. Why should this Muslim do anything less than you would?

You see, here's the rub. Its immoral to enforce your morals upon someone else-- period. That's why Jesus said Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

But hey, go ahead; go spank some people who are personally objectionable...starting with those below, they're spoiling for a fight. We'll see where that lands ya?
http://www.memphisflyer.com/binary/1c02/1325868442-god_hates_fags-400x273.jpg

[jimnyc]

A much better costume BTW, his makeup was way better-- everybody knows zombies are grayish, not green. What a doofus that guy was. If anything, I could understand why a zombie would have attacked him; one, because that's what zombies do, and two because how insulting of zombies, right?

This is true, but then could you imagine the backlash, having the Pope fighting muhammed? :laugh2:

[logroller]

This is true, but then could you imagine the backlash, having the Pope fighting muhammed? :laugh2:
To be honest, I abhor the promotion of violence. Friends invite me to UFC parties and I ALWAYS decline, explain why and thank them for the offer. But this fight on PPV, I'd have to watch it. $5 on Muhammed, any takers? :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, I can and will argue that provoking someone else into violence by hate motivated speech and actions is morally wrong.

You know perfectly well some of our laws aren't moral. The Judge made a legal call, on the basis of the charge not being proved. You don't like it.

That Muslim man fell prey to a bozo, a man who was spoiling for a fight. Muslims must learn to resist that kind provocation.

I wonder if you could do it. Sounds like you would fight when provoked whether it is legal or not. Why should this Muslim do anything less than you would?

How do you know he was "spoiling for a fight"? It is entirely possible he just thought it was a very funny costume.

[Wind Song]

How do you know he was "spoiling for a fight"? It is entirely possible he just thought it was a very funny costume.

I don't know but suspect he wanted to be a jerk.

[Wind Song]

If I hit someone who is expressing their first amendment rights, I would expect to be arrested.

The Muslim WAS arrested. He wasn't convicted.

[jimnyc]

The Muslim WAS arrested. He wasn't convicted.

You asked me a question, I'm answering. If I hit someone for expressing their beliefs, I expect to be arrested, and in a "perfect" world there would be evidence to support a conviction. The muzzie was simply lucky that there wasn't enough evidence (even though he told the police differently, and then gave a different story in court). Whether convicted or not though, that doesn't give him a right to place his hands on another person.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know but suspect he wanted to be a jerk.

It's certainly possible. We Christians have had to put up with a ton of this stuff, from gay parades mocking Jesus, to "art" called "Piss Christ", etc. We tend to turn the other cheek as we were instructed, though.