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.
http://youtu.be/yP-X3hpCfR8

[SassyLady]

I don't agree with the judge's reasoning in the least. However, this video is hardly conclusive evidence of an assault.
http://youtu.be/yP-X3hpCfR8

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/showthread.php?34370-Penn-Judge-Muslims-Allowed-to-Attack-People-for-Insulting-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/cumberland-county-magisterial-district-judge-berated-over-case-dismissal/article_e8813f3c-6036-11e1-be13-0019bb2963f4.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/cumberland-county-magisterial-district-judge-berated-over-case-dismissal/article_e8813f3c-6036-11e1-be13-0019bb2963f4.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.

[ConHog]

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.

Is this judge elected or appointed? Either way he needs to be censured. Has he ever heard of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS? Laws are to be applied EQUALLY.

[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.
So you've got a source for that statement...:link:



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.
Time and again, throughout your posts I see you drawing conclusions where one isn't supported by the evidence. I hear some guy on video claiming he was choked, but no statements were taken, no marks left on the alleged victim. Nothing, nada. Bias or not; freedom of speech whatever; there wasn't sufficient evidence of a crime--PERIOD. I'd like to see this muslim punished for what he allegedly did; but absent evidence, I concur with the court. Now if you have some evidence of a crime, not just hearsay, he said she said-- let's see it, if not, then it's just spin and the fact you speak to it as truth shows your bias, not the judge's.

[jimnyc]

So you've got a source for that statement...:link:



Time and again, throughout your posts I see you drawing conclusions where one isn't supported by the evidence. I hear some guy on video claiming he was choked, but no statements were taken, no marks left on the alleged victim. Nothing, nada. Bias or not; freedom of speech whatever; there wasn't sufficient evidence of a crime--PERIOD. I'd like to see this muslim punished for what he allegedly did; but absent evidence, I concur with the court. Now if you have some evidence of a crime, not just hearsay, he said she said-- let's see it, if not, then it's just spin and the fact you speak to it as truth shows your bias, not the judge's.

So the judge, in an American courtroom, lectures an American about the Muslim culture and how it's different than Christianity, and calls the plaintiff a doofus based on religious knowledge, and it's MY bias showing? LOL There very well may not be enough evidence to support a crime in his courtroom, and he could of easily stated as much, but instead he chose to use his position to lecture based on religion and chastise the plaintiff in the case. He showed his bias long before I even got wind of this case. A judge isn't meant to espouse religious views in his chair and place a different level of respect between religions based on whether one is the "very essence" of that person or not. Showing such blatant bias towards one religion might have something to do with people thinking his decision was due to bias as well. In fact, while no lawyer or constitutional expert myself, I think he went outside his judicial boundaries by injecting so much religion into this case and outright stating that what the plaintiff did was in violation of the constitution, when it clearly was not.

[Gunny]

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/cumberland-county-magisterial-district-judge-berated-over-case-dismissal/article_e8813f3c-6036-11e1-be13-0019bb2963f4.html

Now can you just imagine had the atheist kicked the living sh*t out of the Muslim in self-defense what the headlines would have read? Or what the verdict would have been?

[logroller]

So the judge, in an American courtroom, lectures an American about the Muslim culture and how it's different than Christianity, and calls the plaintiff a doofus based on religious knowledge, and it's MY bias showing? LOL There very well may not be enough evidence to support a crime in his courtroom, and he could of easily stated as much, but instead he chose to use his position to lecture based on religion and chastise the plaintiff in the case. He showed his bias long before I even got wind of this case. A judge isn't meant to espouse religious views in his chair and place a different level of respect between religions based on whether one is the "very essence" of that person or not. Showing such blatant bias towards one religion might have something to do with people thinking his decision was due to bias as well. In fact, while no lawyer or constitutional expert myself, I think he went outside his judicial boundaries by injecting so much religion into this case and outright stating that what the plaintiff did was in violation of the constitution, when it clearly was not.

Like I said Jim, the evidence doesn't support the claims made. Rather or not the judge was biased is inconsequential if no evidence of a crime exists. To me, based on the transcripts available, he was dispelling the false statements made by the plaintiff re: [muhammad rose from the dead, therefore he's a zombie, and I portrayed that]. No different than if he had lectured him on the zombie handbook saying zombies are more grayish than green. Speaking from ignorance in a court of law does make one look like a doofus. Furthermore, if you read the last line of the quote you used from the source I provided, you'll notice the judge said "you have that right." So when I say you're biased, its because I feel you have some preconceived notion about what happened and speak to it as truth, not merely without evidence, but in contrast to what it indicates. Laugh all you want, but I'd give you the same benefit of doubt-- a central assumption of our criminal justice system.

As to Gunny's question; I remember a month or so after 9/11 there was middle-eastern-ish guy leaving the bank, pushing the doors swiftly and making some loud remarks-- obviously pissed off. Guess what happened, some other guy took issue with his demeanor and knocked his ass out. No charges, no news story-- just one person being an asshole and another person censoring him. His race undoubtedly aggravated the circumstance, but was only a side-note to his overall demeanor and behavior.

[jimnyc]

Rather or not the judge was biased is inconsequential if no evidence of a crime exists.

No offense, but that's hilarious. If a Muslim judge shows bias, but in this particular case there might not be enough evidence to support a conviction, we just ignore that bias? I thought judges weren't supposed to be biased? If he is biased, have any other cases been effected as a result? Saying a judges bias is inconsequential is wrong. But if you're ok with it, that's your choice. I personally have a problem with biased judges who use the podium to espouse religious views.

[logroller]

No offense, but that's hilarious. If a Muslim judge shows bias, but in this particular case there might not be enough evidence to support a conviction, we just ignore that bias? I thought judges weren't supposed to be biased? If he is biased, have any other cases been effected as a result? Saying a judges bias is inconsequential is wrong. But if you're ok with it, that's your choice. I personally have a problem with biased judges who use the podium to espouse religious views.

Oh please, disagreeing with me is hardly offensive; but you can't see the forest for trees Jim. EVERYBODY HAS BIASES; acting on them is where a problem ensues. Say it was the Zombie Pope who was confronted, and in court the plaintiff says, well, the Pope molests children just like Jesus did, I was depicting that. You think a judge, Christian or not, is gonna let that slide? Its simply not true, and its not biased to admonish someone that what they said in a court of law under oath is completely without foundation and out-rightly false. It does, in fact, make one look like a doofus. Of course, he has that right to free speech, even if grounded in ignorance; but then, the judge has right to free speech too, doesn't he?

[revelarts]

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.


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.

I'd have to agree with Jim mostly here. the Judge , even if he is rebutting the plaintiff , is making a distinction between various religions and how they impact on free speech rights. In this case he says religion trumps speech, his religion in this case. It may not bear on the facts of this case but it's a bad statement to make for a judge legally.
Imagine if a Christian judge had said the same even if his ruling was based soley on the merits of the case. the ACLU would be trying to get him disbarred for his legally "inconsequential" but false statements on the 1st amendment. i can imagine some gay judge saying the same against a christian speaking in public against homosexuality. "it parts of their very essence therefore your 1st amendment rights are trumped" "I'm not ruling against you becuase of that HERE... I don't have to in this case but , for you future reference you can take that bit of legal info home with you, you" "homophobe!" ---or in this case--- "infidel!".

[jimnyc]

Oh please, disagreeing with me is hardly offensive; but you can't see the forest for trees Jim. EVERYBODY HAS BIASES; acting on them is where a problem ensues. Say it was the Zombie Pope who was confronted, and in court the plaintiff says, well, the Pope molests children just like Jesus did, I was depicting that. You think a judge, Christian or not, is gonna let that slide? Its simply not true, and its not biased to admonish someone that what they said in a court of law under oath is completely without foundation and out-rightly false. It does, in fact, make one look like a doofus. Of course, he has that right to free speech, even if grounded in ignorance; but then, the judge has right to free speech too, doesn't he?

I would say the EXACT same thing if this judge were Christian and chastised a plaintiff Muslim about his knowledge of Christianity. Bias has NO PLACE in the courtroom. Judges are supposed to be able to set aside their biases, not preach them. Once bias has been shown, his decision making process becomes suspect.

[revelarts]

Judge marky mark
“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 X. I understand you’re an atheist, but see Islam/Christianity/Homosexuality is not just a religion/sex, 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."



i'm not sure what right he's talking about in the 1st instance but, I thought free speech was an inalienably right, right?

but um.... being offensive is is outside of the 1st amendment? that's news ,Very very very offensive i guess is the legal standard.I

isn't there something in the law about having a chilling effect on people practice of there rights.

being wrong about the bill of rights is very very very very offensive to me. so the Judge has no right to say what he said i guess.

[Abbey Marie]

Re: The claim of insufficient evidence here- this is from the article posted above:


...the Muslim man admitted to his crime...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

[jimnyc]

Re: The claim of insufficient evidence here- this is from the article posted above:

What I don't get is the "lack of evidence". The Muslim man admitted to the police officer that he hit the guy but gave different testimony when in court. I wonder why he chose the Muslim mans different version as opposed to what he told the officer immediately after the incident? Weird.

[Abbey Marie]

What I don't get is the "lack of evidence". The Muslim man admitted to the police officer that he hit the guy but gave different testimony when in court. I wonder why he chose the Muslim mans different version as opposed to what he told the officer immediately after the incident? Weird.

Can you imagine what "justice" looks like in Muslim countries?

[logroller]

Re: The claim of insufficient evidence, from the article posted above:

What crime was that, assault? funny, they didn't charge him with assault.


There is, out of necessity, order in a court and when you speak falsely the judge has at his discretion the ability to criticize you for doing so. Same way he can rule upon objections and have evidence stricken, so too can he admonish those within his court for things he finds objectionable. Maybe he's a bad judge and needs to go; but based on the evidence provided, I don't conclude he based his decision on preconceived notions. I do, however, recognize a jurist has the duty to ponder the arguments based on his own predilection of what constitutes merit. He's a judge after all, in his own court, so he had to sit through arguments; and the fact is he found them not only without merit, but blatant misinterpretations of fact and personally offensive. Did he charge the plaintiff with speaking offensively...no, he did not, because its not a crime; he told him his behavior, though rightful, serves no purpose but to offend others. Still not a crime, free speech and all-- but the judge can speak freely too--You just find it offensive-- ironic, isn't it?

[jimnyc]

What crime was that, assault? funny, they didn't charge him with assault.

Funny, Abbey never said assault! LOL She said the suspect admitted to his CRIME, or quoted that portion from the article anwyay.

[logroller]

Funny, Abbey never said assault! LOL She said the suspect admitted to his CRIME, or quoted that portion from the article anwyay.


Where I used 'you', I apologize if she thought it was her, I meant it in as second person familiar, ie the reader, not her specifically....my apologies if she interpreted that way, as that wasn't my intent. My intent was to question the article's validity-- in which it failed to mention in it's entirety that the charge was harassment, not assault.

[jimnyc]

Where I used 'you', I apologize if she thought it was her, I meant it in as second person familiar, ie the reader, not her specifically....my apologies if she interpreted that way, as that wasn't my intent. My intent was to question the article's validity-- in which it failed to mention in it's entirety that the charge was harassment, not assault.

From what I understand, the Muslim man admitted to the PO on the scene that he did in fact assault/grab/choke the man, that he thought it was against the law and he was going to hold him and call police. He apparently had a change of heart and testified differently in court. I'm just a little surprised that the judge didn't take this into account, that he just tossed aside his earlier comments and didn't take the "admission" to the PO as being credible.

Now, IF he admitted as much to the PO, I can't see how he is not guilty of either assault OR harassment. At the very least, his "admission" makes him guilty of the harassment charge, but his admission was tossed aside.

Thanks for clearing up your prior post, makes sense now!

[logroller]

From what I understand, the Muslim man admitted to the PO on the scene that he did in fact assault/grab/choke the man, that he thought it was against the law and he was going to hold him and call police. He apparently had a change of heart and testified differently in court. I'm just a little surprised that the judge didn't take this into account, that he just tossed aside his earlier comments and didn't take the "admission" to the PO as being credible.

Now, IF he admitted as much to the PO, I can't see how he is not guilty of either assault OR harassment. At the very least, his "admission" makes him guilty of the harassment charge, but his admission was tossed aside.

Its tricky, rules of evidence and all. From what i understand the officer didn't get a statement from the defendant. And if he admitted to assaulting/grabbing/choking the man, even watched the video of the incident-- why wasn't the man arrested? Why were harassment charges filed instead of assault charges? Like I said, if the alleged did happen, I wish him to be punished; but the video isn't conclusive. and why isn't there other evidence; gee, I don't know, like statements from witnesses on scene (it was a parade after all). But no mention of that, which I think rests squarely on the officer on scene not doing his due diligence. The soap-boxing judge even mentioned the officer having not done more; so although I do think a crime went unpunished, I don't think the judge erred in his ruling-- he's just full of himself-- which I think most judges probably are. Which is funny really, because I am free to say that, but it would be unwise to do so in a court of law.

[logroller]

I'd have to agree with Jim mostly here. the Judge , even if he is rebutting the plaintiff , is making a distinction between various religions and how they impact on free speech rights. In this case he says religion trumps speech, his religion in this case. It may not bear on the facts of this case but it's a bad statement to make for a judge legally.
Imagine if a Christian judge had said the same even if his ruling was based soley on the merits of the case. the ACLU would be trying to get him disbarred for his legally "inconsequential" but false statements on the 1st amendment. i can imagine some gay judge saying the same against a christian speaking in public against homosexuality. "it parts of their very essence therefore your 1st amendment rights are trumped" "I'm not ruling against you becuase of that HERE... I don't have to in this case but , for you future reference you can take that bit of legal info home with you, you" "homophobe!" ---or in this case--- "infidel!".

I think you or I have better chance of being appointed to a federal court at this point, and no later the next municipal elections, he won't be behind the bench. But as he didn't actually apply his mistaken views on 1st Amendment rights, legally, he didn't do anything wrong. Its simply a bad statement for this judge to have made for political reasons; but legally, he's free to think and say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't infringe on the constitutional rights of another.