Penn. Judge: Muslims Allowed To Attack People For Insulting Mohammed.....

[MMC]

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.

That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.....snip~

Penn Judge Tosses Case in Which Muslim Was Accused of Attacking Atheist - Yahoo! News
<<<<< More Here!

I say.....

this Judge is a

This Judge needs to be brought to Justice.

What the hell if wrong with this Judge. I notice that those on the left in Politics are kinda having to whisper about Sharia Law coming to a neighborhood near you. Obama and crew went after Oklahoma's New law Concerning Sharia Law. Yet they have nothing to say about this? Due to his Culture and Religion the Judge Cited. Think Team Obama will get to protect this Judge? Where is Holder's azz on this issue? Since he is all about Constitutional Law. I'm sorry there can be no other interpretation as to what was committed here.

Let The Rant Begin!

 

[Goshin]

On the one hand, the law is the law, and the law says there are no "fighting words" that justify an assault, absent threat.


On the other hand, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that aspect of the law, and never have been sure that it is really just. A person can stand there are call your momma a whore and cuss you up one side and down the other in the most vicious manner possible, and under current law you're not allowed to punch him in the snout.

That's always bothered me a bit.

Clearly this judge is in violation of existing law and established legal precedent, and is holding his own opinions as being higher than the written law of the land. That's a problem.


OTOH there are things that are just not wise to do. My classic example is walking in to a biker bar at 2AM, standing on a stool and yelling "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS!!!" Do you have a right to free speech to do this? Yes you do. In the real world, it is incredibly stupid as anyone with half a brain would know your odds of getting out of there in one piece are about zero.

Mocking someone's deeply held religious beliefs isn't all that smart either. Even relatively mild-mannered persons may loose their cool when faced with something they feel egregiously insulting to their faith. Muslims are particularly sensitive about images or depictions of Mohammad, especially denigrating ones... and I think almost everyone knows that by now. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to dress up as Zombie Mohammad in public.... but if you do you'd better be aware that it is ALMOST as dangerous as the biker bar/Harley Davidson example above, if any devout Muslims are present.


Some would probably construe it as "hate speech"... not saying I agree, just saying you could look at it that way.


Again, yeah, this judge was way out of line because he did not follow the law. My knee jerk reaction is along the lines of torches-and-pitchforks too. I'm just pausing a moment to look at this from different angles and consider all sides. Perhaps we ought to take a second look at the issue of provocation as a mitigating defense, not simply for offended Muslims but as a general issue.... if you do something you ought to KNOW is likely to provoke someone past all endurance and restraint, are you really "innocent" of inciting the assault? It's a question to consider.

In the shorter term, though, the judge needs to be de-benched for failing to follow existing law.

 

[Pinkie]

There are very few words that justify an assault. "Gun" is the only one I can think of, offhand.

BTW, we already trashed this judge in another thread....could they be merged?

 

[samsmart]

On the one hand, the law is the law, and the law says there are no "fighting words" that justify an assault, absent threat.


On the other hand, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that aspect of the law, and never have been sure that it is really just. A person can stand there are call your momma a whore and cuss you up one side and down the other in the most vicious manner possible, and under current law you're not allowed to punch him in the snout.

That's always bothered me a bit.

Clearly this judge is in violation of existing law and established legal precedent, and is holding his own opinions as being higher than the written law of the land. That's a problem.


OTOH there are things that are just not wise to do. My classic example is walking in to a biker bar at 2AM, standing on a stool and yelling "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS!!!" Do you have a right to free speech to do this? Yes you do. In the real world, it is incredibly stupid as anyone with half a brain would know your odds of getting out of there in one piece are about zero.

Mocking someone's deeply held religious beliefs isn't all that smart either. Even relatively mild-mannered persons may loose their cool when faced with something they feel egregiously insulting to their faith. Muslims are particularly sensitive about images or depictions of Mohammad, especially denigrating ones... and I think almost everyone knows that by now. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to dress up as Zombie Mohammad in public.... but if you do you'd better be aware that it is ALMOST as dangerous as the biker bar/Harley Davidson example above, if any devout Muslims are present.


Some would probably construe it as "hate speech"... not saying I agree, just saying you could look at it that way.


Again, yeah, this judge was way out of line because he did not follow the law. My knee jerk reaction is along the lines of torches-and-pitchforks too. I'm just pausing a moment to look at this from different angles and consider all sides. Perhaps we ought to take a second look at the issue of provocation as a mitigating defense, not simply for offended Muslims but as a general issue.... if you do something you ought to KNOW is likely to provoke someone past all endurance and restraint, are you really "innocent" of inciting the assault? It's a question to consider.

In the shorter term, though, the judge needs to be de-benched for failing to follow existing law.

If someone uses "fighting words" against you, then the better thing to do rather than physically assault them is to sue them in court for emotional damages.

If I go into a biker bar and yell "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS!!!" yeah, I may get my ass kicked, but those bikers also subject themselves to possible arrest and conviction for an assault charge.

Free speech is free speech is free speech. If free speech can be responded to by violence with impunity it is no longer free.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The commentary seems to be somewhat different than how the participants report it.
But, w/e.


Penn Judge Tosses Case in Which Muslim Was Accused of Attacking Atheist - Yahoo! News

UPDATE: This commentary has been corrected to reflect the judge's official reason for throwing the case out. Also, even though -- in the recording of the proceeding -- the judge seemed to say he is a Muslim convert, Judge Martin is in fact a Lutheran.​

​

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran, threw the case out after ruling that there was insufficient evidence.​

I bet if we look harder, we will find more points where the commentary on a commentary and the OP's comments on that commentary on a commentary are at odds with reports of what actually happened.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Before the outrage was hyped.

West Shore judge dismisses harassment charge against accused 'Zombie Muhammad' attacker | PennLive.com

Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 2:39 PM Updated: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 2:44 PM

A district judge dismissed a harassment charge against a man accused of attacking a man dressed as "Zombie Muhammad" during a Halloween parade last year in Mechanicsburg.

Judge Mark Martin said there wasn't enough evidence to convict 46-year-old Talaag Elbayomy of the summary offense. It was basically one man's word against another's, the judge said​

 

[Ikari]

If I go into a biker bar and yell "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS!!!" yeah, I may get my ass kicked, but those bikers also subject themselves to possible arrest and conviction for an assault charge.

But you'd be right. Harley does suck, Yamaha is much better.

 

[Chiefgator]

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.

.....snip~

Penn Judge Tosses Case in Which Muslim Was Accused of Attacking Atheist - Yahoo! News

The updated quote from the article that you linked is:

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran, threw the case out after ruling that there was insufficient evidence. But then he berated the plaintiff in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

Notice the disclaimer at the top of the article

UPDATE: This commentary has been corrected to reflect the judge's official reason for throwing the case out. Also, even though -- in the recording of the proceeding -- the judge seemed to say he is a Muslim convert, Judge Martin is in fact a Lutheran.

The judge threw out the case because of lack of evidence. It had nothing to do with Sharia law.

I support the legislation being voted upon in FL and other states that ensures that Sharia law and other forign laws are not legal for consideration in American courts, but this is not a case where that happened.

I also find it interesting that there was also a person wearing a "Zombie Pope" costume in the parade. It seems the athiests in the parade were equal opportunity offenders...

 

[Gardener]

The judge threw out the case because of lack of evidence. It had nothing to do with Sharia law.

Actually, he refused to allow the evidence -- a big difference. In addition, he berated the plaintiff, called him names, and said his attacker was justified in attacking him.

The idiot needs to be removed from his position immediately.

 

[Chiefgator]

Actually, he refused to allow the evidence -- a big difference. In addition, he berated the plaintiff, called him names, and said his attacker was justified in attacking him.

The idiot needs to be removed from his position immediately.

If you want to argue the fact that the video should have been admitted, that is fine. It is a point worth arguing.

 

[MMC]

Regardless of the pro's and con's to the case. This Judge took an Oath and is Sworn to Defend the Constitution. I am not looking at the specific's of what religion it is. I wouldn't care if it was Christian, Buddhist, or even the Hindu's religion. There is no basis for the argument the Judge gave.

Another factor to consider as already mentioned. There was a Zombie Pope. I didn't see the Catholics and or any Christians lose control and attack the Zombie Pope.

 

[Caine]

I think this year Im going to be "Buddy Jesus" for Halloween....

 

[FreedomOf]

First, the Judge stated and I quote "If I was Muslim I'd be mad too", which was misinterpreted as " I am a Muslim" second, our Freedom of Speech does not cover speech that qualifies as "fighting words" or at least this was the long held definition that violated ones right to free speech. When crossing those fighting words line, you are in effect, inciting another human being. I do not know the particulars of this court case, but if this was thrown out for insufficient evidence then most likely there was in fact insufficient evidence and not a Christian Judge attempting to impose sharia law in the United States. This was a piece first done by Fox news and we all know how fair and impartial they are! They do not produce news of any kind. Other news organizations did not even pick up the story until this went viral.

 

[Peter King]

I am almost as leftwing like you can get (from an American perspective) but I think this judge is an idiot. No muslim has the right to attack people for insulting mohammed.

 

[FreedomOf]

I am almost as leftwing like you can get (from an American perspective) but I think this judge is an idiot. No muslim has the right to attack people for insulting mohammed.

I am in agreement with the "fighting words" theory, which was the basis for limiting freedom of speech in the Supreme Court for years. I believe the main problem we have with freedom of speech is the fact that it is used as a license to abuse others, and this is immoral. The very purpose of freedom of speech and of the press was to protect us from sedition laws. What we are seeing today is immoral speech being protected while sedition laws reinstated, albeit quietly and under different names while the masses are being fed bones that make them think they have real freedom of speech, but this was never the spirit of the law in the first place! Our founding fathers never used this freedom to abuse, they would all be rolling over in their graves if they knew of cases like Curley v. NAMBLA being defended as freedom of speech, while now we can go to jail for protesting peacefully and criticizing the government in an intellectual manner.

 

[Peter King]

I am in agreement with the "fighting words" theory, which was the basis for limiting freedom of speech in the Supreme Court for years. I believe the main problem we have with freedom of speech is the fact that it is used as a license to abuse others, and this is immoral. The very purpose of freedom of speech and of the press was to protect us from sedition laws. What we are seeing today is immoral speech being protected while sedition laws reinstated, albeit quietly and under different names while the masses are being fed bones that make them think they have real freedom of speech, but this was never the spirit of the law in the first place! Our founding fathers never used this freedom to abuse, they would all be rolling over in their graves if they knew of cases like Curley v. NAMBLA being defended as freedom of speech, while now we can go to jail for protesting peacefully and criticizing the government in an intellectual manner.

On the one hand you are right, freedom of speech is somewhat of a license to abuse others but one has to accept that in a society that holds the absolute freedom of speech in such high esteem. On the other hand it is also a great good for people to have. But that great freedom also should come with great responsibility to not abuse freedom of speech. If you use freedom of speech to call on people to commit acts of violence or to break the civil rights of others then freedom of speech should also have boundaries. Those Nambla people are just such a boundary case, these call upon having sex with minors, something that is against the law. If they want to change the law than that is their issue, but if they say to their members it is OK to have sex with kids than they should be stopped. Just like when a muslim says it is OK to kill white people for insulting mohammed.

If free speech is used to incite people to break laws than there should be a limit to free speech IMHO.

 

[FreedomOf]

. Just like when a muslim says it is OK to kill white people for insulting mohammed.

If free speech is used to incite people to break laws than there should be a limit to free speech IMHO.

ok, but that Muslim man killed no one, he did loose his temper, but he did not kill anyone nor did he say killing is right. But we are back to someone using this freedom of speech in order to insult and start a fight. What American in this country does not know how dearly Muslims hold religion and in what regard?

There are no Americans that don't know how to start a fight with a Muslim. As such, it is something used to simply incite another human being to anger and used to start a fight. As such should be unprotected under Supreme Court rulings.

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I am surprised but wiki actually has something on the topic, a decent starting point anyway!)

 

[longview]

This might qualify as a hate crime! The Muslim man clearly hated the man he attacked.
When people live with our level of freedom, they need a thicker skin.
I wonder if the Judge dismissed the charges with prejudice?

 

[Peter King]

ok, but that Muslim man killed no one, he did loose his temper, but he did not kill anyone nor did he say killing is right. But we are back to someone using this freedom of speech in order to insult and start a fight. What American in this country does not know how dearly Muslims hold religion and in what regard?

There are no Americans that don't know how to start a fight with a Muslim. As such, it is something used to simply incite another human being to anger and used to start a fight. As such should be unprotected under Supreme Court rulings.

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I am surprised but wiki actually has something on the topic, a decent starting point anyway!)

I am not a believer in the "fighting words concept" or that just because someone uses fighting words it is OK to react violently.

And I know how dear a muslim holds his religion, but a lot of them have no problem insulting other faiths, calling them infidels, shouting death to infidels and stuff like that.

I think people should kerb their violent tendencies at all times, even when provoked with "fighting words", only actual physical violence IMHO is a valid reason to start using violence in response, but then only to defend yourself.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The man won, not because assaulting a person wearing a Mohammed costume is ok or legal, but because the judge could not find enough evidence to nail him. It was essentially two men's word against the other. The judge's admonishment of the plaintiff and not the defendant was odd though. He should have taken the opportunity to make the plaintiff's rights clear to the defendant, but he was not entirely in the wrong by pointing out the jack-assery of the plaintiff's actions.

 

[jimbo]

The man won, not because assaulting a person wearing a Mohammed costume is ok or legal, but because the judge could not find enough evidence to nail him. It was essentially two men's word against the other. The judge's admonishment of the plaintiff and not the defendant was odd though. He should have taken the opportunity to make the plaintiff's rights clear to the defendant, but he was not entirely in the wrong by pointing out the jack-assery of the plaintiff's actions.

A guy is marching in a parade in a zombie suit. Someone from off the curb runs into the parade and attacks the guy in the zombie suit. Video cameras record the incident. Hundreds of witnesses standing around. Judge refuses the video evidence, then alleges insufficient evidence. Gives as justification that it is all right to attack if you are mad and a muslim.

Judge need to practice in some other country.

 

[MMC]

The fighting words theory holds no weight. We can look at straight up gang-banger neighborhoods. None will just go up into their hood and talk shizznit about them or mock them. That being said. As others brought out. Plenty of witnesses and or evidence to the event.

This Judge can't get around that fact.