Penn judge throws out assault case for insulting muhammed

[bingley]

ok, im gonna ask the glaring question everyone is wanting to ask.

how is Mark Martin judging court cases from his race car anyhow?

 

[mettle]

I assume it would be against the rules to comment on this.

Naturally ...

 

[steveh_131]

Careful about the news report. Let's look at another source:

Cumberlink.com: Cumberland County magisterial district judge berated over case dismissal

I'll quote a few passages:



Then take a look at the relevant section on the physical altercation:



I think this story is getting sensationalized because Islam was involved. We're reacting and screaming "Sharia Law! Sharia Law!" when that is not it. Now, the judge perhaps drew attention to Islam by lecturing the protestor on cultural sensitivity, but his ruling does not seem blatantly partial.



Don't get played by the media trying to rile you up.

I read the article you linked, as well as all the comments made by the judge.

I'm still pretty riled up. This judge had no business lecturing him on his interpretation of the Koran, whether he was right or wrong. He knew the Muslim tried to rip the sign out of his hands and the beard off of his face. He pretty much implied that he deserved it for doing something offensive.

Does this meet the definition of 'assault' in that state? I'm really not sure. But what the victim was doing or wearing was completely irrelevant to the case and, to me, showed severe bias on the part of the judge. That's my gripe with it.

 

[femurphy77]

Folks, please don't make the staff have to start banning people. This is your in-thread warning.



The subject matter of this thread seems to make it "necessary" to cross that line. It's not. Example: "As in any other case where he couldn't be impartial, the judge should have recused himself."

Thanks for your help in sticking to this long-standing rule.

Blessings,
Bill

Well, uh. . . .then I got nuthin'

 

[Ogre]

I read the article you linked, as well as all the comments made by the judge.

I'm still pretty riled up. This judge had no business lecturing him on his interpretation of the Koran, whether he was right or wrong. He knew the Muslim tried to rip the sign out of his hands and the beard off of his face. He pretty much implied that he deserved it for doing something offensive.

Does this meet the definition of 'assault' in that state? I'm really not sure. But what the victim was doing or wearing was completely irrelevant to the case and, to me, showed severe bias on the part of the judge. That's my gripe with it.

A better question is why wasn't this a "hate" crime against non-muslims????

 

[bingley]

I read the article you linked, as well as all the comments made by the judge.

I'm still pretty riled up. This judge had no business lecturing him on his interpretation of the Koran, whether he was right or wrong. He knew the Muslim tried to rip the sign out of his hands and the beard off of his face. He pretty much implied that he deserved it for doing something offensive.

Does this meet the definition of 'assault' in that state? I'm really not sure. But what the victim was doing or wearing was completely irrelevant to the case and, to me, showed severe bias on the part of the judge. That's my gripe with it.

The charge was not assault. The charge was harassment.

I think the news article demonstrates that the judge also regarded the plaintiff's action or mode of dress irrelevant to the ruling. He dismissed the charge because of the lack of evidence to support the harassment charge, not because somehow the plaintiff "deserved it." The police had a statement from the plaintiff, but no corroborating witnesses in an area that was probably crowded, and that certainly had police presence. The judge found this suspicious.

I'm not trying to defend one side or the other. I just think we need to pay attention to the facts of the case and the to the reasoning of the ruling, because it's easy to get emotional in a case like this. People are already jumping to conclusion at the perceived favoritism shown towards the defendant. I daresay there wouldn't be a whole lot of controversy if the defendant were Christian, he the plaintiff dressed up as "zombie Jesus," and if the judge was an evangelical. People would pay more attention to the actual reasoning of the judgment.

 

[remman]

Wow, their goes impartiality that a judge is supposed to maintain. Judge is a convert to [STRIKE]Muslim[/STRIKE] Islam.

Fixed it for you.

People don't practice the religion of Muslim. They practice Islam. People that practice Islam are Muslims. Now, being a devout Christian, I still believe they are wrong, but being a strong Conservative, I also think that statements like that classify people like me (who study other religions to help make my faith stronger), as "ignorant, gun toting, Bible believing ____" (insert whatever personal insult may seem to fit the situation).

Edit: I also think that was a very poorly written article. It kinda reminded me of something I'd read on the Onion...

 

[96firephoenix]

There used to be laws known as "fighting words" laws. Basically, there were certain things that you could expect to get hit for saying... Mostly allegations against another man's wife, personal insults of the gross variety... They are back, and Mohammed is their prophet.

 

[HICKMAN]

what makes me sick is the judge is an Army Reservist as well...

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

I assume it would be against the rules to comment on this.

 

[bingley]

Just a follow-up. I will defend the right of the protestor to express his beliefs as he did, no matter how repugnant they may be. But then again, I and anyone else in the US also have that right. I can tell the protestor what I think of his beliefs or his means of expression. In this case, I consider Zombie Jesus, Zombie Muhammed, or Zombie Zeus to be in very poor taste, uncivil, and deserving of criticism. There are tasteful, civil ways to make the case for atheism, and dressing up as zombies is not one of them. The protestor was an idiot for doing so.

Do I think people should physically assault the protestor? No. He should be protected from physical harm. But the freedom of speech doesn't mean that others cannot criticize you, especially if you are making a boneheaded statement, or expressing your beliefs in a boneheaded way.

Should the judge have gotten on his hobbyhorse to chastise the plaintiff and exercise his own freedom of speech? Harder to say. I'm not sure what the convention is in the court. In this case it seems politically INcorrect for the judge to speak out, because the political fallout is considerable. But let's change the scenario a bit. If there was a case of altercation between two drunks at a bar, and the judge slaps them with drunk and disorderly, and then spends ten minutes yelling at them for acting like jerks and ruining the evening for other patrons at the bar -- would that be acceptable?

 

[cobber]

Sounds like B misdemeanor battery, or disorderly conduct by Elbayomy.

Whatever the judge thought of Perce's costume, and posting on You Tube, Perce had a right to express his opinion and Elbayomy also had a right to express himself.

Just not physically.

However, how would folks react if they saw Mr. Elbayomy and friends burning an American flag on the streets of Mechanicsburg?

 

[beararms1776]

The guy physically attacked him in the U.S. It should have been on like donkey kong.

 

[Caldad]

What has happened to our country? When did the nut-jobs take over?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The critical element definitely is that the judge had no defensible reason to lecture on the sensibilities of Islam. We have, among other rights, freedom of speech and expression. There is no such thing as a right to be free from getting offended, which is what the judge is selling in addition to clear sympathies with a religious group on account of that religion as opposed to the law. The most significant element is that the judge has decided that foreign religious customs trump the rule of law as his lecture clearly indicates, in clear violation of the First Amendment in terms of both establishment (using religious doctrine in place of the law) and freedom of expression (as expression not subject to specific regulation as slanderous/libelous or indecency) no matter that some may find that expression offensive. While here, I will also point out that we have a progressively more serious problem growing as becoming offended has become a cottage industry among a number of groups among us of religious, ethnic, and political natures, or any combination of all these attributes. Criminal justice and the politics of division are a very dangerous mix!

This also brings to mind the eruption of protest over the Oklahoma law clearly making it illegal to use Sharia, any foreign law, international law, or anything other than the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Oklahoma in an Oklahoma courtroom. This seems not only perfectly reasonable, but something that should be a foregone conclusion without specifically legislating on the matter. One wonders why it was so important to selected (and disparate, I might add) groups to get this stopped.

It would seem that now is the time to address the fact that the court's proper function is to rule based upon the laws of Congress and the applicable one of the fifty state legislatures, and the US and applicable state Constitutions. Nothing else. It is simply not a judge's prerogative to rule, or even chastise, based upon any foreign law or any religious or philosophical creed, or anything other than the law. Further, the judge'e little religion lesson was totally unacceptable. If the plaintiff needed that, he could have sought out the appropriate religious leader to give him a lesson or sermon as the case may be.

How is that for dealing with the subject without straying beyond the limits of the rules?

 

[88GT]

You would very likely be guilty of provocation, especially with your intent stated here.


IC 35-42-2-3
Provocation
Sec. 3. A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in conduct that is likely to provoke a reasonable man to commit battery commits provocation, a Class C infraction.





While the IC does not give proof of provocation as a positive defense on the part of one committing battery, your "defense" of self in such a circumstance might be seen as battery or some other crime under the circumstance.

I think your claim fails on this 3-word phrase.

 

[dross]

What has happened to our country? When did the nut-jobs take over?

It's a toss-up. Maybe it was when we were decided we had a divine right to own other people to work our farms, or you might say it was when the Puritans showed up with their "fun is sin" ideology, or perhaps you could trace it back even earlier to the Indians with their "torture is fun" recreational practices.

In any case, it was before you were born.

 

[cbseniour]

What ever happened to the idea of equal justice under law???

 

[88GT]

What ever happened to the idea of equal justice under law???

Seriously?

You've heard the phrase "Best laid plans of mice and men," right?

The problem with every form of self-governance mankind has ever devised is that it relies on humans to behave contradictory to their natural instinct. Altruism is not a good thing on which to base a form of government. And make no mistake: demanding that one person acknowledge and respect the rights of another is a mandate for altruism.

 

[CA expat]

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke on so many levels.
I can't help wonder how many other judges would have made his decision?....