Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

BusyAfternoon

Literotica Guru
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Posts
2,041
Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad


COMMENTARY | 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.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

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.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
 
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. (WHTM) -
It almost sounds like the makings of a joke: an atheist, a Muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren't laughing about an attack and insist what's really frightening is the way a district judge ruled on it.

The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammed. On YouTube, you can catch a scary moment. It's dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.

"He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.

The Muslim man and Perce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.

"Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him," he said.

Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment, but District Judge Mark Martin threw it out after criticizing Perce, the victim, and even calling him a "doofus." The audio is also on YouTube.

Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.

"He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack," Perce said.

R. Mark Thomas represented Elbayomy and applauds the judge.

"I think this was a good dressing down by the judge," he said. "The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn't do anything I wouldn't have done if I was in that position."

Although Elbayomy denied touching Perce at trial, Curtis said he admitted grabbing Perce's sign and beard the night of the incident.

Talaag Elbayomy said he was at the parade with his wife and two kids and felt he just had to do something. In fact, he too called police because he thought it was a crime for someone to depict Muhammed in such a way. He has since learned otherwise.
http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/midstate-judge-rules-against-attack-on-atheist-in-costume
 
Nobody is right in this story, not the Atheist, the Judge or the Peaceful follower of Muhammad.

As an Atheist I cannot believe how many of my fellows have that need to openly mock and impugn religion, but Free Speech protection is the guarantor of offensive speech.

The Judge is a clear product of tolerance and diversity training; Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg is probably proud as hell of the guy for having the ability to get beyond the Constitution.

The attacked just confirms that which many of us know about Islam that so many of our fellows write off as the ignorant fear of the unwashed and uneducated masses...

:(

The two religions, Islam and Secularism prey upon the very types of minds they ascribe to their deniers, apostates and infidels and give them the validation they need to behave, to borrow an Obama phrase, "stupidly" while at once admitting they don't need that facts to know what they know, they just know it.
 
Nobody is right in this story, not the Atheist, the Judge or the Peaceful follower of Muhammad.

As an Atheist I cannot believe how many of my fellows have that need to openly mock and impugn religion, but Free Speech protection is the guarantor of offensive speech.

The Judge is a clear product of tolerance and diversity training; Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg is probably proud as hell of the guy for having the ability to get beyond the Constitution.

The attacked just confirms that which many of us know about Islam that so many of our fellows write off as the ignorant fear of the unwashed and uneducated masses...

:(

The two religions, Islam and Secularism prey upon the very types of minds they ascribe to their deniers, apostates and infidels and give them the validation they need to behave, to borrow an Obama phrase, "stupidly" while at once admitting they don't need that facts to know what they know, they just know it.


What Constitutional issues are raised in a simple assault case:confused:
 
why do morons make moronic alts just to post political nonsense?

it's not like you look any less stupid under your original handle, might as well just throw it all down under one name
 
What Constitutional issues are raised in a simple assault case:confused:

Free Speech

The assault was a denial of said right.

"Talaag Elbayomy said he was at the parade with his wife and two kids and felt he just had to do something. In fact, he too called police because he thought it was a crime for someone to depict Muhammed in such a way. He has since learned otherwise."
 
why do morons make moronic alts just to post political nonsense?

it's not like you look any less stupid under your original handle, might as well just throw it all down under one name

Says the girl who changed her name from BadGirl23...


:rolleyes:
 
Good lord... I'm not inclined to school you on basic Constitutional Law this morning, suffice to say; one private individual cannot deny the Constitutional rights of another private citizen. Because, you know, the Constitution defines the power of the government, and protects the citizenry from violations of those rights by the government.
 
Is this judge a federal judge, appointed too the bench...or an elected judge. District judge. If elected. I hope the citizens get their acts together, and vote this guys out. petition his ass onto the next ballot
 
Says the girl who changed her name from BadGirl23...


:rolleyes:


it's still the one account.


though that's funny, i wasn't talking about you. do you consider yourself an alt? i consider you just another incarnation of a poster, a single entity., despite name changes.

so sensitive.

the OP is an alt of someone else created just to post political BS, which is what i consider fucking stupid.
 
it's still the one account.


though that's funny, i wasn't talking about you. do you consider yourself an alt? i consider you just another incarnation of a poster, a single entity., despite name changes.

so sensitive.

the OP is an alt of someone else created just to post political BS, which is what i consider fucking stupid.

I did not infer that you were addressing me.
 
Good lord... I'm not inclined to school you on basic Constitutional Law this morning, suffice to say; one private individual cannot deny the Constitutional rights of another private citizen. Because, you know, the Constitution defines the power of the government, and protects the citizenry from violations of those rights by the government.

So I do not have a right to dress as Jesus and walk in a parade?

Put a cross into urine?

;) ;)
 
So I do not have a right to dress as Jesus and walk in a parade?

Put a cross into urine?

;) ;)

In order to have a violation of Constitutional rights, there has to be some form of governmental action. I'm not sure how your hypotheticals above are relevant to the issues at hand.

A better hypothetical - I hold you down and tell you not to say a thing. Every time you make a sound I punch you in the mouth (not me personally, I abhor violence). I haven't restricted your Constitutional right to free speech.
 
In order to have a violation of Constitutional rights, there has to be some form of governmental action. I'm not sure how your hypotheticals above are relevant to the issues at hand.

A better hypothetical - I hold you down and tell you not to say a thing. Every time you make a sound I punch you in the mouth (not me personally, I abhor violence). I haven't restricted your Constitutional right to free speech.


every time boyfriend gags me he's violating my constitutional rights.

i must inform him of this and see if he cares.
 
The Judge agreed it was a first amendment case...

;) ;)

“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.
“When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans’. This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say,” Martin says.


Read more: http://cumberlink.com/news/local/cu...036-11e1-be13-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1naO2p4uY
 
Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad


COMMENTARY | 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.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

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.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.


the judge is wrong, I would convert to islam just to kick that fucktards ass

remember, islmaic men love to dance in dresses
 
every time boyfriend gags me he's violating my constitutional rights.

i must inform him of this and see if he cares.

This lot were running around here the other day with their panties in a bunch over the (US) Constitutional violations committed by some guy in Canada.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 
In order to have a violation of Constitutional rights, there has to be some form of governmental action. I'm not sure how your hypotheticals above are relevant to the issues at hand.

A better hypothetical - I hold you down and tell you not to say a thing. Every time you make a sound I punch you in the mouth (not me personally, I abhor violence). I haven't restricted your Constitutional right to free speech.


you are more or less a left wing fucktard, do you feel that the islmaic nut case had a right to attack the person?

yes or no?

if yes, to you feel the islamic nutcase should be punished for the assault?

yes or no
 
This lot were running around here the other day with their panties in a bunch over the (US) Constitutional violations committed by some guy in Canada.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

i laughed. therefore i declare it funny AND sad!
 
Yes, you can crap on Jesus but you cannot mock the Prophet.:rolleyes:

makes you go, WTF! what the hell is wrong with people? why does the left aka pro obama people cowtail to islam?

obama, and the left have tuned America into the land of pussies

(non sexual manner)
 
In order to have a violation of Constitutional rights, there has to be some form of governmental action. I'm not sure how your hypotheticals above are relevant to the issues at hand.

A better hypothetical - I hold you down and tell you not to say a thing. Every time you make a sound I punch you in the mouth (not me personally, I abhor violence). I haven't restricted your Constitutional right to free speech.

Yes, you can crap on Jesus but you cannot mock the Prophet.:rolleyes:

What governmental action occurred that OWS hid behind its right to assemble?
 
Back
Top