US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

[RACER X]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740

People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists. That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to 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.

The astonishing details, from Opposing Views:

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure.

Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution:

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharia law.

As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment:

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ”to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.”


----------------------------------------
a little more balanced

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1304764.html

A storm of controversy has erupted over the ruling of a Pennsylvania judge to dismiss a case against a Muslim man accused last October of attacking an atheist who marched as "Zombie Muhammad" in a local Halloween parade.

Citing a lack of admissible evidence, Cumberland County Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin dismissed harassment charges against Talaag Elbayomy, a muslim immigrant who was recorded in a grainy video last October physically engaging another man, Ernest Perce V, during the Oct. 11 parade in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Perce, a member of the "Parading Atheists of Central PA," filed a complaint with police alleging that Elbayomy attacked him during the parade and inflicted bodily harm, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

"He grabbed me, choked from the back, spun me around to try to get [my "Muhammad of Islam" sign] off that was wrapped around my neck," Perce told ABC 27 News.

Elbayomy in turn filed a complaint with police alleging that Perce instigated the attacks and told courts that he never touched him during the argument. But the officer who took the pair's complaints, Sgt. Brian Curtis, told ABC 27 that Elbayomy admitted at the scene to grabbing Perce's sign and pulling his fake beard, which led Curtis to charge him with harassment.

Saying that the case represents one man's word against the other and that the video is inadmissible, Judge Martin threw out the charge against Elbayomy, Fox News reports.

But in announcing his ruling, Martin also made remarks that have led a number of organizations to accuse him of bringing religion into the courtroom.

Writing for American Atheists, Al Stefanelli said he was particularly concerned with portions of Martin's remarks where he "offers a lesson on Islam."

According to a transcribed audio recording of Martin's remarks posted to YouTube by Perce, which was later re-transcribed for clarity by the National Review Online, the judge told Perce that "what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive."

Judge Martin continued:

If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are 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.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote that wherever Martin's religious leanings many fall, the greater issue is that "his legal views seem grotesquely out of place."

"There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture," Turley wrote. "... I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct."

Since the controversial ruling was handed down, Perce says he has received hundreds of death threats.

“People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad,” Perce told The Daily Caller. “They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family.”

[RACER X]

The second article indicates that he dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. Another article includes the fact that he disallowed a video to be shown as evidence.

Here is the other article... from

http://tpaoa.wordpress.com/2012/02/2...of-sharia-law/

"Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are 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”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”[/

[jtemple]

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.

All I really read was that.

Just a fine example of the one-way street that is tolerance.

[Trip]

Muslim dude is a white dude that is an Iraq war veteran too. Recent convert...

Pic goodness of zombie mohammed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1304764.html

[tommymac]

how bout next year we go to that town and all dress up as mohammed zombies and beat this guys ass.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Trip

Muslim dude is a white dude that is an Iraq war veteran too. Recent convert...

Are you serious? If so, what a fucking idiot

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Are you serious? If so, what a fucking idiot

Dude in the middle is the Judge, his name is Mark Martin.

[pauldun170]

http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges...heist-parader/

[pauldun170]

....key sections

A police officer reports that Elbayomy had admitted that he grabbed the parader and tried to grab his sign; but it’s possible that the judge found this evidence to not be credible enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal harassment, which requires an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,” and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not qualify, see the pen-grabbing discussion in this case. The acquittal itself might thus be justified, depending on exactly what evidence was introduced.

This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).

I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).

He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).

He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.

When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.

[Adeptus_Minor]

So now we know what we have to get the Westboro assholes to dress up as so their asses can be beaten in such a way that leaves them no legal recourse.