DescentBB

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslim ... 00330.html

Time until this gets overturned on appeal and the judge severely sanctioned/removed: not long.

where, pray tell, did this judge, at any point in the proceeding, cite Sharia law? The answer is NOWHERE. Please quit with blatantly lying to make a dubious point, TB, as it makes you(as the judge told the 'victim', after the guy made up a story about something in the Koran) appear to be a doofus. The judges summation, in his own words:

"If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation, something far more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge."

No mention of Sharia, just PA State law on the charge of harrassment, and citation of the testimony in the case. Once again, you rant about nothing. And no, TG, there seems to be ZERO grounds for appeal if you follow the whole transcript.


edit, the words in color are from the transcript of the trial. Note the charge being dismissed. NOT ASSAULT

So let me get this straight…using your right to free speech, is now legal justification for assault.

no one was charged with assault. He was charged with harassment, a sort of goofy statute in PA which frequently gets used when folks mix it up(my daughter got charged, and found guilty, once for wresting over the car keys belonging to a female friend that was WAY too drunk to be driving). The judge didn't cite the first amendment other than to say that they guy in the Zombie costume was pushing the boundries, but the charges were dismissed due to lack of firm evidence of intent to harass. Now, don't get me wrong here, I think the law is goofy, I think the Muslim over-reacted, I think the judge ought not be giving comparative theology lectures from the bench, but at no point was Sharia law invoked, and THAT was TB's foundation point.

judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion.

Is this true? On top of that, the police at the scene saw fit to arrest and charge the man for assault.

EDIT:Good judgment would have had this guy recuse himself.

I repeat, for Flip's benefit, that NO ONE was charged with assault, the charge was harassment. The prof from GWU apparently has some sort of ax to grind with the concept of Sharia in the US(still has never been used as legal defense, ever). A review of the transcript, the summation of which I quoted directly shows this.

Let me get this straight. There's a parade. Some random stranger sitting on the side of the road watching the parade, gets enraged at what he see's, and charges into the parade attacking one of the participants. It may not ended up as assault when it got tried, but I bet you it most certainly started out that way.

The judges ruling: He has an obligation under his religious constraints to attack the man.

EDIT:It's the judges ruling here and his stated opinion that matters

Maybe I should consider becoming muslim. I know a few people I would have busted in the mouth had i known i would be exonerated for it.

I suppose that's what I get for not even noticing that this article was a "commentary" by some random schlub. It doesn't even seem to link to that original transcript you posted, slik. If the guy wasn't even charged with assault, then the whole thing is kind of moot.

Oh, and reading the comments on that article is a great way to lose whatever faith in humanity you might have left.

Incident here

Eh, after watching this the guy is a douchebag. Little more than a shouting match that the marcher was antagonizing.

I do agree with the guy's right to dress like that if he wants, but quite honestly, I don't find that particular form of douchebag militant atheism all that much more appealing than the current Afghanistan lunacy over Quran-burning.

Why the big panic over the usage of the term “assault” I didn’t say battery…I said assault!

Harassment has to take some kind of form…in this case it was assault.

(Anybody with a proper education knows that assault can take the form of something as simple as yelling at someone)

Wiki wrote:In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence.

Battery is where there's actual physical contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

That's why they say "assault AND battery" for a physical attack on another person.

Funny how no Catholics got enraged at the guy dressed up as the zombie pope...

I'm not sure the Catholic Church, with their extensive history, can claim to be a peaceful corporation. Just saying.

I think this is a case where the details don't matter and it all comes down to what the judges ruling was and why. From what I've read so far, the judge should be removed from the bench.

Except the details do matter, since the actual charge here is what determines whether the judge's decision was sensible or outrageous. I thought it was a ridiculous decision going by the listed charge of assault, but apparently that was incorrect; if you're going by the definition of "harassment," what we saw in that video didn't seem to fit.

Top Gun wrote:I do agree with the guy's right to dress like that if he wants, but quite honestly, I don't find that particular form of douchebag militant atheism all that much more appealing than the current Afghanistan lunacy over Quran-burning.

agreed, completely, and well-put!

flip wrote:I think this is a case where the details don't matter and it all comes down to what the judges ruling was and why. From what I've read so far, the judge should be removed from the bench.

Why? He ruled on the facts, which were that the assailant, who may or may not have been goaded into the confrontation(which, as noted by others was far more verbal than physical) did not have any fomed intent to do anything, as judged by the evidence presented(including the evidence by the police, presumably). That's all he did. Frankly, I think more PA district justices could give as much thought to minor charges like harassment or disturbing the peace. Most simply accept the charged as guilty and collect a $200 fine for their township. For what it is worth, a look through the regional press in South Central PA shows no public outcry. This case never made it into my paper and I live less than 50 miles away. That should tell you a lot, as should the fact that some anti Muslim wingnut in DC writes a 'commentary' piece on it.

despite some differences of opinion over tolerance of rude behavior, I would hope that all(save the by-now-obviously biased TB)
see that at no point did the judge invoke or worse, rule based upon, Sharia Law. Once again, loons, and I say this knowing that I am insulting a beautiful waterfowl, feel obligated to lie in order to bolster their own xenophobia and intolerance. That such blatant falsehood is accepted for even a second by right-thinking folks should be a disgrace in a nation founded upon tolerance.

So... the article is a lie, then. Shame on Yahoo.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So... the article is a lie, then. Shame on Yahoo.

indeed, but then again, why should anyone believe any opinion piece, especially Internet opinion pieces?

Your point is valid, but to answer your rhetorical question, regardless of the world we find ourselves in, it's because anyone disseminating information, in whatever form, has a responsibility to at least present the fact in a recognizable form as such. Ergo Yahoo should be ashamed, and to ignore such a display is to have no shame. (tried by best to work in "apropos" somewhere in there, but it just didn't happen )

A slant toward sensationalism about court cases (and subsequent outrage at the skewed view) is nothing new.

---

I particularly recall a thread here from a couple years ago where an article about a rape verdict resulted in outrage ("5-second delay = rape?!").

Sure, from reading the article, it seemed like a huge injustice, and people were calling out the judge/jury as morons. ...But when someone here found the actual court case, it became clear the article was completely misrepresenting the details.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your point is valid, but to answer your rhetorical question, regardless of the world we find ourselves in, it's because anyone disseminating information, in whatever form, has a responsibility to at least present the fact in a recognizable form as such. Ergo Yahoo should be ashamed, and to ignore such a display is to have no shame. (tried by best to work in "apropos" somewhere in there, but it just didn't happen )

From the disclaimer at the top, it looks like this particular article wasn't written by Yahoo's own employees, but instead by a "community commentator." It does beg the question of how smart it is to allow people to post crap like this under Yahoo's banner without any sort of editorial oversight, though.