Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Originally posted by joewalker
Lying? Harsh words fella. Im hurt, though, unlike your other statements I'm sure you can back that up.

No problem - You said

Originally posted by joewalker
Apparently, threatening to call the Police for a non existant crime (as the defendent did) is now assault pmpl.

The charges did not stem from calling the police, as you are claiming here. I say this because I posted the video - twice as well as the transcripts - twice. Apparently you failed to read them. If you did you would see there is nothing about calling the police and an assault.

Originally posted by joewalker
And yet the defendent was charged with harassment. You failed to answer earlier, but who decides what charges a suspect will face?

The Prosecuting Attorney is the final decision maker when it comes to what a person will be charged with. When police take a person into custody and they go to jail, the police have a limited amount of time to complete their report and submit them to the PA. If the PA takes no action the person is released with no charges. If the PA takes to long to decide (usually 24/48 hours depending on state) the individual is released.

If I arrest a person for assault and submit all of the paper work, the PA can review the information and opt to file a different / lesser charge. Some laws contain whats called a lesser included offense, which trips people up at times.

As an example -
In my state if a person breaks into a house at 2 AM, he broke 2 laws - Trespassing and Burglary of a residence. The person cannot be charged with both crimes, because trespassing is a lesser included offense of burglary.

If I work a drunk driving accident that resulted in a fatality (drunk killed the driver in the other car) I cannot charge the drunk driver with DWI and Involuntary manslaughter. DWI is a lesser included offense of Involuntary manslaughter.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

All are expected to remain impartial and judge based on the law itself.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia has cited the Talmud before, unlike the Judge in this case who of course referenced the Constitution.

Go figure.

reply to post by Chickensalad

If the judge's view of religious obligation is allowed to run its full course then the mass killings can begin anytime and be supported by law. This is a huge miscarriage of justice. The decision should be appealed and the judge should be impeached and removed from office. This is a disgrace.

Guess those Muslims showed that Atheist what he is. Dhimmi. Nothing to see her now. Move on.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Lol thats why I used the word Apparently. Now talking of lying, you wrote:

The Judge made an error when he disregarded state law concerning assaults, and instead state the man has a right as a Muslim to attack him for insulting Mohammed. Under US law its not permissible to assault another person unless done so in self defense.

Naughty Xcathdra.

I would have spit at the judge, and walked out of the courtroom, what an out rage, and an injustice...
2

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

All are expected to remain impartial and judge based on the law itself.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia has cited the Talmud before, unlike the Judge in this case who of course referenced the Constitution.

Go figure.

The function of the US Supreme Court is not to hear trials. They review cases that deal solely with Constitutional Issues that have already gone through local / county /state / state appeals courts / state supreme courts / federal circuits / federal appeals circuits, then USSC.

People called Oklahoma racist for passing a law banning the use of Sharia Law in the courts.

Now you see why. Activist judges are a serious threat to the people of America, they don't care about America's Laws, only their own power and those that they agree with.

reply to post by joewalker


So after posting it twice, you failed to watch or even read the transcripts...

ok

reply to post by Xcathdra

Splitting hairs X, A supreme Court Justice sought guidence from a religious book, or least a book based on religious decisions.

The Judge in this case sought guidence in the Constitution and nowhere else, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary from posters less able than your good self.

reply to post by joewalker


He didn't just reference the Constitution he pissed on it.

Originally posted by LErickson
reply to post by Chickensalad

 

I am not sure your understand of Sharia law is going to help in this context. It seems almost no one on ATS actually knows what Sharia law is. Mainly I say that because nothing in this thread has anything to do with Sharia law and to bring it up makes it appear that people hear Muslim and just respond.

BS!! I am a Muslim, as my father was before me, as my son is after me, and even I dont agree with this brother assaulting someone for something trivial like wearing a zombie Mohammed (sallah lah u'ah sallem) costume, its wrong, its assault on someone fro excercising their right to free speech in a supposed democracy!! And for the judge to let this guy of, the judge should be struck off!! He obviousy shows favouritism for certain individuals and not others, thats wrong!!! thats what causes miscarraiges of justice, there was a report in my local paper of 2 21 year olds today getting away with rape of an 11 year girl as apparently she consented to it, do you think the judge was right their as well, coz the girl consented? and they recorded it!! assault is still assault, and underage sex with consent is still rape!! this is political correctness gone mad...

reply to post by Xcathdra

Eight hours on and Im still waiting for you to post where the Judge invoked sharia in his decision. Most people understand why the charge was thrown out...even Jonathan Turley accepts there could be confliction in the evidence.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Eight hours on and Im still waiting for you to post where the Judge invoked sharia in his decision. Most people understand why the charge was thrown out...even Jonathan Turley accepts there could be confliction in the evidence.

Im still waiting for you to read my 2 posts with the video and the transcript, at which point you will see what im talking about.

"Judge" Martin isn't, he is a clown and a travesty.

I remember a couple of years ago another case of a white female teacher in a Muslim country getting thrown in jail for, now get this, calling the class pet rabbit mohammed, but the best part is it was the Muslim children that chose the name for it in the first place!!

reply to post by jaguarsky

While I think the Muslim gentleman needs to realize he is no longer living in a country where that kind of behavior is acceptible

But he IS living in a country where that kind of behavior is acceptable... IF YOU ARE MEMBER OF A MINORITY GROUP!

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Splitting hairs X, A supreme Court Justice sought guidence from a religious book, or least a book based on religious decisions.

The Judge in this case sought guidence in the Constitution and nowhere else, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary from posters less able than your good self.

Actually no really its not...

The Supreme Court is not a trial court. The functions of the different courts are there for a reason, and the Supreme Court is the final stop when their is a question about the constitutionality of a law or action that lower state / federal courts are having issues resolving - hence the appeals.

Also, before you cite court cases as saying something, you should take the time to lcoate and read the actual court decisions.

In the case you are referring to - Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. you are taking the religious part and are attempting to argue that it justifies the judge in Pennsylvania.

If you would have done your homework you would know that the issue revolved around conflict of interests dealing with campaign contributions, agreements and a conflict of interest when the presiding Judge is involved in any matter. Chief Justice Roberts noted that in his dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia did not think Roberts dissent went far enough, and wrote his own dissenting opinion.

Source

Dissenting opinions - Chief Justice Roberts

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the majority decision would have dire consequences for "public confidence in judicial impartiality."[7] The dissent also emphasized that the "probability of bias" standard formulated by the Court was excessively vague and discretionary.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that previously the Supreme Court had recognized only two situations in which the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause disqualified a judge. Specifically, when “the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case, and when the judge is trying a defendant for certain criminal contempts.” Chief Justice Roberts contrasted the objective nature of these situations to the completely subjective inquiry required by the “probability of bias” standard.

Chief Justice Roberts noted for example that the “probability of bias” standard gave no guidance to determine how much of a contribution was disproportionate, how long any putative bias on behalf of a particular judge could be construed, or whether a sitting judge might potentially exact a “debt of hostility” from litigants who did not contribute to his campaign.

Source
Source

Dissenting Opinion - Justice Scalia

In a separate dissent, Justice Scalia notes that the uncertainty described by Chief Justice Roberts would permit 14th Amendment Due Process claims asserting judicial bias “in all litigated cases in (at least) those 39 States that elect their judges” and that “Many billable hours will be spent in poring through volumes of campaign finance reports, and many more in contesting nonrecusal decisions through every available means.”

"A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935).

"Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.

"The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution.

"Alas, the quest cannot succeed—which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly.

"The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious."

reply to post by Xcathdra

Seen em, read em and watched the vid. As I stated earlier I cannot match your assertions to the words the Judge spoke in the vid which is a bit of a surprise as normally you're spot on.

The Judge clearly states his posistion on the the First Amendent of the Constitution a posistion which, to me, sounds like a slightly lengthy and ill advised version of the the 'dont shout fire in a crowded cinema' argument. towards the end of the vid He also gives his thoughts on the claims of Harassment, citing the presence of a Police Officer at the initial incident.

Remember the charges were harassment. Does the defendent have the right, under the first amendent, to follow alongside the Plantiff in an attempt to counter his views in a verbal way?

Freedom of expression, right?

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I live here and my ideals were shaped here and they include tolerance and respect for others.

This is America and we are supposed to be better than that.

So tolerance for others includes blaming the victim?
Saying his acts were so provoking that he deserved to be attacked?

BS why does the victim have to be tolerant but the attacker gets a free ride.

As for evidence it wasn't just a he said he said.
There were other witnesses and a cop, now generally at best I'm neutral when it comes to cops but the law takes their word over the average citizen.
Cop+ victim normally trumps the "I swear I didn't do it your honor".

As far as any comments others have made saying this doesn't set precedence that is dead wrong.
Any ruling that deviates from the norm can be sited for precedence, it's than up to the presiding judge to say yay or nay.
That's how judges legislate from the bench they make a small ruling that might not get over turned, than the next judge uses that ruling to make another small ruling stretching it further and further.