Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

page: 14
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
One of the greatest things about the US, is the whole proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been brought up on worse charges than harassment, and had them dismissed in the end. I was innocent! Had the judge ignored it and called me guilty based on someone's word, it would have been a miscarriage of justice. I applaud judges that weigh actual evidence, and don't rely on personal opinions. It was not proved that the defendant was guilty of harrassment, so it was dismissed. I can see how people like policy enforcement would be appalled at that. The fact their was a policy enforcer that rode past the incident, proves to me there was not a law breaking incident going on. He would have been foaming at the mouth to make a citation.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Normally I would agree with your statement.

However in this case with all the information we have seen as well as the recording of the trial portion, I felt the judge did use his personal view, that of a Muslim, to render his verdict in the case.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Oh really? He stated some personal opinion, that is for sure. I have heard judges do the same to me, it seems normal. Only difference, the tonguelashing I got was always based on christianity. And I will take it, as long as they ruled legally in my favor, as they did in my case. At the end he states his reasoning from a legal standpoint, that it was not proven! I know how police may be appalled by the fact that the legal system places the burden of proof on the accuser, not the defendant.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 


Dude, I was being overly sarcastic....you have to read what was crossed out. Can't believe you didn't catch any of that.
edit on 2/26/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: hippo nergal nug humper



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Provocation (legal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminal defenses
Part of the common law series

Provocation

Law · Criminal justice

See also: Provocation in English law

In criminal law, provocation is a possible defense by excuse or exculpation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control (a permanent loss of control is in the realm of insanity) as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge. Provocation can be a relevant factor in a court's assessment of a defendant's mens rea, intention, or state of mind, at the time of an act of which the defendant is accused.

In some common law, jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and several Australian states, the defense of provocation is only available against a charge of murder and only acts to reduce the conviction to manslaughter. This is known as "voluntary manslaughter" which is considered more serious than "involuntary manslaughter", which comprises both manslaughter by "unlawful act" and by criminal negligence. In some states with Criminal Codes, such as the Australian states of Queensland and Western Australia, provocation serves as a complete defense to the range of assault-based offenses. In the United States, the Model Penal Code substitutes the broader standard of extreme emotional or mental distress for the comparatively narrower standard of provocation.

Provocation, however, is not a defense available to the civil torts of assault or battery.[citation needed]

Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, "If the victim's wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior, the court may reduce the sentence below the guideline range to reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense."[1]



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
If you are attacked and you family is threatened I would not blame any man for responding, I would do the same. If you kill innocent people simply because someone insults you, I say bomb the S.O.B. into the Stone Age. The world will be better off without you. At the point you attack, my family simply because of my religion, or nationality, I as an American, will gladly push the button and evaporate your backward ass.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
There was a time when the savage, ignorant animal called man needed idiotic religion to keep people in line, give them morals...you know, don't steal, don't kill, try not to screw your brother's wife...and oh yeah give money to the church.

But in these modern times, we could easily get rid of the idiotic notion of religion without it causing the world to fall apart. Heck, the only fools who are causing the world to fall apart now are the religious idiots, funny how things got turned around.

Want world peace? Simply, kill religion. For those that wont be able to handle that, eradicate them. They are holding humanity back with their outdated beliefs in invisible elves.
edit on 26-2-2012 by MainLineThis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
So if I should go in front of this judge for murder for having thrown a homosexual off the top of a high building could I claim as a Christian that this is what my bible instructs me to do and get off with the same reasoning?
In the end are not murder and assault the same offense merely carried to a different degree?
If the atheist was crippled by the attack would the result have been the same?
If he had died from the attack?
For future reference I think a lot of people would like to know exactly where the line between a slap in the face and a gun shot to the forehead is drawn.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MainLineThis
 

Do you really believe that with the removal of religion the western powers will not find another reason to invade oil producing countries and steal their resources?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I wonder if there is a long line in front of the house of this judge, formed by people waiting to exercise their legal right to assault the judge for pissing all over their beliefs?

From what I read, there is no question that the man assaulted another, the judge let the guy off because of religious bias. There are calls for this judge to impeached, hopefully this is exactly what happens.

I feel that my beliefs insulted on a daily basis. Does that mean I get to start taking physical action?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
i live in a muslim country, the reason why this muslim man attacked the protester is because of how close muslims are to their religion.

In muslim countries entire lives are followed and lived through islam, the daily routine, the way of life.

this man has had his faith in islam all his life, his parents taught it to him from a young age, he grew up knowing it and believing it.

By this protestor insulting Prophet Mohammed, it is hypothetically like spitting in his father and mothers face, let alone this muslim mans entire life.

What would you do if someone spat on your mothers face?
just do nothing.

Christianity is not as strict as islam is, i know as a christian living in a muslim country.

oh i could get on to atheism but what a waste of my time, read my motto or signature whatever - research '___' release upon death and you do the math!

Peace out!



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad


news.yahoo.com

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
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

should also mention that the two links are two different reporters takes on the story, and the latter link has more info on the assault itself as well
edit on 25-2-2012 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



So you onlyu okay with white Christian religious trumps law; but when another religion trumps the law; you just have to make this post and say how USA is being taken over by this religion?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowZion
i live in a muslim country, the reason why this muslim man attacked the protester is because of how close muslims are to their religion.

In muslim countries entire lives are followed and lived through islam, the daily routine, the way of life.

this man has had his faith in islam all his life, his parents taught it to him from a young age, he grew up knowing it and believing it.

By this protestor insulting Prophet Mohammed, it is hypothetically like spitting in his father and mothers face, let alone this muslim mans entire life.

What would you do if someone spat on your mothers face?
just do nothing.

Christianity is not as strict as islam is, i know as a christian living in a muslim country.

oh i could get on to atheism but what a waste of my time, read my motto or signature whatever - research '___' release upon death and you do the math!

Peace out!

nteresting and insulting at the same time.

First how DO YOU KNOW that christianity is not as strict (in teaching and love of it by members) as followers is Islam? That alone is the hight of arrogance.

There are many christians, jews, druids, and satanists (to name a few) who take their particular faiths VERY SERIOUSLY. The main difference is as a whole most are not on hair trigger/overly sensitive to people who do not agree with their faiths.

To take it further I have YET to see the general population of christians, jews, druids, ect going after with murderous intent on people who insult their faith. Be it by unflattering cartoon, burning religious books, or outright acts that they feel are sac religious in any form (be extreme or mild).

Two. Your faith of Islam is no more important, to be reviered, protected, or given protection from insults any more or less than any other faith (or no faith at all) PERIOD. You really need to get over yourself.

:You need to realize that in the overall picture no one has ANY OBLIGATIONS to respect your religion over any other (or none at all for that matter). Is it better if out of common civility that you do, HECK YES. But that street goes BOTH WAYS and (unfortunately) not required.

Three. You are in AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA. Not saudi arabia, Iran, Iraq, ect. You are bound by the laws and customs of this country. In this country your faith again is no more protected from ridicule than mine (catholic) is. Last I checked the insults to my faith are daily and much more (in scope and number) than yours are. So get over yourself.

Four. While you may feel "it is hypothetically like spitting in his father and mothers face" the cold hard truth is IT IS NOT PERIOD. The law (except for this judge OPINON) DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE ON YOUR FEELING, ONLY DIRECT THREAT.

This costume of Zombie Mohamid is not even close to me (for example) having a hunting knife on my hip and me telling you how I am going to cut you. Or me with fists clinched, screaming profanities at you, and saying I am going to attack you.

Nor in the reverse way do I have a right to attack you physically for being (if you were for sake of discussion) the artist who did the display of the christ on the cross in urine.

The cold hard truth is Islam is no more or less important or should be protected from comment (even unflattering or insulting) than ANY OTHER RELIGION.

NOR ITS MEMBERS ANY LESS LIABLE UNDER LAW FOR ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER ITS INSTRUCTION OR DUE TO PERCIEVED INSULT.

This judge BLATENTLY showed his bias and disregard for the law by elevating someones PERCIEVED insult to Islam as being "fighting words" over the constant and continued attacks on other religions (especially christians).

If someone can run around in a priest/nun costume on halloween without fear of attack than so should this zombie mohamad.

Someone again (with a strait face) tell me that Islam as a whole is a peacefull religion?

Or better yet when was the last time the pope called for the death of an author who showed Jesus Christ in an unflattering light.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowZion
What would you do if someone spat on your mothers face?
just do nothing.


I'd have that person taken to court and charged, since spitting on someone is illegal. ESPECIALLY in someones face.
Easy way to spread disease.

Naturally, i'd want to kick the crap out of that person, but why risk getting in trouble myself when they are already bring brought to court for spitting in my moms face? That's already enough justice. They don't also need my asswhoopin'.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by ShadowZion
What would you do if someone spat on your mothers face?
just do nothing.


I'd have that person taken to court and charged, since spitting on someone is illegal. ESPECIALLY in someones face.
Easy way to spread disease.

Naturally, i'd want to kick the crap out of that person, but why risk getting in trouble myself when they are already bring brought to court for spitting in my moms face? That's already enough justice. They don't also need my asswhoopin'.

Cheers


Excellent post my dear man excellent.

I commend you on your stated self control and willing to let the RULE OF LAW take its course.

I must point out (for accuracy) that under the law you have justification for defending your mother if someone spat directly in their face as this is considered assault. It is also taken farther since I am presuming your mother is on the senior side and the attacker most likely is younger and posses more of a physical threat.

But to be fair (and silence some nit-wit who tires to compare this as an insult to islam) that once the threat is runs away or is prevented from causing further harm you (or anyone else) would then be in the wrong for "continuing to give a butt wooping".

Again I commend you on your post and integraty.

I again only point out the other facts as a matter of law you can ONLY DEFEND YOURSELF UNDER A CLEAR THREAT OF HARM.

Not because your FEEL YOUR FAITH IS INSULTED.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
you mean like saying things like - Mohammed the thug - was kicked out of his own community.
www.canadafreepress.com...
at least Jesus preaches peace ...'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
convert or die is not a religion - so much as it is a mandate.
sharia is more another form of gubberment.
women every where should unite against this socalled doctrine - which seeks to enslave half the world.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Chickensalad
 


I am not a believer in religious faith, however I can't help but notice the amazing wonders of science presented in the case here, that every action has a counter reaction. In a more practical interpretation: "Putting on religious clothing and mocking someones religion can incite someone into smashing ones face in" :-)

"While you argue over religion, I will be building spaceships."



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenflt
 





"While you argue over religion, I will be building spaceships."

Remember to not name any of them Mohammed or they might be legally destroyed. But that wouldn't be a problem for you though, would it?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Hi, i see this thread is already up. I made on on this news article concerning the subject.

thenewamerican.com...


And with an admission of guilt by the assailant and video of the incident, it should have been an open-and-shut case.

But that’s not how it turned out.

As Andrew McCarthy at National Review reports:

Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq, ruled that Talag Elbayomy's sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.


So will continue on the OP's thread as it beat me to it.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Laokin
 





That is not precedent to this case at all, that is precedent to purposeful intent. I.E. The language used in that case was used purposefully to escalate a reaction. He did not violate free speech, however, he used free speech to purposefully cause an assault.


Chaplinski was convicted for calling a government official a "fascist". You, as the Supreme Court did once, can claim that words like "fascist" are intended to escalate a reaction, but your claim that dressing up as a zombie Mohammad is far more innocuous is nonsensical. Further, I have read plenty of your posts that strike me as being with the full on intent of escalating a reaction, and I have been accused of doing the same. Yet, here we are, you and I, quibbling over what is an escalation of reaction "fascist" or dressing up as a zombie Mohammad.

Both are, in my mind, absolute rights, but then again...I'm not a fascist.





I didn't go into the details on the other case, because I've been skimming this one but noticed what you were writing about some similarities and then of course differences in the case.

However, I do wish to understand this part a little clearer, did someone get convicted of calling the fascist corrupt villians we elect fascist. I'd perform a ciitzens arrest on them if they ever showed up and its not slander to ever state what you have every reasonable right to believe, and its unreasonable for anyone to not see what is happening clearly.

And, if ever I showed up in court, and that is doubtful, because I don't like their evil backsides to do it and would be feeling hard pressed between sitting/standing and performing a citizens arrest on the judge. So if that ever happened, and they did the whole contempt of court thing, I 'd have to say, with a bullhorn, that of course I was in contempt of their court, for I am in contempt of all proceedings issuing forth from the corrupt and evil power structures of this world for they are slavery. I have a lot of contempt for slavers!

Tis why I hope to not see them at all in my life, because I don't believe people are supposed to be quiet about these things.

And I can't even vote any more due to the corruption. Even if there was a good, wonderful, idealistic leader I'd say, "wait a second. You're brushing shoulders with those who are committing ritual crimes, and I'm sure you know it, so its a crime that you haven't exposed it!!!!"





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join