Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

The victim is owed an apology by both the perp and the judge.
The perp should be in jail and in anger managment classes.
The judge should be thrown off the bench and sent back to law school.

I think the ~legal~ ruling by the judge is correct in that the plaintiff didn't meet the burden
of proof against the accused. He needed to prove assault, and from the video it is not
clear. Two shadows merging and a very relaxed "Hey did you see that? He touched me."
is weak is not much to rule on.

But the judge was NOT impartial and was even a bigger doofus for his remarks. I've always hated
a judges impunity on insults--he can call you a doofus, a moron, a dumb-ass or whatever he
chooses, and your are COMPELLED to call him "Your Honor."

I took a traffic citation to jury trial when I was sixteen. I prevailed in court in front of a six man jury (I was right
BTW). They came back with a not guilty verdict, but the judge was angry, and I had to stand and
let him berate me. When he was done, I didn't acknowledge him. (His soliloquy was a bunch rhetorical
mush and I didn't believe it deserved a response.)

"DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME!?"

"Yes."

And then he told me he didn't want to see me in his court again. (even though, I won the case)

What an ass some judges can be.

Like the one in this instance

Originally posted by KingMobi
A judge should always be unbiased, yes that's true. If a Muslim never insults Jesus, Moses, David or Solomon; then why does the followers of Jesus/Moses/David/Solomon insult Prophet Mohammad (or even his followes)?

Apart from the decision this judge took (even if you recall it as biased), Christians and Jews from all around the world have always been unsympathetic with Muslims, isn't this also a fact?

edit on 26-2-2012 by KingMobi because: (no reason given)

I find the last part overly broad and stereotypical..

In Dearborn Michigan, which has one of the largest Muslim populations inside the US, you don't see them forcing their beliefs down anyones throats? Actually a few years back a Synagogue in the area held an event yearly where their group would go out and help those less fortunate - Serving food, finding clothes, helping them out - and at no point were people required to be any religion in order to be helped out.

One of those years a dilemma popped up.. The date they do this on fell on one of their Holidays. The Jewish community was trying to figure out a way around it as not to disappoint the people who needed the help.

In an unexpected move, the Muslim community contacted the Jewish community an offered to run the event for them so they could continue the event while following through on their religious requirements for that day.

Since then both groups have worked together in the community without regard to the religion of the other people working, or people seeking help - as it should be.

The West in the 1990's intervened in Yugoslavia to prevent Christians from continuing their genocide against Muslims.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism - All of these 3 major religions contain a history of violence, death and destruction. In my opinion (my opinion) 2 of the 3 religions have done a better job in moving the religious thinking forward to take into account the change in society over the centuries.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I'm guessing by Ollins long cut&paste that neither of you have the Judge saying:

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

as reported by Yahoo and inferred by other posters on this thread.

What you do have is the Judge saying the Plaintiff had the right to be offensive but that offence went beyond the bounds of the 1stAd. You also have his reasoning and further interpretation of the the Amendment.Hmmmmm

As far as dismissing the charges for lack of evidence, the suspect is changing his story / account. He first stated he made contact and under cross examination changed his story.

Stories change X, you know that....

Do you think the Judges statement 32mins ish(meh, took me 3 goes to get the sound working) that a Police Officer had ridden past on a bicycle at the time of the 'harassment' and had taken no action may have played into his decision, that and the fact the tape really doesnt show much? Remember my handbags comment from earlier.

Im tired of the PC police trying to downplay these incidents. We have laws in this country that protect our freedom of thought / expression / religion / etc. No where in our laws does it say one religion has more protection than another religion.

I agree, I just havent heard the Judge suggest that anywhere...I cannot match it to his remarks on the vid. The media and bloggs you have been reading are wrong. Just like they were wrong RE: the supposed 'media blackout' of a grooming trial here in the UK.
C'mon X, you and Ollin are smart posters....would you normally just except stuff without checking? We do have a problem with some Islamic thought...no need to invent stuff.

If people wish to live their life under Islam / Sharia law thats fine and is there choice. However they must understand that they are still subject to the laws of the City / State / Federal.

Again we agree, with one added qualification. I dont want any religious criminal laws full stop (thats period to you ) If people wish to seek a religious ruling on some very limited civil matters then thats up to them. UK/ US law will allways be supreme.

.If that is something they don't want to abide by, then feel free to move to a different country that is more in line with your line of thinking.

Hat trick!

Incoming in 5...4...3..2..lol

reply to post by ollncasino


You can show the hate in any religion.

And what the guy had written on the back of his sign "Only Mohammed can rape America" shows he really is a idiot. The Christians raped this nation years ago.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Christianity, Islam, Judaism - All of these 3 major religions contain a history of violence, death and destruction. In my opinion (my opinion) 2 of the 3 religions have done a better job in moving the religious thinking forward to take into account the change in society over the centuries.

edit on 26-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I agree with most of your words and I do believe Christians, Jews and Muslims *SHOULD* be working as ONE. All three of these religions have almost the same BASICS and same being to follow (i.e God or Allah). Let me tell you a very few words about the faith of Muslims. They believe that there is no difference between God and Allah. And It is the same God who sent Moses and Jesus before Mohammad, to teach people the way of life. Therefore, Muslims respect Moses and Jesus as much as they respect Mohammad; this is the reason why a Muslim never insults Moses Or Jesus.

As for the last paragraph of yours, you might also agree with one more thing, those 2 religions which have done a better job in moving religious thinking forward, have also forgotten a lot about what Moses and Jesus taught them. One small example of it is, some Jewish women and Christian Nuns wear special clothes to hide their skin and they are well respected for this act. On the other hand, Muslim women also wear this kind of dress which is called "hijab", but everyone calls them "Terrorists".

I know very well that some radical Muslims have really made life terrible for others. But it really doesn't mean that *EVERY* Muslim is like that. I myself am a Muslim and if I were at the place of that guy who attacked the person wearing Zombie dress and acting like Mohammad. I would have never thought of attacking him; instead, I would first go to that person and ask him humbly and calmly to stop this act. If he doesn't give a damn to my good behavior, I would simply ignore him and prefer to change my path (just to avoid that person). This is the way Prophet Mohammad used to work, he was never Radical towards his enemies, instead he always tried to win their hearts with His own good behavior. You must have heard a nursery rhyme "The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the waterspout, down came the rain and washed the spider out. Out came the sun and dried up all the rain. So the itsy-bitsy spider, climbed up the spout again". This is exactly the same thing which I am talking about. To respect others and wait patiently for others to start respecting you, and eventually you will succeed sooner or later.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The victim is owed an apology by both the perp and the judge.
The perp should be in jail and in anger managment classes.
The judge should be thrown off the bench and sent back to law school.

The guy didn't prove his case. But we should go against the law if Islam is involved huh?

Everyone, PA resident or not, should voice their opinion to the PA House Judiciary Committee regarding this case.

All contact information can be found here:
www.legis.state.pa.us...

What a retarded kangaroo court.

So effectively it's acceptable to commit violent acts against someone who parodies a fictitious entity?

My god... What's the West coming to? I guess next we'll be drawing and quartering the George Carlins of the world

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Ahhh but it rally dosen't have to be a written or recorded law.

If a muslim man beheads his daughter for refusing to marry a muslim man, in down town NY city, he can say it was a shame to Islam and his lawyers could quote this case. He could get off on religious grounds, etc, etc, etc..

Not likely to ever happen, but this is fundimentally one way prior judicial descisions can affect and change (ammend) laws.

edit on 2/26/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

Ahh but yes it does.
This is one case with one judge and no precedent has been set.
If a precedent had been set you would have heard about it.

Many times the person who is reportedly "the victim" is so heinous it is difficult for a judge to find him innocent or without blame for the incident. Many times the attacker has no priors and was deliberately and mercilessly provoked. Some people, I would clobber too.

Originally posted by Sablicious
What a retarded kangaroo court.

So effectively it's acceptable to commit violent acts against someone who parodies a fictitious entity?

My god... What's the West coming to? I guess next we'll be drawing and quartering the George Carlins of the world

Your God...? That's funny. What about him?

Imagine a scenario where just for entertainment a nun is getting gang banged by a bunch of hasids. Not really screwed mind you but it is just like in a play....Would any Catholics or Jews take offense? You can't even say anything against a Bishop on many websites without getting CENSORED and so how much more inflammatory would it be do dress up like a Transvestite Bishop and pretend you are doing the nasty with a dog? In the town square? Don't even get me going with what you might do dressed up as Jesus Christ to get yourself popped by someone.

Is this freedom of expression or hate speech?

Somebody is going to hit you or you will have an "accident" I can all but guarantee it.

What is the west coming to?
We piss on dead bodies. That is what we are coming to.

And we wonder why there is no peace.

No respect for anyone, any religion, any fellow creature, or anything... but ourselves.

reply to post by KingMobi


Some valid points.. As far as what nuns wear etc, and actually what the Quran says about dress, what we see now is actually not what was meant, especially in the Quran. The goal behind the "modesty issue" was to create a balance, and form what I have researched designed o protect the woman from the men.

However that has been taken way beyond to something that, again in my opinion, degrades. I have contact with the public in my job and when speaking to people, I would like to know who they are. Ive had a few encounters with the full garb and to be honest, I felt uncomfortable.

Not because I thought they were terrorists, but because I felt like I was treating them as nonexistent / property. It made me uncomfortable because it did not feel like I was addressing an equal, I felt like I was addressing an object.

I accept their decision for their choices if its their choice. Where my main problem comes in, and comes back to this OP topic, is when groups feel their religious views are somehow more important that domestic laws. My view on that is religious views of Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc apply to those people who subscribe to that specific group. Trying to apply elements of any religion onto people who are not of that religion is a major problem, and I feel that occurred in this case with the Judges actions.

Because of the Judges ruling, and the fact he ignored evidence that showed the suspect actually was giving 2 different accounts of what occurred, ignoring the testimony of the officer and taking into account his religion was that of the suspect, and it was the suspects religious views that were the direct core of the issue, the judge should have recused himself due to conflict of interest in this case.

Normally I would not make that suggestion, but his attitude and comments on the religion, I felt, were those of a pissed of person of that faith and not that of a judge.

I also feel like Islam is having a difficult time entering into countries / societies is because Islam is not just a religion. Its a way of life, its a way of government, its a way of law. For people who choose that way of Life, thats their decision. However when a conflict arises between faith and no faith, the laws used must be blind so as not to favor one person over the other.

The Judge in this case even failed to chastise the suspect by explaining to him how our laws work, yet will chastise the victim on how laws work in Muslim countries?

To answer a question from someone else earlier - on evidence.

There was enough evidence present for Law Enforcement to respond to the scene, to take statements and identify the major players in the drama, and to submit that report to the Prosecuting Attorney. The PA reviewed the case, read over all the info (statements / Police Reports / evidence / video) and decided the evidence supported a charge.

If there was not enough evidence, then the judge should of left it at that. The fact he took the time to go into the Islam speech, as well as identifying himself as one, leads me to believe the motives for the dismissal was not based on law, but personal religious view. I felt as if the judge decided to "stick" it to an atheist in an attempt to send a message about Islam.

Now, I could be wrong in that regard, but its how I feel based on the Judges actions.

The question now is, what happens the next time the Muslim sees something he does not like?

reply to post by newcovenant


You can speak out against any religion in this country, without fear of government agents showing up and just executing you on site.

As far as your short sided comment on pissing on dead bodies must we start linking videos and pictures of innocent people being stoned to death, hung for being gay, stoned to death because your a female and were raped?

In order to convict a female of chastity issue in Islam, there must 4 witnesses to vouch that she committed the crime. In the infinite wisdom of some of the elders in Afghanistan, they decided it was ok for one man to given testimony, the SAME testimony, 4 different times to satisfy the request.

How about being beheaded because your business wont pay the ransom being demanded?

While I understand the comment about our actions, I find it ignorant to assume that only Americans are out of control. Its the same argument people make about the number of civilians that were killed by Americans for the invasions. At no point did those people care when Hussein was slaughtering people left and right, nor did they speak up when the Taliban was doing it.

You either condemn it all, or dont bother condemning.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That would be "break my bones". I know it is a minor error but it feels real good to correct someone as knowledgeable as you sir.

I salute thee mr, zodeaux. Did I spell that right? haha.

Seriously, your replies always have meaningful content.

On topic, the religious tension between religious and non-religious factions keep growing and is now teeming. Wars have been started in this guise but is it really the cause, or a means to an end? Is religion now just a tool to incite violence and instability, thus leading to rebellion or revolution?

Sadd days we live in now ...

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by ollncasino

 

You can show the hate in any religion.

I am not so worried about hate. I am worried about violence committed in the name of religion. Like the violence allegedly carried out by the Muslim in this case.

Of course, most Muslims are just like you and I. They just want a quiet life.

It is also worth remembering that most violence by Muslim radicals is directed against other Muslims.

But violence committed in the name of religion does not excuse violence.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You want to talk atrocities committed in other countries I think we could go on all day long.

You are comparing apples to hand grenades.

That is why I don't live in those other countries.

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.

For a religion that is dipected as peaceful both by the Quran and Muslims and people defending what ever Muslims do in the name of there god, they sure are hatefull and preach a lot of death.

This might explain a little of why, Quran (2:191-193) it would seem that Muslims can be and do what ever they want, it is just a matter of how they define the definition of the Quran to meet there needs at the time.

Not really unlike most religions that have done this throughout history. It just seems when most other religions are trying to become more civil the Muslims have a need to control with hate and fear with the threat of death and beheadings.

reply to post by Chickensalad

This is just disgusting. It also claims that this judge is a muslim convert. looks like creeping sharia law and clear conflict of interest.

What about judges who are Christians or other religions? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest too?

I must say I am impressed at the Muslim network of shills that is on the net, no matter what, you have someone defending any heinous act a Muslim does.

Simply put, the man had every right to insult Mohammad as he sees fit as long as he isn't harming anyone else.