Muslim Judge Throws Out Assault Case Against a Muslim Man

[everywhere116]

I saw this too.

It makes my blood boil. The fact that a judge can so casually disregard the Constitution's First Amendment is beyond sickening for me.

[everywhere116]

the man assaulted the ignorant athiest because the athiest was insulting his religion?

so, if i made a picture of jesus having sex with sheep and pigs, and a christian attacked me, you would be surprise when the christian USA judge decided not to prosecute? you can not just insult the beleifs someone holds in their heart.

i suspect that if this story was christian judge and christian defendant then mr night strike would not care at all

If it was a Christian who attacked the Zombie Pope that was walking next to Zombie Mohammad and it went before a Christian judge, you can bet your ass the Christian would be charged with assault. If the Christian judge did what this Muslim judge did, there would be an uproar about Christian theology getting into the courts, etc. But there won't be an uproar due to this. And it's sad.

[Symmetry]

the man assaulted the ignorant athiest because the athiest was insulting his religion?

so, if i made a picture of jesus having sex with sheep and pigs, and a christian attacked me, you would be surprise when the christian USA judge decided not to prosecute? you can not just insult the beleifs someone holds in their heart.

i suspect that if this story was christian judge and christian defendant then mr night strike would not care at all

If it was a Christian who attacked the Zombie Pope that was walking next to Zombie Mohammad and it went before a Christian judge, you can bet your ass the Christian would be charged with assault. If the Christian judge did what this Muslim judge did, there would be an uproar about Christian theology getting into the courts, etc. But there won't be an uproar due to this. And it's sad.

As far as I can tell, he was charged with assault, or something similar. The idea that he wasn't charged is dumb. The guy wouldn't have been before a judge at all if he hadn't been charged.

So aside from that bit of idiocy, as far as I can tell the charge rested on one man's word against another. The video evidence having been deemed inadmissable (Fox News).

[everywhere116]

the man assaulted the ignorant athiest because the athiest was insulting his religion?

so, if i made a picture of jesus having sex with sheep and pigs, and a christian attacked me, you would be surprise when the christian USA judge decided not to prosecute? you can not just insult the beleifs someone holds in their heart.

i suspect that if this story was christian judge and christian defendant then mr night strike would not care at all

If it was a Christian who attacked the Zombie Pope that was walking next to Zombie Mohammad and it went before a Christian judge, you can bet your ass the Christian would be charged with assault. If the Christian judge did what this Muslim judge did, there would be an uproar about Christian theology getting into the courts, etc. But there won't be an uproar due to this. And it's sad.

As far as I can tell, he was charged with assault, or something similar. The idea that he wasn't charged is dumb. The guy wouldn't have been before a judge at all if he hadn't been charged.

Semantic snafu on my part. Replace "wasn't charged" with "case thrown out"

So aside from that bit of idiocy, as far as I can tell the charge rested on one man's word against another. The video evidence having been deemed inadmissable (Fox News).

Why was the video thrown out, is the main question there.

Furthermore, the man admitted that he assaulted Zomb Mo'.

[bedub1]

Christians are delusional neanderthals that only act with blind faith. Atheists are enlightened thinkers that don't subscribe to unjust old fashioned hokum.

I couldn't agree more with your modified statement. In fact, you can replace Christians with "religious waco's" and the statement is still true.

In this case, the Muslim Man never should have attacked the Atheist. The Judge should never have thrown out the case. The Judge should never have threaten the man with contempt of court for talking about this case in the public. The Judge should be arrested, tried, and executed for Treason for his blatant disregard of the Constitution and abuse of his position of power.

[ViperOverLord]

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant. The plaintive should still be able to appeal that decision correct? To be fair to Player your sources for this story are two pretty slanted blog style websites. Do you have another source?

They're NS's sources, not mine. And I don't really think finding another source would likely defy the facts that are on the table now.

And you're thinking of civil suits. Once criminal suits are thrown out there are no more appeals. Defendants have the right against double jeopardy (going to court more than once for the same crime).

I never said Christians get more sympathetic treatment in the mainstream media. My comment alludes to it being ignored because it's about an athiest.

I don't know what extra you expect the media to do for atheists or what you feel they are doing against them.

[Symmetry]

the man assaulted the ignorant athiest because the athiest was insulting his religion?

so, if i made a picture of jesus having sex with sheep and pigs, and a christian attacked me, you would be surprise when the christian USA judge decided not to prosecute? you can not just insult the beleifs someone holds in their heart.

i suspect that if this story was christian judge and christian defendant then mr night strike would not care at all

If it was a Christian who attacked the Zombie Pope that was walking next to Zombie Mohammad and it went before a Christian judge, you can bet your ass the Christian would be charged with assault. If the Christian judge did what this Muslim judge did, there would be an uproar about Christian theology getting into the courts, etc. But there won't be an uproar due to this. And it's sad.

As far as I can tell, he was charged with assault, or something similar. The idea that he wasn't charged is dumb. The guy wouldn't have been before a judge at all if he hadn't been charged.

Semantic snafu on my part. Replace "wasn't charged" with "case thrown out"

So aside from that bit of idiocy, as far as I can tell the charge rested on one man's word against another. The video evidence having been deemed inadmissable (Fox News).

Why was the video thrown out, is the main question there.

Furthermore, the man admitted that he assaulted Zomb Mo'.

Of course, again you misunderstand. If he admitted assault, he would have plead guilty. He didn't, and the case was tried. he was found not guilty.

You're as much in the dark as I am on why the evidence was dismissed- I've looked for a decent source. I'm just not as quick to pin the blame on the judge being Muslim.

It's very possible that the guy who was charged was a bad man, and perhaps deserving of a conviction for assault. As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

[bedub1]

the man assaulted the ignorant athiest because the athiest was insulting his religion?

so, if i made a picture of jesus having sex with sheep and pigs, and a christian attacked me, you would be surprise when the christian USA judge decided not to prosecute? you can not just insult the beleifs someone holds in their heart.

i suspect that if this story was christian judge and christian defendant then mr night strike would not care at all

If it was a Christian who attacked the Zombie Pope that was walking next to Zombie Mohammad and it went before a Christian judge, you can bet your ass the Christian would be charged with assault. If the Christian judge did what this Muslim judge did, there would be an uproar about Christian theology getting into the courts, etc. But there won't be an uproar due to this. And it's sad.

As far as I can tell, he was charged with assault, or something similar. The idea that he wasn't charged is dumb. The guy wouldn't have been before a judge at all if he hadn't been charged.

Semantic snafu on my part. Replace "wasn't charged" with "case thrown out"

So aside from that bit of idiocy, as far as I can tell the charge rested on one man's word against another. The video evidence having been deemed inadmissable (Fox News).

Why was the video thrown out, is the main question there.

Furthermore, the man admitted that he assaulted Zomb Mo'.

Of course, again you misunderstand. If he admitted assault, he would have plead guilty. He didn't, and the case was tried. he was found not guilty.

You're as much in the dark as I am on why the evidence was dismissed- I've looked for a decent source. I'm just not as quick to pin the blame on the judge being Muslim.

It's very possible that the guy who was charged was a bad man, and perhaps deserving of a conviction for assault. As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

That's totally wrong. He admitted assault to the police officer after the assault, and later plead not-guilty during court. The case was not tried, he was not found not guilty. The Judge reviewed the case, refused to admit the police officers statement, refused to admit the video of the muslim man attacking the athiest, and threw the case out. This is the first I hear the judge was a muslim.

[everywhere116]

Of course, again you misunderstand. If he admitted assault, he would have plead guilty. He didn't, and the case was tried. he was found not guilty.

He didn't know that his action was illegal. He didn't even know that it was legal to portray Muhammad like this in America. And he wasn't found not guilty, it was thrown out.

You're as much in the dark as I am on why the evidence was dismissed- I've looked for a decent source. I'm just not as quick to pin the blame on the judge being Muslim.

Considering the 7 minute speech I just listened to from the judge to the plaintiff, I doubt he was being impartial.

It's very possible that the guy who was charged was a bad man, and perhaps deserving of a conviction for assault.

I believe he was. The evidence certainly points in that direction.

As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

It's not, and I'm certainly not. I disapprove of the blatant religious favoritism shown by this judge. Don't view that as throwing mud.

[Symmetry]

That's totally wrong. He admitted assault to the police officer after the assault, and later plead not-guilty during court. The case was not tried, he was not found not guilty. The Judge reviewed the case, refused to admit the police officers statement, refused to admit the video of the muslim man attacking the athiest, and threw the case out. This is the first I hear the judge was a muslim.

Much as I hate to admit it, you were right and I was wrong about most of this. Apologies also to Mr Everywhere.

[bedub1]

As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

It's not, and I'm certainly not. I disapprove of the blatant religious favoritism shown by this judge. Don't view that as throwing mud.

No throwing mud at Muslims. Throwing mud at crazy religious people that attack others. Throwing mud at stupid Judges that don't follow the constitution.

[Phatscotty]

Religion clearly trumps the law here. For more information, see http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... rogressive

Progressives are right at home justifying religion trumping the laws of the land, unless it's Christianity. When that happens, PimpDave makes 7 threads about it.

[Symmetry]

As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

It's not, and I'm certainly not. I disapprove of the blatant religious favoritism shown by this judge. Don't view that as throwing mud.

No throwing mud at Muslims. Throwing mud at crazy religious people that attack others. Throwing mud at stupid Judges that don't follow the constitution.

Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. How did he disobey the constitution? Or not follow it, however you want to phrase it.

[everywhere116]

That's totally wrong. He admitted assault to the police officer after the assault, and later plead not-guilty during court. The case was not tried, he was not found not guilty. The Judge reviewed the case, refused to admit the police officers statement, refused to admit the video of the muslim man attacking the athiest, and threw the case out. This is the first I hear the judge was a muslim.

Much as I hate to admit it, you were right and I was wrong about most of this. Apologies also to Mr Everywhere.

Tis the mark of an honorable rationalist. Apology accepted. *salutes*

[bedub1]

That's totally wrong. He admitted assault to the police officer after the assault, and later plead not-guilty during court. The case was not tried, he was not found not guilty. The Judge reviewed the case, refused to admit the police officers statement, refused to admit the video of the muslim man attacking the athiest, and threw the case out. This is the first I hear the judge was a muslim.

Much as I hate to admit it, you were right and I was wrong about most of this. Apologies also to Mr Everywhere.

Tis the mark of an honorable rationalist. Apology accepted. *salutes*

I was amazed as well. I figured maybe somebody hacked the account? Maybe I died? I wasn't quite sure....

But yes, well done!

As it stands, this thread seems to be about throwing mud at Muslims.

It's not, and I'm certainly not. I disapprove of the blatant religious favoritism shown by this judge. Don't view that as throwing mud.

No throwing mud at Muslims. Throwing mud at crazy religious people that attack others. Throwing mud at stupid Judges that don't follow the constitution.

Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. How did he disobey the constitution? Or not follow it, however you want to phrase it.

Well I first heard about it on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comment ... of_attack/ (Which is a far better forum than CC)
Which was a link to the story on gather.com: http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4981140561
The 1st amendment part was from wnd.com: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-chok ... -and-then/ (Which is linked inline as the source for the statement in the story)

I would expect the part they are referencing, and I completely agree with, is that the judge interjected religion into his actions which is prohibited by the 1st amendment.

The establishment clause is "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."[1](wikipedia, which references it from some other place)

The judge clearly favored the muslim religion, it's followers, and their actions over the views and actions of the atheist man.

I love the quote at the end of the 2nd article:

Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.

It actually sounds like the judge says the atheist man has violated the 1st amendment and the muslim man was correct in his reaction. He states that in many predominately muslim countries what the atheist man did is punishable by death. (which seems to be a quite barbaric reaction)

[Symmetry]

First up, I want to reiterate my apology to you- I got caught up in my own rhetoric.

I guess the second part is that I can't find a decent source for this story. I don't particularly like the language used in the summation, but I'm really not sure that it constitutes a Muslim judge showing preferential treatment to another Muslim because of a shared religion, which seems to be the general point of the OP.

[bedub1]

I can't find a decent source for this story. I don't particularly like the language used in the summation, but I'm really not sure that it constitutes a Muslim judge showing preferential treatment to another Muslim because of a shared religion, which seems to be the general point of the OP.

Do you believe the following possesses religious bias via: the articles presentation/manipulation of these quotes, the words themselves, or do you find the judges words to be completely neutral?

The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-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 Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven 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 hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re 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.

[Symmetry]

I can't find a decent source for this story. I don't particularly like the language used in the summation, but I'm really not sure that it constitutes a Muslim judge showing preferential treatment to another Muslim because of a shared religion, which seems to be the general point of the OP.

Do you believe the following possesses religious bias via: the articles presentation/manipulation of these quotes, the words themselves, or do you find the judges words to be completely neutral?

The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-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 Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven 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 hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re 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.

I don't think it's evidence for any kind of miscarriage of justice because the judge was Muslim. That's what the judge seems to be being accused of. I see no evidence for that.

[oVo]

District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”

The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”

Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night. According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.

Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”

He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment.

From this link. I was curious why this guy's atheism was even mentioned until I read this.

[PLAYER57832]

Assuming this report (your version , in particular) is correct, it is pretty bad.

You seem to mainly exhibit this type of skepticism when something goes against your world view.

Not at all true., except that I am often the one POSTING things in my world view and I generally verify before I even post things. That said, there are time when I have many times posted something withthe caveate "if this proves true"... and find other CCers are quite reliable at discovering any errors if I am unable or don't have time to verify something.

One big difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians are not likely to go out and start killing soldiers because of this stuff.

What is the point of stating this?

It is one reason the media is cautious about reporting anti-Muslim incidents. We do have soldiers who's lives WILL be further at risk when even stupid stuff comes out on the media.

That said, if the guy in question decides to press the case, it might be noted.

The case was thrown out. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Exactly, but that doesn't mean that its the end of it. There is the "trial by media" if they people in question truly wish to press the matter more.

[AAFitz]

This sucks. There's no way a white judge would ever throw out a case against a white man. I bet there isnt one example of it anywhere at any time.

SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!

[jimboston]

It was Harassment... not Assault.

There is a big difference between these two.

The Muslin guy yelled at him and tried to take his beard off.

When I read the OP I thought the Muslim guy had beaten down the Atheist. It was not much more than an exchange of words.
There should be no criminal punishment for either man.

... and oh BTW, the Atheist dude was looking for trouble.

THAT SAID... though the call / dismissal was right... the judge really has absolutely no right to lecture the atheist. The fact that his action may be a crime in other countries is meaningless. If we were in "JimWorld" I would probably not fire the judge... but I would lecture him as much or more than he lectured the Atheist guy... and I would probably want to review his case history and keep an eye on future rulings.

[AAFitz]

Assault is one of the more over used, and most incorrectly used and misunderstood words.

People over using it, as in this case, absolutely know it conjures images of someone being battered, but can very often be nothing more than a threatening conversation. Im hardly suggesting it isnt a crime, however, the crime it seems to insinuate, is usually a completely different charge altogether, and a far more violent and serious one.

[Phatscotty]

This sucks. There's no way a white judge would ever throw out a case against a white man. I bet there isnt one example of it anywhere at any time.

SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!

see, they justify it. There is no right or wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

WHat if the judge was a Christian, the harasser a Mennonite, and the offender was a homeless man?

What then, CC? What then?