I wonder if Pennsylvanians have the ability to recall this judge or not retain him?
Atheists hold some kind of goofy parade. One marcher dressed as zombie Mohammad gets attacked by a Muslim who jumps out of the crowd. Case goes to court and the judge refuses to look at the video evidence and instead lectures the atheist defendant on Islam after calling him a doofus. He dismisses the charges.
Oh, and the judge may be a Muslim himself. Judge's words;
Quote:“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half 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 are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are 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 thought that this court is in America, not some stone age culture in the ME. I thought that in this country, the Muslim HAS a right to be offended but he DOES NOT have the right to harrass or assault the person whose words/actions offended him. Apparently, this judge believes otherwise.
It will be interesting to see if there are any repercussions from this. Yet, some here will continue to say that sharia creep is not happening in this country. Every story like this one will be painted as some aberration, not seen for what it is.
I'm not FOR one side or the other here. I just would prefer that in this country, our American laws are upheld and the judicial decisions are based on our laws and not on a personal belief in Islam by a sympathetic judge.
(02-24-2012 03:05 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if Pennsylvanians have the ability to recall this judge or not retain him?
Atheists hold some kind of goofy parade. One marcher dressed as zombie Mohammad gets attacked by a Muslim who jumps out of the crowd. Case goes to court and the judge refuses to look at the video evidence and instead lectures the atheist defendant on Islam after calling him a doofus. He dismisses the charges.
Oh, and the judge may be a Muslim himself. Judge's words;
Quote:“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half 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 are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are 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 thought that this court is in America, not some stone age culture in the ME. I thought that in this country, the Muslim HAS a right to be offended but he DOES NOT have the right to harrass or assault the person whose words/actions offended him. Apparently, this judge believes otherwise.
It will be interesting to see if there are any repercussions from this. Yet, some here will continue to say that sharia creep is not happening in this country. Every story like this one will be painted as some aberration, not seen for what it is.
I'm not FOR one side or the other here. I just would prefer that in this country, our American laws are upheld and the judicial decisions are based on our laws and not on a personal belief in Islam by a sympathetic judge.
Re the parade: goofy is one way to put it douche bag is another.
That being said this judge needs to be ripped from the bench because you cant physically assault someone just because they are a douche. To do so puts at risk public, serious and legitimate discussion of such isses
That website wasn't very clear on the facts but a pretty good clue is that the charge was "harassment." So what you're calling an "attack" was probably entirely verbal and not physical, nor with a threat of getting physical. Otherwise the charge would have been battery or assault. Harassment is a weak charge and I don't know about Pennsylvania law but generally requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt (as in all criminal cases) that the defendant intended to annoy, alarm or abuse someone. This requires an intention on the part of the person doing the act, and so the talk about how much it means to Muslims to see their prophet mocked is relevant because the attacker might not have been thinking clearly. Also, for all we know this "attack" might not have risen to the level of "annoyance, alarm or abuse." It sounds to me like he came out of the crowd and started arguing with the guy. Now imagine if this had nothing to do with Islam. If a guy came up to you and started arguing would you press charges for harassment? This seems like a whole lot of nothing and any talk about "creeping Sharia" is just completely ludicrous.
(02-24-2012 03:34 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]That being said this judge needs to be ripped from the bench because you cant physically assault someone just because they are a ******. To do so puts at risk public, serious and legitimate discussion of such isses
Where does it say he was physically assaulted? That wasn't the charge.
I suspect this is a very loose and perhaps dishonest use of the word "attack." Honestly I can see hardly any scenario where a guy jumps out of a crowd and commits the crime of harassment, especially when their argument or intention is honest. Either it's physical or a threat to get physical or not. Harassment is when you call people and hang up, or stalk somebody, or taunt them incessantly.
Of course this story is making its way around the conservative echo chamber as we speak and people are freaking out about Sharia law. This is how conservatives win elections. This and misinformation like the lies spread by ZeroHedge.
(02-24-2012 04:16 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect this is a very loose and perhaps dishonest use of the word "attack." Honestly I can see hardly any scenario where a guy jumps out of a crowd and commits the crime of harassment, especially when their argument or intention is honest. Either it's physical or a threat to get physical or not. Harassment is when you call people and hang up, or stalk somebody, or taunt them incessantly.
Of course this story is making its way around the conservative echo chamber as we speak and people are freaking out about Sharia law. This is how conservatives win elections. This and misinformation like the lies spread by ZeroHedge.
Your paranoid obsession over certain media outlets/websites is hilarious. Especially when they're completely wrong.
(02-24-2012 04:01 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]That website wasn't very clear on the facts but a pretty good clue is that the charge was "harassment." So what you're calling an "attack" was probably entirely verbal and not physical, nor with a threat of getting physical. Otherwise the charge would have been battery or assault. Harassment is a weak charge and I don't know about Pennsylvania law but generally requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt (as in all criminal cases) that the defendant intended to annoy, alarm or abuse someone. This requires an intention on the part of the person doing the act, and so the talk about how much it means to Muslims to see their prophet mocked is relevant because the attacker might not have been thinking clearly. Also, for all we know this "attack" might not have risen to the level of "annoyance, alarm or abuse." It sounds to me like he came out of the crowd and started arguing with the guy. Now imagine if this had nothing to do with Islam. If a guy came up to you and started arguing would you press charges for harassment? This seems like a whole lot of nothing and any talk about "creeping Sharia" is just completely ludicrous.
Didn't watch the video, did you? Pay attention starting at the 41 second mark where the man said that "he grabbed me, choked me from the back, spun me around to try to get my sign off which was wrapped around my neck...."
Here's the account from which my link apparently got the information. I should have linked this source.
Quote:The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
Granted, the man was apparently not injured so perhaps this is why the charge was harrassment and not assault.
But the treatment of the two parties by the judge reminds me of the typical "blame the victim" mentality we see and hear from so many dopes. It's clear to me that you will look for any reason to absolve this judge for his ruling.
(02-24-2012 04:01 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]That website wasn't very clear on the facts but a pretty good clue is that the charge was "harassment." So what you're calling an "attack" was probably entirely verbal and not physical, nor with a threat of getting physical. Otherwise the charge would have been battery or assault. Harassment is a weak charge and I don't know about Pennsylvania law but generally requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt (as in all criminal cases) that the defendant intended to annoy, alarm or abuse someone. This requires an intention on the part of the person doing the act, and so the talk about how much it means to Muslims to see their prophet mocked is relevant because the attacker might not have been thinking clearly. Also, for all we know this "attack" might not have risen to the level of "annoyance, alarm or abuse." It sounds to me like he came out of the crowd and started arguing with the guy. Now imagine if this had nothing to do with Islam. If a guy came up to you and started arguing would you press charges for harassment? This seems like a whole lot of nothing and any talk about "creeping Sharia" is just completely ludicrous.
Didn't watch the video, did you? Pay attention starting at the 41 second mark where the man said that "he grabbed me, choked me from the back, spun me around to try to get my sign off which was wrapped around my neck...."
Here's the account from which my link apparently got the information. I should have linked this source.
Quote:The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
Granted, the man was apparently not injured so perhaps this is why the charge was harrassment and not assault.
But the treatment of the two parties by the judge reminds me of the typical "blame the victim" mentality we see and hear from so many dopes. It's clear to me that you will look for any reason to absolve this judge for his ruling.
Max - thanks for pointing out the harassment versus assault. My first reaction was based on emotion and that the judge was an ahole that should have the decision overturned.
Mile Higher – I watched the video and found it odd that the video stops before the incident and then switches over to the guy who says what happened versus the video showing it. If it boils down to the right of anyone to criticize or make fun of god, Jesus, Muhammad, or any religious figure in America – I strongly agree with that; however I also agree with the right of any right wing Christian (Westboro Baptist agenda followers) to disagree.
I would say to appeal the decision versus a lynch mob of the judge based on an edited video. If you watch the video it states that the Muslim learned that it was not a crime to mock Mohammad in this country.
No I did not see the video. It's interesting that the charge is only harassment and not assault and battery if there was indeed a choking. Whether there was an injury or not is irrelevant (though it helps prove the battery). But to charge harassment is odd to say the least. If the defendant admitted grabbing the side and beard of the marcher like the cop said, why not bring assault and battery charges? At least then you don't have to prove the intention to annoy, alarm or abuse. Also, maybe I missed it but is there an explanation for why the video was suppressed? If there was no good reason the prosecution should have been able to appeal the suppression.
In the end the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy intended to annoy, alarm or abuse, and the judge as the finder of fact can give weight to the defendant's testimony to create reasonable doubt, even if the testimony is conflicted by the marcher and cop.
I would disagree with the author of the article that the judge is "abrogating or misunderstanding" the First Amendment. There is an exception to free speech called the "fighting words doctrine" which might apply here; although the judge didn't explicitly state it that's probably what he was talking about. But the issue here isn't a First Amendment one but a criminal one against the attacker.
(02-24-2012 04:01 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]That website wasn't very clear on the facts but a pretty good clue is that the charge was "harassment." So what you're calling an "attack" was probably entirely verbal and not physical, nor with a threat of getting physical. Otherwise the charge would have been battery or assault. Harassment is a weak charge and I don't know about Pennsylvania law but generally requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt (as in all criminal cases) that the defendant intended to annoy, alarm or abuse someone. This requires an intention on the part of the person doing the act, and so the talk about how much it means to Muslims to see their prophet mocked is relevant because the attacker might not have been thinking clearly. Also, for all we know this "attack" might not have risen to the level of "annoyance, alarm or abuse." It sounds to me like he came out of the crowd and started arguing with the guy. Now imagine if this had nothing to do with Islam. If a guy came up to you and started arguing would you press charges for harassment? This seems like a whole lot of nothing and any talk about "creeping Sharia" is just completely ludicrous.
Didn't watch the video, did you? Pay attention starting at the 41 second mark where the man said that "he grabbed me, choked me from the back, spun me around to try to get my sign off which was wrapped around my neck...."
Here's the account from which my link apparently got the information. I should have linked this source.
Quote:The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
Granted, the man was apparently not injured so perhaps this is why the charge was harrassment and not assault.
But the treatment of the two parties by the judge reminds me of the typical "blame the victim" mentality we see and hear from so many dopes. It's clear to me that you will look for any reason to absolve this judge for his ruling.
Max - thanks for pointing out the harassment versus assault. My first reaction was based on emotion and that the judge was an ahole that should have the decision overturned.
Mile Higher – I watched the video and found it odd that the video stops before the incident and then switches over to the guy who says what happened versus the video showing it. If it boils down to the right of anyone to criticize or make fun of god, Jesus, Muhammad, or any religious figure in America – I strongly agree with that; however I also agree with the right of any right wing Christian (Westboro Baptist agenda followers) to disagree.
I would say to appeal the decision versus a lynch mob of the judge based on an edited video. If you watch the video it states that the Muslim learned that it was not a crime to mock Mohammad in this country.
The next time I get pulled over I'll use that excuse. "Sir, I didn't know the speed limit".
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the rag head so much as touched him then he has a case and if he did what this guy said he did they he should have at least had a restraining order or something.
Or, If this guy is lying then he should be jailed.
To throw this out is a patently absurd abuse of power and highlights this judges obvious bias.
(02-24-2012 05:00 PM)dcCid Wrote: [ -> ]I would say to appeal the decision versus a lynch mob of the judge based on an edited video. If you watch the video it states that the Muslim learned that it was not a crime to mock Mohammad in this country.
You can't appeal a criminal acquittal. Double jeopardy clause.
And the author of the article is right that ignorance of the law is no defense. Still, I think the judge's ruling is conceivably right, though it sounds like he probably did intend to harass. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is tough though and if the guy says he didn't do it intending to harass, and that's the only insight into his mind and this is the only interaction between the two people and there's conflicting testimony it's even tougher.
(02-24-2012 05:21 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the rag head so much as touched him then he has a case and if he did what this guy said he did they he should have at least had a restraining order or something.
Or, If this guy is lying then he should be jailed.
To throw this out is a patently absurd abuse of power and highlights this judges obvious bias.
The marcher can ask for a restraining order if he wants. And he can bring a civil suit, where the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (51%) instead of beyond a reasonable doubt (99%).
To "throw it out" is arguably the correct move given the charges brought and evidence presented.
The zombie should have been carrying a gun. Then, once he was being choked, he could have shot the attacker. It would have been self-defense, and the world would have one less kook running around.
(02-24-2012 05:13 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]No I did not see the video. It's interesting that the charge is only harassment and not assault and battery if there was indeed a choking. Whether there was an injury or not is irrelevant (though it helps prove the battery). But to charge harassment is odd to say the least. If the defendant admitted grabbing the side and beard of the marcher like the cop said, why not bring assault and battery charges? At least then you don't have to prove the intention to annoy, alarm or abuse. Also, maybe I missed it but is there an explanation for why the video was suppressed? If there was no good reason the prosecution should have been able to appeal the suppression.
In the end the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy intended to annoy, alarm or abuse, and the judge as the finder of fact can give weight to the defendant's testimony to create reasonable doubt, even if the testimony is conflicted by the marcher and cop.
I would disagree with the author of the article that the judge is "abrogating or misunderstanding" the First Amendment. There is an exception to free speech called the "fighting words doctrine" which might apply here; although the judge didn't explicitly state it that's probably what he was talking about. But the issue here isn't a First Amendment one but a criminal one against the attacker.
I really wonder if someone had physically harassed Bill Mahar for trashing Jesus would you tihnk the 'fighting words' doctrine applied?
(02-24-2012 05:00 PM)dcCid Wrote: [ -> ]I would say to appeal the decision versus a lynch mob of the judge based on an edited video. If you watch the video it states that the Muslim learned that it was not a crime to mock Mohammad in this country.
You can't appeal a criminal acquittal. Double jeopardy clause.
And the author of the article is right that ignorance of the law is no defense. Still, I think the judge's ruling is conceivably right, though it sounds like he probably did intend to harass. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is tough though and if the guy says he didn't do it intending to harass, and that's the only insight into his mind and this is the only interaction between the two people and there's conflicting testimony it's even tougher.
Except did the judge say "he did not intend to harass" or "in some parts of the world that will get you killed"