100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Nope. Shariah Law will never happen in the US.
BS. And, they will get even stronger, with the likes of Farrycan, aka, Eugene. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740 US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists. That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade. The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country. The astonishing details, from Opposing Views: The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though. 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. Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure. Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution: Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 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 Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society. Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it. Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharia law. As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment: The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ”to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried. Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
strange for several reasons
mark martin doesnt seem like much of a muslim name such a ruling would be easily appealed if it happened JUST as posted or recounted I can find no secondary source to back up the story, I find the same story REPEATED almost verbatim by many commentary type sources,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Shariah Law will never happen in the US. BS. And, they will get even stronger, with the likes of Farrycan, aka, Eugene. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740 US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists. That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade. The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country. The astonishing details, from Opposing Views: The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though. 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. Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure. Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution: Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 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 Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society. Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it. Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharia law. As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment: The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ”to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried. Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.” haha.. He should have sentenced the atheist to a week standing in front of the grand mosque in Mecca with a sign on him that says "God is not real".. haha.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smh
the only other version I find states that there was not enough evidence, as opposed to the Judge refusing to see it there was a 'grainy' video (according to the other version) ,,I will wait for an actual transcript of what happened before I pick which commentary to land upon,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooh! More DIE-versity for the US!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he refused to see evidence, the case should be easily appealed and he should face discipline
if he saw evidence that was not meeting the requirement for a 'preponderance' in such a case, than it was within his authority' with a confession, however, depending upon the charge (harassment vs assault,,,etc,,,) it must be reviewed as to what was specifically confessed to and if it was done under duress or with understanding,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Shariah Law will never happen in the US. BS. And, they will get even stronger, with the likes of Farrycan, aka, Eugene. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740 US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists. That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade. The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country. The astonishing details, from Opposing Views: The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though. 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. Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure. Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution: Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 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 Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society. Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it. Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharia law. As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment: The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ”to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried. Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.” haha.. He should have sentenced the atheist to a week standing in front of the grand mosque in Mecca with a sign on him that says "God is not real".. haha.. Couldn't happen, non Muslims are not allowed anywhere near Mecca.............. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 02/26/12 12:37 PM
|
|
Well grabbing his beard and his sign was not that much of an assault. Big deal.
Yes in this country, it is legal to be obnoxious a-holes. Those atheists are obnoxious. So the Muslim man learned what a "free" country allows in some cases. So do we have freedom of speech? Not really. When George W Bush was campaigning, anyone carrying a sign for his opponent or t-shirt showing any hint of anti-Bush position was arrested and escorted to a "free speech zone" which was several blocks away and it was a fenced into holding areas with barbed wire at the top. Essentially it was a jail. Turn the situation around and let a Muslim dance around in a parade burning the American flag screaming death to America and see what actually happens if someone attacks him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grabbing his beard and sign?
and the version I read claimed someone was choked,,,,,smh media 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am an atheist, and I am ardently opposed to sharia law.
However, this line really caught my attention: The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal,
If I was the judge, I might seriously consider suspending penalties in a case like this - telling him that if he ever did anything like that again, he would be double-penalized. Depending on how serious the attack was.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grabbing his beard and sign? and the version I read claimed someone was choked,,,,,smh media
I did a search and got a more accurate and detailed account of the incident. It has been exaggerated out of proportion by the atheists I believe. I'm not surprised. Atheists like that give respectable atheists a bad name. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am an atheist, and I am ardently opposed to sharia law. However, this line really caught my attention: The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal,
If I was the judge, I might seriously consider suspending penalties in a case like this - telling him that if he ever did anything like that again, he would be double-penalized. Depending on how serious the attack was.... Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am an atheist, and I am ardently opposed to sharia law. However, this line really caught my attention: The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal,
If I was the judge, I might seriously consider suspending penalties in a case like this - telling him that if he ever did anything like that again, he would be double-penalized. Depending on how serious the attack was.... Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break the law. Really? Apparently in this case, it is. That is sort of a dumb rule anyway. Lawyers don't even "know" the law. There are so many laws on the books, you cannot possibly obey all of them without breaking a few. Nobody knows all the laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/27/12 12:49 PM
|
|
Violence is never justified for disagreements of belief no matter how central a person wants to identify that belief with there own self image.
Its my opinion that when a person takes a belief which has no objective reference and makes it central to their own self image they have lost control of there own objectivity. When a person looses control of objectivity and then loose control over their own behaviors they should not feel, nor be deemed justified. Edit: Apparently the guy was charged with harassment, not assault. That in and of itself says alot about what actually took place and the ability to prove it. I am of the same mind as msharmony on this one, cant tell until I get the ACTUAL facts. To many people are ready to jump up and down the second they think there "tribe" has been wronged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People like to push the limits. What the atheists were doing, in my opinion was inciting a riot for the purpose of stirring things up.
These things are for the purpose of propaganda. Why would an atheist care about what other people believe to the point they intentionally attempt to incite a reaction from someone? What is there point anyway? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol @ everything previous to this post. Screw sharia law in America, it directly contradicts the first amendment. Muslims have no more right to attack a "zombie Muhammad" than Christians have a right to react violently to humorous depictions of Christ. OooOOooh those pesky atheists and their inciting reactions. Lol ensue aggravated theological / political debate in 5...4...3...2...1. Action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/27/12 02:00 PM
|
|
People like to push the limits. What the atheists were doing, in my opinion was inciting a riot for the purpose of stirring things up. I disagree, it was a perfectly legal parade. In fact in that state there are laws which make illegal interfering in a parade.
Inciting a riot is such a huge stretch, these guys were just walking down the road dressed up. That is not inciting a riot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now they are reporting it on CNN. I wonder how it will turn out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This link says entire trial, not sure have not watched it yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Sv9IyrpOnbs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 02/27/12 03:05 PM
|
|
The issue appears to be whether or not dressing up as Mohammed
as a zombie is protected speech under the 1st Amendment and the Judge Mark Martin argued that it wasn't which seems to be at odds with the normal interpretation. 
Here is the CNN link: http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/02/27/exp-point-jonathan-turley.cnn.html |
|
|
|
|
