DaveinElma Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html 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. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html A little more detail: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisses-charges-against-muslim-man-attacked-atheist-204051912.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html They were both stupid as hell. One for being such an asshat as to go out dressed as something he knew was going to cause a fight. The other for giving him what he was so obviously fishing for. The judge should have hit them both with a fine, or jail, or whatever the punishment would have been. Edited February 26, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 They were both stupid as hell. One for being such an asshat as to go out dressed as something he knew was going to cause a fight. The other for giving him what he was so obviously fishing for. The judge should have hit them both with a fine, or jail, or whatever the punishment would have been. Um, no. While it might be stupid to dress as something that might offend someone on Halloween, it certainly isn't grounds for being punished or assaulted. You know there are a lot of wing nuts offended by Halloween costumes and Halloween in general. I suppose we should honor their feelings by slapping fines on some little kid dressed as Jar Jar Binks (OK bad example; that kid and his parents should both be fined in that case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 They were both stupid as hell. One for being such an asshat as to go out dressed as something he knew was going to cause a fight. The other for giving him what he was so obviously fishing for. The judge should have hit them both with a fine, or jail, or whatever the punishment would have been. There's no law against being "stupid as hell" Only one was charged with assualt and he was excused by the judge. They don't matter anyway.........its the judges actions and his very revealing rant at the victim that I would encourage everyone here to read. The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania — the Transcript Judge tosses charge against Muslim who allegedly attacked atheist for mocking Mohammed . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 They were both stupid as hell. One for being such an asshat as to go out dressed as something he knew was going to cause a fight. The other for giving him what he was so obviously fishing for. The judge should have hit them both with a fine, or jail, or whatever the punishment would have been. So, you are for usurping the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 There's no law against being "stupid as hell" Only one was charged with assualt and he was excused by the judge. They don't matter anyway.........its the judges actions and his very revealing rant at the victim that I would encourage everyone here to read. The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania — the Transcript Judge tosses charge against Muslim who allegedly attacked atheist for mocking Mohammed Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Hopefully the judge wont be on the bench for long. So I guess the judge would be willing to someone off it they attack him provided the attacker's religion says that people dressing up as judges insults his religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 So, BFBF you changed your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 They were both stupid as hell. One for being such an asshat as to go out dressed as something he knew was going to cause a fight. The other for giving him what he was so obviously fishing for. The judge should have hit them both with a fine, or jail, or whatever the punishment would have been. I think if you want to cause a fight, you dress up as zombie Mohammed and go to Riyadh, not Mechanicsburg. And the judge is a knucklehead. He threw out the charges to make a point that the First Amendment doesn't cover insulting behavior. Uh...yes, it does. Doesn't make it right, but the First Amendment doesn't cover the freedom of "polite" speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Mechanicsburg. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 So, BFBF you changed your mind? I would say that thinking about it further, yes the first amendment argument makes a little more sense. You could make a case that parading around dressed as Mohammad in front of a bunch of Muslims might be along the same lines as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but I don't know what the demographic of the population of that town is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I would say that thinking about it further, yes the first amendment argument makes a little more sense. You could make a case that parading around dressed as Mohammad in front of a bunch of Muslims might be along the same lines as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but I don't know what the demographic of the population of that town is. I'm thinking mostly American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I would say that thinking about it further, yes the first amendment argument makes a little more sense. You could make a case that parading around dressed as Mohammad in front of a bunch of Muslims might be along the same lines as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but I don't know what the demographic of the population of that town is. You can stretch that logic to say that firebombing an abortion clinic is protected under freedom of religion, because abortion clinics offend fundamentalist Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Some information on this joke of a judge. Hopefully this guy will get smacked down for this stupidity. I'm pretty sure I don't remember the First Amendment allowing for free speech, so long as no Muslim is offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So, you are for usurping the Constitution? Why not- it's what all the cool kids are doing...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did the judge also apologize to the defendant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 He's a county court judge. Who gives a **** about what he thinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did the judge also apologize to the defendant? Yes, but the President, Secretary of State and numerous generals beat him to it. In the meantime President Karzai made no comments about the 6 days of attacks on NATO forces and the numerous deaths because some Qurans were burned because they were being used as message boards for prisoners. From my understanding, writing in a Quran is forbidden and the way to properly destroy one is to burn it. Oh well, hypocrisy is rampart everywhere I guess. THe 911 perps certainly had their fun time in the strip clubs, but I guess Kandi never took off her Burka and she was a relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 From my understanding, writing in a Quran is forbidden and the way to properly destroy one is to burn it. I realize this is being nitpicky, but I think this is incorrect. I think burial is the preferred method, although I'm pretty sure the Quran doesn't provide any explicit instructions to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) I realize this is being nitpicky, but I think this is incorrect. I think burial is the preferred method, although I'm pretty sure the Quran doesn't provide any explicit instructions to that point. I had heard somewhere that burning it was the proper disposal, but I just googled Quran/disposal and got a bunch of sites wanting to kill infidels. I guess it's my bad. Please don't take me to court in Mechanicsburg. I might have to plead out to avoid having my tongue cut off. Edited February 27, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts