US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Trip

Judges don't need to lecture on what is being mean or offensive, just what is legal or illegal. Dressing like zombie religious figure is not illegal, he needs to shut the fuck up about it. Proof in the case at hand is another matter, we haven't seen any either. Anyone seen the video?

Judges do not need to lecture just like people don't have to talk through a movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Dressing like a zombie religious figure - protected
Dressing like a zombie religious figure with intent to incite - not automatically protected.

So the guy dresses up like zombie Mohamed. Not a crime.
Idiot flips out and goes gay kung fu turtle ninja on him. Crime

Gay kung fu turtle ninja charged with was Criminal Harassment.
The Crime he SHOULD have been charged with is Assault.

Judge decides gay kung fu turtle ninja's act did not meet the standard of the law.
Judge proceeds to call Atheist a dick.

Hilarity ensues.

I'm guessing that all involved (cop, prosecuter, judge) thought atheist and gay kung fu turtle ninja to be acting like doochebags but none really felt its was enough doochebaggery to justify giving them criminal records.

Not uncommon...unfortunately athesists and muslims are involved so interwebz has to blow up like Captain Morgan's ball's half way through his 40 days and 40 night bullshit.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I listened to an excerpt, from the judgment, and it sure as hell sounded to me like he said, "I'm a Muslim...."

*EDIT* Yup, I'm right. Judge's ruling from 28:28 and the statement that he is a Muslim at 31:28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs

Is it what I quoted? (youtube blocked at work)

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Is it what I quoted? (youtube blocked at work)

No, it's not. Watch it when you get home. He clearly says, "I'm a Muslim..."

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

No, it's not. Watch it when you get home. He clearly says, "I'm a Muslim..."

Is this it?

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it 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 really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, 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 cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “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 is — they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have 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. F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether 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’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.

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

This the part you are referencing?

they find it very, very, very offensive.
I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

Followed by

F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

[Homeslice]

Dude's a tool in any case. Trying to lecture people and thereby get his name in the press. I also like how he says spending 2.5 years in the Middle East makes him knowledgeable about Islam.

[Papa_Complex]

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

Sounds like he say "I'm a Muslim". fucking lying lawyer scumbag
Guy rambles on for longer than my attention span allows but to be honest, I dont care.
I've read enough transcripts to realizes that a lot of Judges like to yap and try to "school" people who appear in front of them if they are in that kind of mood.

My concern is whether the law was properly applied.
Based on Pennsylvania state law (though I haven't sifted through case law) and the testimony I agree that Gay kung fu turtle ninja was not guilty of the Harassment charge.

I don't care if the judge lectured on how he was a super hero unicorn that liked to spread whale spunk to Ethiopian children over Yom Kippur while wathing Tom and Jerry re-runs.

Was the law correctly applied?
Apparently so.
The testimony was not exactly sparkling
There isn't any clear video evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That's the way it works.

full video of incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yP-X3hpCfR8

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

[Papa_Complex]

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

He wasn't charged with assault.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

He wasn't charged with assault.

No, he was charged with criminal harassment, right? Reading the statute it comes off as a lesser assault-like charge, as for a case in which no lasting physical harm is caused. The definition is, precisely, assault.

[pauldun170]

Murder vs manslaughter vs manslaughter in 2nd degree etc etc.