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

[pauldun170]

http://katzjustice.com/Penn.pdf

[Papa_Complex]

You guys elect your judges, right? Think this guy will get re-elected?

[Papa_Complex]

Judge lied. He said that he was a Lutheran and had been for 41 years, but in his decision he stated he was a Muslim, as clear as day on tape. He might be a Lutheran. He might be a Muslim. He lied about one of the two, if not both.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Judge lied. He said that he was a Lutheran and had been for 41 years, but in his decision he stated he was a Muslim, as clear as day on tape. He might be a Lutheran. He might be a Muslim. He lied about one of the two, if not both.

I haven't listened to the tape and have to rely on
He states

If I were a Muslim,

Then he follows with later

you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

there is two ways to approach that comment.
One: Focus on "I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive" and assume it to mean that he is now contradicting himself

Two:

you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. "I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive."

Using empathy to convey his argument.

An example would be a sexual harassment case

If I am not a woman,

you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. "I’m a woman, I find it offensive."

The guy went off on a lecture fest and may have rambled.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.