Muslim man attacks a guy during a parade - Judge rules in favour of Muslim

Tess wrote:The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Ernest Perce, 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 amd claimed he did not what that his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. The case went to trial and, as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favour of the defendant, but called Mr Perce a name and told him that if he were in a muslim country, he'd be put to death.

[url=http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case-blames-victim

Mystic Moon wrote:What this judge has done is tell immigrants that their culture/customs/religion supersede American civil law. This judge does not have the power to do such a thing and he needs to be removed. If he was a person with the slightest bit of integrity he would have admitted that he was able to hear this case without his personal beliefs getting in the way and would have recused himself. But he didn't instead he chose to lecture the court and the victim on a subject that they had no interest in...

Didge wrote:

Good evening Mystic

Sorry but you really should investigate the case before passing judgement, here is another aspect on the case:

Under this headline the Daily Mail takes up the case of Ernest Perce, Pennsylvania director of American Atheists, who claimed to have been assaulted by an angry Muslim while dressed as a "Zombie Muhammad" on a Halloween parade last year. At a court hearing Judge Mark Martin dismissed the charges against the alleged assailant, one Talaag Elbayomy.

The Mail reports: "The American Atheists organisation criticised the decision as 'completely and unequivocally unacceptable'. It posted on its blog: 'That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defence of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation....'"

As the Mail itself concedes, Judge Martin dismissed the case because the accused denied assaulting Perce and "there wasn't enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harassment as it was one man's word against the other's". THE ASSAULT WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEO AND THE MAN ADMITTED IT. The American Atheists, however, were evidently outraged that the judge refused to take the word of a white American over that of a "Muslim immigrant".

The American Atheists were also furious that Judge Martin made it clear that he rejected their view that it is big and clever to insult and abuse minority communities. Martin told Perce:

"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."

The Mail, of course, usually depicts atheists as part of a secularist conspiracy to undermine the Christian character of our nation. But atheism is apparently OK when it promotes hostility towards "Muslim immigrants". (On that basis, perhaps the Mail should consider mending fences with Terry Sanderson and the National Secular Society.)

Furthermore, as anyone who's followed this case will be aware, the American Atheists' claim that Mark Martin is "a Muslim judge" is simply untrue, being based on a garbled transcription of a recording of his remarks in court. Martin himself has stated clearly: "I'm actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years." THE JUDGE SAID HIMSELF IN COURT THAT HE WAS A MUSLIM. THEN HE BACK-TRACKED. In an interview with the Associated Press, he repeated: "In actuality, I'm a Christian." Yet this doesn't prevent the Mail from asserting that Martin is "a recent Islam convert", with the clear implication that this influenced his ruling.

For further background to the case, and the hysterical response from the Islamophobic right, see LoonWatch. LOONWATCH!!! A MUSLIM PROPAGANDA SITE. JESUS.

See also "Judge in 'Zombie Muhammad' case moved after threats", abc27, 28 February 2012

Tess wrote:

Typical Didge response. Enough said.

Didge wrote:

You should not believe everything you read Tess and this was not from Loonwatch, which by the way has won awards for its articles, this was from another site. Did you read the article from the Washington post?
Sorry this is typical hysteria gone wrong, the fact they had to try and claim he was muslim, was very poor to say the least, he never stated that in court, that is nonsense. Plus if there cctv then why did the judge dismiss it, sorry again Tess, I doubt there was.

Tess wrote:

"Police Sergeant Brian Curtis, the officer who handled the case, told a local ABC News affiliate he was disappointed with the outcome. "Mr Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him", Curtis said. "I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, called the ruling "as shocking and disgraceful as anything I've ever seen from an American trial judge.

http://freebeacon.com/judge-affirms-sharia-defense-in-harassment-case/

Just one man's word against another? What a joke. It was at a public carnival in front of dozens of witnesses.

Didge wrote:

Tess what do you not understand in regards to the following?

Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade.

By the way was the officer there?

I agree it is an over reaction by the muslim, but I also feel the man that dressed up as mohammed did so to provoke, so in my eyes both are wrong, but what you need is evidence to convict and also the article should tell the truth instead of telling porkies claiming the judge was a muslim.

Tess wrote:

Elbayomy (the defendant) testified that the confrontation was not physical - yet he'd already previously admitted that it was!!! the assault was on video!!! the JUDGE said himself that he was a muslim!!!

The man who dressed up as zombie mohammed was with his friend who was dressed as a zombie pope!!! How many catholics beat up his mate then?

Tess wrote:

Elbayomy (the defendant) testified that the confrontation was not physical - yet he'd already previously admitted that it was!!! the assault was on video!!! the JUDGE said himself that he was a muslim!!!

The man who dressed up as zombie mohammed was with his friend who was dressed as a zombie pope!!! How many catholics beat up his mate then?

Mystic Moon wrote:Good evening Didge, hope you enjoyed your day?

I am a little dismayed to read the way that the Daily Mail is reporting this incident and at no time was it a he said/he said case. There were witnesses and a video which this Muslim Judge refused to hear. I call him a "Muslim" Judge because that is how he characterized himself as you will hear at the 31 min mark of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=player_embedded

I think that the "atheist" was probably behaving badly and he probably is quite an idiot, but being obnoxious IS NOT against the law in this country for a good reason we don't have the prisons to hold 'em all.

Political speech is protected, the right to worship is protected, what isn't protected here is the right to put your hands on someone just because you are offended or insulted. What happens the next time this Muslim person is offended by, say how a woman is dressed, does he now have precedence to assault her too? Yes, he does, thank you, your honor.

This judge, who once again admits to being a Muslim, showed extreme bias against the victim. He berated and abused the victim and elevated the rights of his attacker over him by virtue of the attacker's religion. This is soooooo wrong on so many levels. This judge does NOT deserve to sit on a park bench much less a judge's bench in a court of law.

Didge wrote:

I have no idea, I doubt people would attack a pope impersonater, who would, if you had said jesus, then maybe they would have been attacked also in the states where there are some very conservative Christians, so like with someone insulting mohammed, the same i believe would happen in regards to a Zombie Jesus. You have to ask the question why this person did dress up like this anyway?

As to the case, it was blown out of proportion as shown ny the fact that some people tried to make false claims over the judge. I am not even saying the attacker was not innocent, but if there is not evidence to back up the case, then am not suprised at the outcome.

Anyway have a nice evening, am off out!

Mystic Moon wrote:Good evening Didge, hope you enjoyed your day?

I am a little dismayed to read the way that the Daily Mail is reporting this incident and at no time was it a he said/he said case. There were witnesses and a video which this Muslim Judge refused to hear. I call him a "Muslim" Judge because that is how he characterized himself as you will hear at the 31 min mark of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=player_embedded

I think that the "atheist" was probably behaving badly and he probably is quite an idiot, but being obnoxious IS NOT against the law in this country for a good reason we don't have the prisons to hold 'em all.

Political speech is protected, the right to worship is protected, what isn't protected here is the right to put your hands on someone just because you are offended or insulted. What happens the next time this Muslim person is offended by, say how a woman is dressed, does he now have precedence to assault her too? Yes, he does, thank you, your honor.

This judge, who once again admits to being a Muslim, showed extreme bias against the victim. He berated and abused the victim and elevated the rights of his attacker over him by virtue of the attacker's religion. This is soooooo wrong on so many levels. This judge does NOT deserve to sit on a park bench much less a judge's bench in a court of law.

Tess wrote:

You're wasting your time Mystic. The apologists will never ever admit they're wrong, even in the face of video evidence. I've said on here more than once that it was proved, but Didge will just deny it. Watch, he'll disappear into the ether now and you won't hear any more from him on the subject.

Didge wrote:

Thanks mystic had a good day and looking forward to a great evening so this will be quick.
I agree that it is never right to attack someone for how they have dressed, even though I think it was provoting trouble, like i said to Tess, do you think a Zombie Jesus would not also incite some Conservative Christians?
My point was as usual, stories are distorted, anyway good counter and hope you have a lovely evening, until the nest debate.

x

Tess wrote:The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Ernest Perce, 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 amd claimed he did not what that his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. The case went to trial and, as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favour of the defendant, but called Mr Perce a name and told him that if he were in a muslim country, he'd be put to death.

http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case-blames-victim

Mystic Moon wrote:

No, we have had many occasions where Christians and Jews have been very offended by others and the incidents of assault are either zero or close to zero. The point here is NOT the assault, the entire story rests on the fact that the judge EXCUSED the assault based on the perpetrator's right to be offended because he is Muslim. The Christian or the Jew assaulting the atheist would have been met with the full force of the law (rightfully so), and NOT given a pass as this Muslim person was.

Didge wrote:

I do not read the judgmen that way, but will see different I guess, but you are wrong on zero incidents from Christians or even Jews I am afraid. Just one example from a film I love, Dogma:

Religious films have always been slightly controversial. The line is so fine that if you attempt to make a movie in the genre, you will eventually offend somebody. The best example of this is probably Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ, which to this day is still banned in some countries. More recently the church has been up in arms over The Da Vinci Code and some Jewish leaders were offended by Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of The Christ. Even comedic fair failed to amuse the establishment with Month Python’s Life Of Brian being banned in Ireland for eight years for being blasphemous.

But that didn’t deter Kevin Smith in his perhaps most ambitious cinematic outing, which was a satire of the Catholic Church, and would result in Smith receiving over 30,000 pieces of hate mail and two death threats

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/292728/looking_back_at_kevin_smiths_dogma.html

So to your point on christians and jews is incorrect, people always get upset over religion, one of the hopes I have is that people wake up to these man made myths!!

Really have to go, Jack and Daniel are waiting for me, so have fun tonight!

Didge wrote:

Tess wrote:

"Police Sergeant Brian Curtis, the officer who handled the case, told a local ABC News affiliate he was disappointed with the outcome. "Mr Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him", Curtis said. "I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, called the ruling "as shocking and disgraceful as anything I've ever seen from an American trial judge.

http://freebeacon.com/judge-affirms-sharia-defense-in-harassment-case/

Just one man's word against another? What a joke. It was at a public carnival in front of dozens of witnesses.

Tess what do you not understand in regards to the following?

Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade.

By the way was the officer there?

I agree it is an over reaction by the muslim, but I also feel the man that dressed up as mohammed did so to provoke, so in my eyes both are wrong, but what you need is evidence to convict and also the article should tell the truth instead of telling porkies claiming the judge was a muslim.

Flap Meister wrote:

actually listening to the judges audio it does sound like he says "I am a muslim" but the rest of it is more or less telling the zombie that just because he can, does not mean he should do something.

there is a 9 minute audio file, although the first two minutes are presumably someone from the atheist organisation speaking, on youtube of the judge. the apparent attack on video did not appear to show anything except that guy going I am the zombie Mohammed, it did not show any attack as such.