Muslim attacks Athiest dressed as Mohammad, Pennsyl. Muslim Judge Sides w/ Attacker

[Lanyap]

The atheist should have just dressed as Jesus zombie.

 

[Lanyap]

wonder how long until someone plans for this and carries a gun then ends up shooting the muslim that attacks him pissing on the book.

Probably next week. You have to watch out for those atheists.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Judges have ruled before that certain exercises of free speech may be intentionally provocative and therefor may be considered as mitigating circumstances in some cases of reaction.

I seem to remember some cases involving burning the American Flag where the burner got his ass kicked and judges handed out $5 fines and such because they determined that there was great provocation.

There have been times in my past when someone has provoked me to respond with a punch to the nose for exercising their right to free speech.

 

[cybrsage]

Judges in PA are voted into office. He will lose the next election if anyone runs aganist him.

 

[Rainsford]

The facts of this case seem a bit unclear, all the sources posted so far seem pretty biased. At this point, people are just judging what happened based on their own prejudices about this general type of situation.

IF the atheist really was attacked for free expression, the attacker should end up being punished. This is America, and the 1st amendment protects your rights in this case. IF the judge threw out the case because he has a pro-Muslim bias, he should lose his seat on the bench, as he clearly wouldn't deserve it.

On the other hand, IF the case was dismissed for some other reason (lack of evidence), many people in this thread end up looking like tools. Maybe rushing to judgement based on preconceived ideas is a bad approach

 

[Nebor]

Judges have ruled before that certain exercises of free speech may be intentionally provocative and therefor may be considered as mitigating circumstances in some cases of reaction.

I seem to remember some cases involving burning the American Flag where the burner got his ass kicked and judges handed out $5 fines and such because they determined that there was great provocation.

There have been times in my past when someone has provoked me to respond with a punch to the nose for exercising their right to free speech.

Well that's different. This is 'Murica.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The facts of this case seem a bit unclear, all the sources posted so far seem pretty biased. At this point, people are just judging what happened based on their own prejudices about this general type of situation.

That's why I decided not to say any more regarding the validity of any claim rather than jumping at something that someone said someone else posted in an email.

IF the atheist really was attacked for free expression, the attacker should end up being punished. This is America, and the 1st amendment protects your rights in this case. IF the judge threw out the case because he has a pro-Muslim bias, he should lose his seat on the bench, as he clearly wouldn't deserve it.

Agreed.

On the other hand, IF the case was dismissed for some other reason (lack of evidence), many people in this thread end up looking like tools. Maybe rushing to judgement based on preconceived ideas is a bad approach

To the extent that if someone clings to the original story without reconsidering other information I'd agree. In either case I maintain it is not up to a judge to use his position of authority to condemn a legitimate right. If he wishes to do so outside the courtroom then that's his option. He ought not to preach from the bench.

 

[Sacrilege]

Hey everyone. You do realize that Sacrilege is trolling you. This douche bag loves to cherry pick the most extreme and fanatical examples of Islam in the media, post them in P&N, then sit back and get his jollies as people flame each other over why crazy people are crazy.

Sad.

And who the fuck are you? You've "figured out" my posting pattern???? Moderators, is janas19's post acceptable?

 

[janas19]

And who the fuck are you? You've "figured out" my posting pattern???? Moderators, is janas19's post acceptable?

Yeah I think I have, since you've been pretty formulaic thus far.

Try to expand your mind, man.

 

[Jaskalas]

Probably next week. You have to watch out for those atheists.

No, actually. It'd be rednecks from the south using this as bait.

 

[Infohawk]

It's certainly possible there were factual problems, but usually facts are allowed to tried by juries. It's also possible there were pleading problems, but plaintiffs are usually given leeway to correct these early on. Finally, it's definitely possible the judge made a legal mistake. It happens all the time. That's what appeals are for.

What bothers me most is that certain people that don't seem give a shit about the underlying event. Just because someone insults your religion does not give you the right to attack them or try to stop them by threatening to call the police in this country.

This douche bag loves to cherry pick the most extreme and fanatical examples of Islam in the media

What are you saying about the alleged perpetrator? Do you think he was part of the Taliban or something? No, it appears he was a regular Muslim family man who unsurprisingly couldn't handle someone questioning his worldview. Again, this is yet another case where behavior is not as extreme in the Muslim community as apologists like to pretend it is. Think I'm being unfair? the judge you're all defending said the following:

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’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being.

This is Muslims' problems, not anyone else's. If all it take is words to make you resort to force, YOU are the problem.

(Nice personal attack by the way... )

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The facts of this case seem a bit unclear, all the sources posted so far seem pretty biased. At this point, people are just judging what happened based on their own prejudices about this general type of situation.

IF the atheist really was attacked for free expression, the attacker should end up being punished. This is America, and the 1st amendment protects your rights in this case. IF the judge threw out the case because he has a pro-Muslim bias, he should lose his seat on the bench, as he clearly wouldn't deserve it.

On the other hand, IF the case was dismissed for some other reason (lack of evidence), many people in this thread end up looking like tools. Maybe rushing to judgement based on preconceived ideas is a bad approach

I mostly agree with you but I think the judge's comments alone regarding what is or is not free speech are worth criticizing ignoring the other issues.

 

[Lanyap]

No, actually. It'd be rednecks from the south using this as bait.

They aren't that smart.

 

[CanOWorms]

Here's an account by a law professor who quotes from the transcript and explains why the judge is being inappropriate:

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/2...ng-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/

That's the same link at the very top of the OP.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And who the fuck are you? You've "figured out" my posting pattern???? Moderators, is janas19's post acceptable?

wow talk about thin skin....why post your tirade when you should have just reproted him by pressing the triangle at the bottom left of the page??

still nice tirade....

 

[waggy]

any judge that does not understand the 1st amendment should not be a judge.

BUT it does seem that the judge did not dismiss it based on being a Muslim.

 

[Double Trouble]

The judge may have had legitimate reasons for dismissing the charges. I also don't particularly care if he wanted to educate victim about Islam. However, he did state that the first Amendment does not protect making fun of other people's religions which it most certainly does. That is really the disturbing part of this case.

Agreed, that's the part that bothers me. I don't know how much evidence there was and whether there was enough to convict or not, but this idiot judge clearly doesn't understand anything about the 1st amendment, and that's kind of an important thing for a judge to know. He needs to be removed from the bench asap. The whole preaching from the bench thing is out of bounds as well.

 

[CanOWorms]

Agreed, that's the part that bothers me. I don't know how much evidence there was and whether there was enough to convict or not, but this idiot judge clearly doesn't understand anything about the 1st amendment, and that's kind of an important thing for a judge to know. He needs to be removed from the bench asap. The whole preaching from the bench thing is out of bounds as well.

He's just a Magisterial District Judge in Pennsylvania, on the same level as a traffic court judge. They're not even required to be lawyers.

 

[a777pilot]

FTM

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The atheist should have just dressed as Jesus zombie.

Jesus zombie is repetitive.

 

[zinfamous]

Judges in PA are voted into office. He will lose the next election if anyone runs aganist him.

...not based on the facts--which are not found in OP

 

[zinfamous]

The judge may have had legitimate reasons for dismissing the charges. I also don't particularly care if he wanted to educate victim about Islam. However, he did state that the first Amendment does not protect making fun of other people's religions which it most certainly does. That is really the disturbing part of this case.

You are wrong. He has completely has the right to make fun of a religion. It's only illegal to incite violence against a third party. For example, he can't stand in Times Square and tell everyone to kill the first Muslim they see. He can insult Muslims as much as he wants and if they attack him they have committed a crime not him. You and the judge both fail to understand this.

I'm obviously right, by your first statement.


where did I ever mention inciting violence being protected?

hell, I even said that the douchnozzle should receive some repercussions for intent to incite.

 

[Nebor]

FTM

I thought you were banned.

 

[Texashiker]

Something to keep in mind is the term "creeping sharia" - its how sharia law is creeping into the society of western cultures.

This court case, the incidents in Dearborn Michigan, muslim students wanting interest free loans,,,,, is all part of two conflicting cultures.

I not saying muslims and islam are bad, its that islam and western ideologically do not mix very well. There are certain "virtues" that western society upholds, such as freedom of speech and freedom to follow the religion of your choice, both of which are prohibited by sharia law.

 

[cybrsage]

...not based on the facts--which are not found in OP

Even PA Supreme Court Judges are elected:

Supreme Court justices are elected for ten year terms, which begin the January following the election and end in January ten years later. If a justice wishes to run for retention for another ten year term, the retention election would be held in the November preceding the expiration of the justice's term. Justices must retire at the end of the year in which they reach age 70.

http://www.pmconline.org/usingcourts/pajudges

Here are the election results for the last round of judges:

Current Pennsylvania Election


2011 Judicial Election Results
The results are in: Democrat David Wecht won a seat on the Superior Court and Republican Anne Covey won a seat on the Commonwealth Court. Wecht defeated Republican Vic Stabile, and Covey defeated Democrat Kathryn Bookvar.
The following appellate judges standing for retention were retained:
Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin; Superior Court JudgesJohn Bender and Mary Jane Bowes; Commonwealth Court Judges Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt and
Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr.
County by county results can be found at the Department of State's Election page.

http://www.pmconline.org/node/48