Skip to comments.Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
Posted on 02/27/2012 7:40:00 PM PST by Malone LaVeigh
Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Well it seems to me that a precedent has been set for any Christians who become offended when people insult, desecrate and blaspheme the Name of the Son of the Living God, aka Jesus Christ, to start kicking ass and taking names.
Judge Martin has no idea of what he has unleashed.
Did the judge say if its alright to defend ourselves or shall we just accept our beating?
That is an entirely different perspective than what has been posted several times about this incident. I know it's from the Judge's viewpoint, but it has the ring of truth about it, and it sounds like the Atheist was a general jerk. His Zombie description of Mohammad, also sounds like a thinly veiled insult of Christianity (' Mohammad rose from the dead, and walked around like a Zombie (living dead), and then ascended into Heaven').... It sounds like the judge was being patient in explaining to the atheist that the Koran never says that Mad Mo raised from the dead...
So in this new context, this atheist just sounds like a jerk.
An atheist, got a little of what he was asking for, but from the tape, other than threats nothing happened.
While I don’t agree with the judge’s reasoning (and it’s really quiet alarming), there is a certain satisfaction in the event, since the atheist in question (which appears to happen more often than not) was out to provoke a reaction. Well, he got one.
Altering the narrative to build case against anti-sharia legislation?
No, you just don't understand, those are hate crimes.
Pennsylvanians allowed to shoot muslims attacking them because of the Castle Doctrine...
This needs to go to appeal and the judge tossed out of the bar.
Jerk or not is irrelevant. He was physically assaulted. The muslim even admitted it. Should have been an open and shut case with a nice conviction.
I must have missed the "provocation clause" when I studied the First Amendment. Or maybe this judge has Constitution 2.0.
“That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. “
Not his job!
Carry, always, everywhere.
If attacked, respond.
See my post #33
This doesn’t sound good.
Well, the judge is NOT a muzzie as initially reported. But...he IS on the wrong side of this one and did something really, really stupid.
And as much as I think the “atheist” is probably an obnoxious idiot, no one has the right to put their hands on you because of political speech. This assclown set out to inflame and insult people - and he DID, evidently - and he ran up against someone who, like it or not, stuck up for HIS faith in the only way he knew how.
But - the muzz ATTACKED a person, here, for “offending” him and this moron of a judge sided with the attacker. HE broke the law - it’s called assault and battery - not the idiot atheist. This isn’t Beirut or Asscrackistan. It’s Pennsylvania USA, not some third world crap hole where these people can run amok like 7th century savages.
Doesn’t set a good precedent - especially when it comes to the “Religion of Perpetual Outrage”.
Nobody has a right to put their hands on you and expect to walk away unscathed in this day and age, muzzie or not.
If PA has a Castle Doctrine, the idiot child in the zombie suit could have make a valid claim he was in fear of his life because a Muslim was attacking him and attempting to choke him (assuming that really did happen).
If so - BANG!, and let the lawyer deal with it.
One does not have to take a beating from anyone.
What about strangling a judge for insulting our intelligence?
He seems to be trying to deny what people heard with their own ears.