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 ...
Inch by inch.
I’m wondering if this judge has daughters and if he realizes what he’s just done to them...
Stick a fork in the US; we’re done.
It doesn't say anything about separation of Islam and state.
If the Phelpses showing up with their “God damn America” and “Troop John Doe is going to hell” isn’t deemed fighting words by our highest judges, why should this be?
bump for later
Why is this judge not using his islamic name, Achmed, Muhammed, Mohammed....whatever? I’ve never heard of an islamic named Mark Martin.
Muslims should be insulted. I say they should confront him about this mistake and take him to the woodshed because he’s ashamed to be muslim. Just sayin...:)
States are the laboratories of democracy.
The voters can have their say on this judge.
The appeals process can have its say on his decision.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Perfect! Now Christians will be free to assault atheists, moslimes, and homosexuals. Right?
‘an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam’
Judge shopping at it’s worst! This judge needs to be impeached or recalled, whatever the process in his area. NOW!
What are we to think when OWS are heroes and taxpayers are considered criminals?
The judge is a Lutheran, not a Muslim.
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the victim (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: Im a Muslim, and thats why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, Im actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to go public with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights- I never even uttered the word jail in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that Im biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks Im Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that Im an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). Ive done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly dont know how many time Ive been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. Im not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldnt characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as Muhammad zombie, he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. 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. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word doofus, but didnt call him that directly; I said something akin to if youre going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, youll look like a doofus.;
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 didnt doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victims version, the defendants 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.
A lesson learned here: theres a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, theres no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. Weve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because Ive been painted as a Muslim judge who didnt recuse himself, and whos trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
“The Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people” - tell that to Hollywood!
As for throwing grenades at US troops for inadvertently burning Qur’ans, the U.S. could say that since they believe this manner of response is correct, then the U.S. will engage in violence against them every time they offend our beliefs or that of others, rather than immoral actions.
Despite what has been reported, the judge in this case is NOT a muslim.
He is a moron and an apologist for muslim violence, but he isn’t a muslim, just a dhimmi.
And not a whisper from our congresscritters.
Hey Marty! Ya’ know what you call a failed lawyer?
A: “Your Honor!” (is that a provocation?)
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.
The last I looked, being a jerk wasn’t grounds for assault.
People didn’t “hear anything with their own ears.” They heard a poor quality audio file, uploaded to youtube by an atheist with an agenda, an atheist who would have no objective moral basis for lying, an atheist who could easily have altered the tape.
The fact is, what the judge is saying fits with the context of the conversation. While his reasoning may be flawed, the “OH NOEZ SHARIA!!!!” narrative that people are invested in doesn’t compute.
Well said. If the rest of us are required to put up with the antics of the Phelps clan, then the Muslims need to get used to putting up with Zombie Mohammed.