Skip to comments.'Sharia Ruling' Judge Defends Decision for Muslim
Posted on 03/05/2012 10:11:24 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
[...] in a phone interview, Martin told CBN News he's a life-long Lutheran, not a Muslim.
"The victim claims that I said that I was a Muslim, and he portrayed incorrectly that I was a Muslim, and that I showed biased toward Muslims in my ruling, and really that's ridiculous," Martin told CBN News.
But critics, like Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, say the judge stepped out of bounds of the First Amendment.
[...] "It sounds like he's Sharia compliant, not constitutionally compliant," the Texas lawmaker said.
Martin, however, stands by his ruling, saying there wasn't enough evidence to find the defendant guilty. He told CBN News he believes one of his roles is to keep peace in the community.
"Just because you have First Amendment rights that allow you to say something doesn't necessarily mean that you should always say that thing you want to say," Martin said.
"What I was trying to do in as quick of a time as I could, (is) educate the victim to try help him understand a little bit about Islam," he explained.
Police Sgt. Brian Curtis, the arresting officer in the case, was not happy with the judge's ruling.
"I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed," Curtis said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
“Just because you have First Amendment rights that allow you to say something doesn’t necessarily mean that you should always say that thing you want to say,” Martin said.”
Reason # 522 we are facing a menace from within. This man is a judge.
Just because you have First Amendment rights that allow you to say something doesnt necessarily mean that you should always say that thing you want to say, Martin said.
To be fair, he may have been thinking of “yelling fire in a crowded theater” when he said that. Technically, legally and constitutionally speaking, his comment is correct.
Louie was a judge, before he became my congressman.
One thing that pissed me off even more was the fact that FOX news pixelated the photo of the victim wearing the costume. He isn’t afraid of being interviewed on camera without the costume which means FOX was falling all over themselves to appease the islamderthal scumbags.
I take back my previous post. Within the context of the case, the judge was allowing a man to assault him over his speech. That is pretty cut and dried.
—The Muslim defendant in the case reportedly did not know it is legal to criticize Mohammed under U.S. law.—
Good thing he knew that it is not legal in the US to kill someone who criticizes Mohammed. That could have been interesting - especially if the judge used the same excuse to drop the case against him.
Drop = dismiss
The proper social response to someone wearing a costume that you find religiously offensive is NOT to accost that person, choke them with part of their costume - then seek out a Police Officer to report that their costume offended you and you want them arrested.
Other than that.....
“What I was trying to do in as quick of a time as I could, (is) educate the victim to try help him understand a little bit about Islam,” he explained.
Maybe he should have focused more on educating the perp to help him understand a little bit about US law.
After all, he is a Judge, not an Imam.
Yep, and we're paying him to define his job in that manner?
>>”The victim claims that I said that I was a Muslim, and he portrayed incorrectly that I was a Muslim, and that I showed biased toward Muslims in my ruling, and really that’s ridiculous,” Martin told CBN News.
“You are fronting for the most oppressive ideology on the face of the earth. You are fronting for evil. You are carrying water and running interference for the denial of free speech, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the institutionalized oppression of women, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and worse. You’re fronting for stonings, amputations, the murder of apostates, the treatment of women as possessions of men, the madness and senseless violence that we see in this furor over the Quran-burnings, and more. You shout us down on campuses and do everything you can to make sure we are not heard in the public square. And you call us fascists? You are the quintessence of fascism.
Going East LA and calling Martin Luther King names would get you harmed not others (legal). Same with going to a Mosque and calling Mohammad names (legal).
On a public street calling these people names completely legal.
Ignorance of the law has never been an allowed defense. So now, it is - unless you are a Muslim. Is this the message the judge was trying to send?
—So now, it is - unless you are a Muslim.—
I assume you meant, “So now, it is - if you are a Muslim.”
And I agree with you. It is repulsive. And instead of trying to instruct the perp on what he was doing wrong, he instructed the victim on how he brought it on.
If it were a rape case, it would be the equivalent of a judge explaining to a female victim the mindset of men and tell her that maybe if she would dress more modestly the guy would not have raped her. Case dismissed.
Lets see, Video of the guy assaulting someone... Admission by the perp to a police man that he assaulted someone.. but not enough evidence? This guy needs gone.
Somebody needs to remind this judge about the @Code of Judicial Conduct in Pennsylvania, particularly...
exactly. It is also the reason in Sharia the woman is punished for being raped.