Religious nut attacks atheist, judge berates victim

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE]ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Well, the judge sure didn't care for any freedom of speech, besmirching the victim, lecturing him on sharia law. I would think that the paperwork is in for his removal.

 

[occupied]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Held accountable for how he FELT about Muslims?

I mean seriously...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ABC 27 covers the story of the zombie Mohammed court case - YouTube

This story would be considered impossible except for the fact that even a Supreme Court Justice recently suggested that our Constitution isn't good enough to rule our nation...

"The Harrisburg Patriot-News reports that Cumberland County Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Talaag Elbayomy of harrassment (sic)."
Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Case Of Attack On 'Zombie Muhammad' | Fox News

Read more: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Case Of Attack On 'Zombie Muhammad' | Fox News

This judge, as well as Justice Ginsburg should be forced off their respective benches.


Thanks for posting this story.


BTW...is the DNC sharia-compliant yet?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Held accountable for how he FELT about Muslims?

I mean seriously...

Do you think Judge Mark Martin has read the US Constitution?

 

[occupied]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Incitement is NOT a defense for assault.

 

[Sunshine]

That's pretty funny, they are both dumbasses.

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

That was not incitement. That was parody. And parody is legal in this country.

 

[occupied]

Who? The religious nut and the judge? I agree. I don't see anything funny other than the clown suits that they were wearing.

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Wrong. This was responsible and peaceful protest. The person protesting was attacked and the judge was wrong.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Held accountable for how he FELT about Muslims?

I mean seriously...

Do you think Judge Mark Martin has read the US Constitution?

I try not to think about things that I know will make me sad

If he hasn't, shame on us for employing him to judge us.

Since the first rule of accounting is to stop the bleeding, the fist question would be "Is he still in our employ?" and the answer is 'no'.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Responsible protest?? In America we have the right to protest any way we want to, without violence. Violence was visited on the protester in violation of his rights. The nutjob Islamist should be in jail for assault, and the judge should be chasing stray cats.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Incorrect. When a person is ASSAULTED then the victim has the right to have their attacker face justice. Now IF a JURY had felt that the attack was justified, I'd have no problems with that, but a judge is only supposed to throw out cases based on legal reasons, not "you deserved it"

This was essentially jury nullification by a judge, which our legal system makes no room for.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I love the right of protest better than most around here but everyone knows by now how touchy Muslims can be about blasphemy, while he has the certain right to protest in any way he wants, what he did was pretty much incitement. Also the people who are trying make atheism a quasi-religious thing and be evangelists about it are just generally dumbasses.

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Don't you reckon that if the protest had been anything other than peaceful, the headline would have been a bit less specific than "A mock Zombie Muhammad and an irate Muslim walk into a bar and..."?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Responsible protest?? In America we have the right to protest any way we want to, without violence. Violence was visited on the protester in violation of his rights. The nutjob Islamist should be in jail for assault, and the judge should be chasing stray cats.

What do you have against cats, Bro?!?

 

[occupied]

Not at all. Sensitivity has nothing to with this. This is freedom of speech and this allows bashing any religion. If the attacker can't live by our constitution then he should move back to where sharia is loved. It really is as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with responsible protest, the responsibility to not incite violence. The judge could have charged both or neither and made the right choice to just toss it.

Responsible protest?? In America we have the right to protest any way we want to, without violence. Violence was visited on the protester in violation of his rights. The nutjob Islamist should be in jail for assault, and the judge should be chasing stray cats.

So the guy that decides to do something incredibly offensive and provocative in public should not be held accountable for his actions? I can think of many costumes that would not play well in certain public situations, one could dress as a Nazi or a klansman or a terrorist or a priest in certain situations or locations and fully expect to get their asses beat. There had to be some expectation on this guy's part of the possibility of a beat down, if not he truly is a dumbass. Just ask yourself, would you have gone out in public and mocked the Prophet Mohammed?

 

[bodecea]

Right wing cunundrum....defend the Atheist or defend the Muslim.....what to do....what to do......