Muslim Attacks Atheist. Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Blames

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 29, 2012, 4:51 pm

http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/mus ... mes-victim

Muslim Attacks Atheist. Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Blames Victim.

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.

Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:

Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate

Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.

This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.

I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
UPDATE: February 24th, 2011.

There is a story circulating on NewsGather where Martin’s receptionist, Rita, states that Martin is not a Muslim. Hence forth comes the accusations of sensationalist journalism. I guess Judge Martin shouldn’t have said he was one, then. I quote,

“I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.”

Those are his words, as recorded and transcribed. He can deny it for whatever reasons he wants, and he may very well not be a Muslim. However, the reporting that has been done here that stated he is Muslim was based on his words, and nothing more.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 29, 2012, 8:57 pm

Wow.... Just wow.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 29, 2012, 9:36 pm

If that is a true story, the guy could easily escalate that shit to a higher court and perhaps even have Judge D00dman disbarred(sp).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 29, 2012, 11:39 pm

So, as sensationalist as this sounds, there's really not enough information to say if this is a horrible miscarriage of justice or not. It might be -- don't get me wrong -- but there's no guarantee.

The key is that the article doesn't say WHY the judge threw the video out. Maybe he did it because he's a biased muslim fascist who hates atheists. Or maybe he did it because it wasn't, y'know, admissible evidence. There are rules of evidence, and sometimes they lead to results that seem silly. If the video's out, this very well might be a he-said-he-said, and that doesn't really get you past "beyond a reasonable doubt."

As for the quotes... well, there's some missing context, obviously. But the bottom line is that a judge can deliver whatever lecture he wants so long as his actions are in accord with the law. Judges lecture people ALL THE TIME. You might disagree with the content of his lecture, but as long as his rulings were rooted in the law, there's no problem with it.

And-- the decision is unappealable. You can't appeal a criminal acquittal; that's double jeopardy. You could make a disciplinary complaint, I suppose, but that's unlikely to get you very far, and it certainly won't lead to this guy getting disbarred unless the facts are WAY worse than the article lets on.

Update:

After writing the above, I found this, which is a pretty fair assessment of the situation, I think. Bottom line: The judge might be a bit of a blowhard, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that his ruling was incorrect. No way there's any risk whatsoever of disbarment or other serious sanctions.

As it happens, judges in Pennsylvania are elected, so start a campaign if it chaps your ass so much.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 1, 2012, 1:30 am

Sueven wrote:But the bottom line is that a judge can deliver whatever lecture he wants so long as his actions are in accord with the law. Judges lecture people ALL THE TIME. You might disagree with the content of his lecture, but as long as his rulings were rooted in the law, there's no problem with it..

Anyone who watches Judge Judy knows that!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 1, 2012, 2:26 am

muslims are fuckin weird though.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 1, 2012, 3:24 am

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

TL;DNR, but if the above testimony was accurately reported and carried any weight whatsoever then someone does deserve to be disbarred.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 1, 2012, 6:24 am

Zaelath wrote:
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
TL;DNR, but if the above testimony was accurately reported and carried any weight whatsoever then someone does deserve to be disbarred.

You're assuming this Magisterial District Judge passed the bar exam, or that he even has a law degree. This gentleman may very well have all those credentials, but for his elected position, it's not required.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 1, 2012, 6:27 am

yeah anyone can be a judge in the USA. it's pretty rad.

just like some of the crazies that get elected sheriffs in small towns in the south.

you mungos would elect your strippers if they let you.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 1, 2012, 9:13 am

Ah it's a magistrate. You are correct; no law degree required. They're usually lawyers or ex-cops.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 1, 2012, 5:52 pm

What's the term for magistrates then? Defenestrated?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 1, 2012, 7:02 pm

DEFROCKED!

Well, maybe not so much....

Either way, if what the victim alleges is true, said magistrate is still bound by Constitutional Law, unless I am missing something regarding backwater justice...

Of course, we all know what John Rambo went through when Sheriff Brian Denehey of British Columbia arrested and subsequently unleashed a chain of events turning a humble Vietnam War Vet into a KILLING MACHINE.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 1, 2012, 9:07 pm

Cane, the magistrate is bound by the relevant law, constitutional and otherwise. Magistrate judges in Pennsylvania have a limited set of powers to deal with certain minor offenses and pre-trial matters and are subordinate to the full judges who sit on the Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania's trial courts.

The point here is that two independent things happened.

One thing that happened was that the magistrate ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to allow the criminal charge to go forward. So far nobody has shown anything to indicate that this decision was incorrect.

Another thing that happened was that the magistrate (a Lutheran, incidentally) gave Zombie Mohammed a lecture about showing respect to Islam. You can disapprove of this if you want, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the dismissal of the charges.

Dismissing a criminal charge due to lack of evidence is not an affront to the law. Lecturing a person on respect for Islam is not an affront to the law. Dismissing a criminal charge BECAUSE the victim showed a lack of respect for Islam would be an affront to the law, but that isn't what happened here.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 1, 2012, 9:12 pm

yeah, but that doesn't provide the headlines for the masses that won't actually look into what happened!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 1, 2012, 10:32 pm

There are a lot of articles out there on this, ranging from one extreme to the other as far as opinions and such. I copied just one of them - mostly out of laziness and to get this discussion kicked off.

The middle east is a fucked up place with seriously fucked up people. I don't say that because 'they are different than us', I say it because.. they're fucked up in the head. I feel for their living conditions and the stuff the general population has to live through (which we in our privileged country of fat ignorant idiots could never even imagine), but that doesn't excuse the behavior in the name of Muhammad of the many more than a slight few.

What happened when that nobody of a preacher in some whothefuckrememberswhere state said he was going to burn a copy of the Quran? Riots in the streets in the middle east. American flag burning left and right. Troop deployments. For a book..

For anyone who listens (I don't) to Bubba the Love Sponge, he's planning on doing a deep fry coming up here soon. Apparently they're going to deep fry a copy of the Quarn, the Bible and who knows what else. Wife told me about it, I haven't looked it up. In any case, hope he does. I'm waiting for the outage to come any minute now.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 1, 2012, 10:34 pm

Sueven wrote:Cane, the magistrate is bound by the relevant law, constitutional and otherwise. Magistrate judges in Pennsylvania have a limited set of powers to deal with certain minor offenses and pre-trial matters and are subordinate to the full judges who sit on the Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania's trial courts.

The point here is that two independent things happened.

One thing that happened was that the magistrate ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to allow the criminal charge to go forward. So far nobody has shown anything to indicate that this decision was incorrect.

Another thing that happened was that the magistrate (a Lutheran, incidentally) gave Zombie Mohammed a lecture about showing respect to Islam. You can disapprove of this if you want, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the dismissal of the charges.

Dismissing a criminal charge due to lack of evidence is not an affront to the law. Lecturing a person on respect for Islam is not an affront to the law. Dismissing a criminal charge BECAUSE the victim showed a lack of respect for Islam would be an affront to the law, but that isn't what happened here.

Hence, my starting the argument with 'IF'. Now, I believe you have the right of it, and that the headline is slightly more than misleading. Judges lecture all the time, and in the context you stated, there were no shenannigans.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 2, 2012, 2:13 am

From watching that video, it seems the guy admitted to the cop that he attacked the guy dressed up as Mohammad...

That judge is going to end up in deep shit. I don't agree with the guy dressed up as Mohammad, even though I am agnostic and don't particularly like organized religion in general...but it is retarded to try to incite them. Even so, the man who attacked him should have been held accountable.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 2, 2012, 2:44 am

Siji wrote:There are a lot of articles out there on this, ranging from one extreme to the other as far as opinions and such. I copied just one of them - mostly out of laziness and to get this discussion kicked off.

The middle east is a fucked up place with seriously fucked up people. I don't say that because 'they are different than us', I say it because.. they're fucked up in the head. I feel for their living conditions and the stuff the general population has to live through (which we in our privileged country of fat ignorant idiots could never even imagine), but that doesn't excuse the behavior in the name of Muhammad of the many more than a slight few.

I'd love to live in a country where you can just fucking throw down and drop a dude for being a douche. Imagine a city where someone like Winnow or Kilmoll get their fucking cumholes bashed in every time they said something? Holy crappers, I'd pay to live there!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 2, 2012, 3:52 am

ewwwww

But, you can live your dream in wonderful Vancouver, WA.... Rad Ford dealership, so I hear...

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 3, 2012, 11:22 pm

Asheran Mojomaster wrote:That judge is going to end up in deep shit. I don't agree with the guy dressed up as Mohammad, even though I am agnostic and don't particularly like organized religion in general...but it is retarded to try to incite them. Even so, the man who attacked him should have been held accountable.

I have absolutely no problem with it. My reasoning is they have absolutely no problem with imposing their beliefs on other people. The world is a diverse place with many different beliefs and until someone can offer up undeniable physical proof showing their truth is the only proven truth, it's just a guess with nobody being any more correct than anyone else.

If I want to dress up as a zombie pope with a zombie mohammad wrapping his arms around my waist while sucking my big fat zombie pope cock - I will. You're more than welcome to take offense and think I'm a bad person going to hell, that's your right. The same as it's the KKKs right to exist, or for rednecks to carry signs with bullet holes through Obama's head, or for first grade English teachers to think GW Bush is retarded.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 3, 2012, 11:41 pm

Siji wrote:
Asheran Mojomaster wrote:That judge is going to end up in deep shit. I don't agree with the guy dressed up as Mohammad, even though I am agnostic and don't particularly like organized religion in general...but it is retarded to try to incite them. Even so, the man who attacked him should have been held accountable.
I have absolutely no problem with it. My reasoning is they have absolutely no problem with imposing their beliefs on other people. The world is a diverse place with many different beliefs and until someone can offer up undeniable physical proof showing their truth is the only proven truth, it's just a guess with nobody being any more correct than anyone else.

If I want to dress up as a zombie pope with a zombie mohammad wrapping his arms around my waist while sucking my big fat zombie pope cock - I will. You're more than welcome to take offense and think I'm a bad person going to hell, that's your right. The same as it's the KKKs right to exist, or for rednecks to carry signs with bullet holes through Obama's head, or for first grade English teachers to think GW Bush is retarded.

Oh, I completely agree. People have the right to say and do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. They may end up making idiots of themselves in the process, or end up with people hating them, but they have the right to do it. That is why I said the man who attacked him should have been held accountable. It is horrible that he got off with nothing.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2012, 6:41 am

If you set out to purposely insult someone's deeply held personal beliefs, you should also be prepared to suffer the consequences within or outside of the law.

You do not have a right to say or do whatever you want because eventually you're going to be piss someone off and they are going to bash your face in. From a meta-ethical relativistic perspective, expecting to be protected by the law so you can be an asshole about something you don't have any respect for is absolutely no different than fred phelps' westboro baptists expecting the police to protect them when they protest military serviceman's funerals.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 4, 2012, 2:36 pm

Every time I see kyoukan's name I get the smell of rotting fish in my head. It's horrible.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 4, 2012, 3:08 pm

kyoukan wrote:If you set out to purposely insult someone's deeply held personal beliefs, you should also be prepared to suffer the consequences within or outside of the law.

You do not have a right to say or do whatever you want because eventually you're going to be piss someone off and they are going to bash your face in. From a meta-ethical relativistic perspective, expecting to be protected by the law so you can be an asshole about something you don't have any respect for is absolutely no different than fred phelps' westboro baptists expecting the police to protect them when they protest military serviceman's funerals.

That is basically what I was saying. That does not excuse the person who breaks the law to attack said douchebag, but if you are going to act like that, you better be prepared to face the possible consequences, even if you are within your rights.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2012, 3:19 pm

Winnow wrote:Every time I see kyoukan's name I get the smell of rotting fish in my head. It's horrible.

wow what a terrific zinger great job

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 4, 2012, 7:33 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote:Every time I see kyoukan's name I get the smell of rotting fish in my head. It's horrible.

wow what a terrific zinger great job

You're a loose cable...er cannon.

I could do this all week!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 5, 2012, 1:11 pm

kyoukan wrote:If you set out to purposely insult someone's deeply held personal beliefs, you should also be prepared to suffer the consequences within or outside of the law.

You do not have a right to say or do whatever you want because eventually you're going to be piss someone off and they are going to bash your face in. From a meta-ethical relativistic perspective, expecting to be protected by the law so you can be an asshole about something you don't have any respect for is absolutely no different than fred phelps' westboro baptists expecting the police to protect them when they protest military serviceman's funerals.

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but here in the US - the 'didnt like the way he insulted my gummibear diety' doesn't make an acceptable defense in court. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. You do not have the right to express your distaste of something by breaking the law. I do however, have the right to defend myself should you decide to break the law and threaten my safety.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 5, 2012, 1:22 pm

She's not saying you can't say what you want.. Just that you shouldn't be surprised when you get your ass kicked. Sure there is leagal recourse you can take after the fact against that person, If you're still alive, but that wont help you much in the meantime.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 6, 2012, 1:48 pm

Still not something I agree with. A person should feel safe in expressing themselves freely. If that confidence did not exist, people would be too afraid to speak out against the government, or the police, etc. It's similar to telling a black person they shouldn't be surprised if they get shot walking through a white neighborhood. It's a cop-out and it's bullshit.

Before someone jumps off on a google tangent, yes I know it's easy to prove bad things do happen when people do things others don't like. (Homosexual kids in school and bullying is a very good current example) My point is it's not right, and it's extremely unbelievable to think it would be used as a defense in court.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 6, 2012, 4:10 pm

How do you equate an asshole deliberately setting out to insult someone with a visible minority walking through a white neighborhood? How can your perspective possibly be that incorrect?

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 6, 2012, 7:15 pm

Siji wrote:Still not something I agree with. A person should feel safe in expressing themselves freely. If that confidence did not exist, people would be too afraid to speak out against the government, or the police, etc. It's similar to telling a black person they shouldn't be surprised if they get shot walking through a white neighborhood. It's a cop-out and it's bullshit.

Before someone jumps off on a google tangent, yes I know it's easy to prove bad things do happen when people do things others don't like. (Homosexual kids in school and bullying is a very good current example) My point is it's not right, and it's extremely unbelievable to think it would be used as a defense in court.

That is not a very good example, but I do have to say that on the flip side, as a white man, I know of many predominantly black neighborhoods I would NEVER walk through. In fact, I would not drive through them. Just because I legally can, and it would be illegal for someone to assault \ rob \ kill me does not mean that I would be safe. That general idea could be applied somewhat to what this man did. He legally has the right to dress as zombie Muhammad, and it is illegal for anyone to harm him for doing so, but he should not be completely surprised if someone does it anyway.

That being said, I still think it is a huge failure of the justice system to allow the man who assaulted him to get off with no punishment.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2012, 9:57 am

It... hasn't... been... used... as... a... defense. He... was... not... convicted... because... there... was... not... enough... evidence... to... prove... the... charges.

Seriously, the fact that somebody wasn't convicted of a minor harassment charge because of insufficient evidence is the FARTHEST THING IMAGINABLE from a travesty.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 7, 2012, 3:56 pm

Sueven wrote:It... hasn't... been... used... as... a... defense. He... was... not... convicted... because... there... was... not... enough... evidence... to... prove... the... charges.

Seriously, the fact that somebody wasn't convicted of a minor harassment charge because of insufficient evidence is the FARTHEST THING IMAGINABLE from a travesty.

Do you know how to fucking read? The Muslim guy said on record he had to show his son he'd fight for his god or what the fuck ever. That's basically a confession, which is enough to go on to a real trial, with a real judge.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 7, 2012, 4:08 pm

That isn't even close to confessing to committing the crime he was being charged with.

You should still be in prison for the multiple assaults you have "confessed" to on this board alone.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 8, 2012, 1:51 am

Boogahz wrote:That isn't even close to confessing to committing the crime he was being charged with.

You should still be in prison for the multiple assaults you have "confessed" to on this board alone.

Bullshit it isn't. And yes, I've done and been around some really, really bad shit in my time, but that's not the point, I never confessed any of that to a judge.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 8, 2012, 7:57 am

you just confessed! there is never a cop around when you need one.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 8, 2012, 1:59 pm

kyoukan wrote:How do you equate an asshole deliberately setting out to insult someone

We're not talking about Sinead Oconner here, we're talking about some guy that thought a zombie mohammad was funny.

I like shit jokes. That doesn't mean I'm intentionally trying to insult anyone with IBS. Political correctness is out of control.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 8, 2012, 2:59 pm

Sueven wrote:It... hasn't... been... used... as... a... defense. He... was... not... convicted... because... there... was... not... enough... evidence... to... prove... the... charges.

I think the point people are (or should be) getting pissed off about is the assault was captured on video and the judge refused to admit the video as evidence with no explanation, other than zombie-Mohammad was deserving of a butt whipping for being a jerk. Without the video there wasn't sufficient evidence.

Demags · Post by **Demags** » March 8, 2012, 6:26 pm

I wouldn't say that the guy dressed as zombie mohammad was being a jerk. He was in the atheist part of a halloween parade walking next to a zombie pope. It was fucking halloween.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 8, 2012, 8:31 pm

Demags wrote:I wouldn't say that the guy dressed as zombie mohammad was being a jerk.

To dress up as either zombie pope or zombie Mohammad your intention is to be be a bit of a douche. I can see the humor in both, why is something like that funny? Because you're being a douche towards a (currently) acceptable target.

How do they know he's actually dressed as Mohammad, there being no pictures and all.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » March 8, 2012, 8:57 pm

Sorry, no. Demags is absolutely right on this. If he is such a devote Muslim or whatever fucking imaginary belief system he adheres to, why the fuck is the guy out celebrating Halloween with his son in the first place? Correct me if I am wrong, but participating in Pagan holidays is a major no no for just about every Islamic and Judeo Christian faith, but its just one of many rules that gets ignored when its convenient. Its fucking Halloween. If you have a tender vagina about ANYTHING let alone religeon, stay the fuck home on that day. Draging Akmed Jr out to a parade is pretty much asking to get your buttons pushed. Avoiding a bad neighborhood because I am afraid of the darkies mugging/raping me is a lot different than making a joke in a public venue that might piss off people.

This issue is independant of religeon. Its a free speech issue. If it were an atheist guy assaulting one of those God Hates Fags retards and getting let off by an atheist judge, I would be just as outraged.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 8, 2012, 10:28 pm

Jice Virago wrote:...

My point of disagreement was in the nature of the humor, beyond that I agree with you. Zombie Mickey & Minnie Mouse wouldn't't have had the same impact for instance as they aren't perceived as being inappropriate.

The attacker was wrong, as was the magistrate who refused the evidence.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 8, 2012, 10:57 pm

Totally agree with Jice.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 8, 2012, 11:31 pm

Zombie pope - funny
Zombie Mohammad - funny
"Devout Muslim" at a pagan festival where he's absolutely going to see things to offend him if he's really a devout Muslim - funny
Zombie Mohammad getting assaulted by devout Muslim - that's funny too

Magistrate not doing his job and lecturing from the bench . Not funny

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 9, 2012, 2:27 am

Aabidano wrote:
Sueven wrote:It... hasn't... been... used... as... a... defense. He... was... not... convicted... because... there... was... not... enough... evidence... to... prove... the... charges.
I think the point people are (or should be) getting pissed off about is the assault was captured on video and the judge refused to admit the video as evidence with no explanation, other than zombie-Mohammad was deserving of a butt whipping for being a jerk. Without the video there wasn't sufficient evidence.

I've watched the video, and it is not proof in my eyes. It is a video of a guy walking, then yelling that someone is attacking him, and turning around. I did not see the other man touch assaulting him in the video. I only heard him proclaim that it was happening...and he sounded like a drama queen.

I was told that there was another video that shows it more clearly, but I haven't been able to find it. Until I see the other video, if it exists, then I actually agree that there was not enough proof. Then again, there is still the chance of witnesses that saw what happened. I haven't heard a damn thing about what people from the crowd saw.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2012, 3:07 am

Personally I think it should be 100% legal to deck a smarmy atheist whenever the mood arises.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 9, 2012, 9:30 am

kyoukan wrote:Personally I think it should be 100% legal to deck a smarmy atheist whenever the mood arises.

See? There's something for everyone in this.

Smarmy atheist new gets a reason to go out into the backyard (or Starbucks) and climb up on his cross. Help!, help!; I'm being repressed!
Devout muslim gets a reason to feel self righteous over an act of violence - Look at me Potential Nutjob Jr., I'm a soldier for the faith! This is appropriate behavior in the US.
Conservative christians gets a new reason to think sharia law is coming to the US - while looking down from the cross they think live on.
Foreign islamists get another reason to hate us.

And advertising revenue all around with a side of decreasing faith in our judicial system.

Could keep going but I'm bored now.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 9, 2012, 10:11 am

Ash is right; the video doesn't prove that anybody "assaulted" anybody. Come the fuck on. If I'm remembering right, he wasn't even CHARGED with assault, he was charged with harassment. Jice, Funk, Aab-- do any of you even know what the elements of harassment are? I mean, I don't, I haven't bothered looking it up, but I'm not the guy claiming that this judge threw out irrefutable evidence of a crime.

And the article from "atheists.org" doesn't provide an explanation as to why the video wasn't considered. I'm going to bet you that the judge did provide an explanation at some point or another.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 9, 2012, 11:37 am

I also dare you to even try finding a judge or magistrate that doesn't lecture from the bench.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 9, 2012, 7:18 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:...
My point of disagreement was in the nature of the humor, beyond that I agree with you. Zombie Mickey & Minnie Mouse wouldn't't have had the same impact for instance as they aren't perceived as being inappropriate.

The attacker was wrong, as was the magistrate who refused the evidence.

You're missing the point. To an atheist, mickey and minnie mouse hold the same weight as a pope and mohammad. To make fun of them is no different than making fun of any other subject which happens to be relevant in the world today. It wouldn't be a laugh if I dressed up as a zombie president Taft, but it would probably still get some laughs if I did a zombie president Bush or Obama. Though I'm guessing a zombie GW Bush would have been a better president; assuming anyone could tell the difference.