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

[cleanhippie]

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

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,

--snip--

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.

http://atheists.org/blog/2012/02/22/muslim-attacks-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case-blames-victim

What. The. Fuck.

[VWolf]

1. Please let this be the last case this judge presides over n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

2. Fuck Moe and the horse he rode in on. Fuck that judge too.

Better yet let Santorum anally penetrate the judge.

[Dawson Leery]

3. This judge should be barred from ever practicing law.

[rug]

9. He's likely not a lawyer.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Huh. Maybe there is something to the sharia-law scares I've been rolling my eyes at.

Hopefully, this will be a one time incident, but if it's not, then the conservatives were right to be concerned about this.

[wandy]

7. This sounds a lot like one of those 'sharia-law scares' you have been rolling you're eyes at.

The person who was attacked still has legal recourse. They were with out a doubt police people involved, not to mention witnesses. With the help of an attorney I suspect Justis would prevail. I suspect it would be the last time that judge sat on the bench.
The moose calls BS on this one.

[arcane1]

5. I wonder if the Sharia law scaremongers will jump on this story

or will they ignore it because the victim was an atheist?

Either way, Judge Mark Martin is an asshole who has no business being a judge.

[cleanhippie]

6. Had it been a christian, you betcha they would be all over it.

But they probably think that it was the right decision, considering the victim.

Notice how silent the "liberal" christians are on this? And I do not mean just DU'ers, I mean ALL liberal christians. Where is their voice? Where is their admonishment? I have seen a couple here on DU, but thats it.

[rexcat]

8. The judge is so wrong on so many points...

one can only hope that there will be a review of this judge and he is dismissed and never allowed to practice law in this country.

[Sal316]

10. Your right to swing your fists ends at another person's nose.

[cleanhippie]

11. What are you getting at? Your response is ambiguous.

[Sal316]

12. Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

"Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

By 1911 the expression was well-known enough within educational circles that it inspired a joke about a civics teacher:

A teacher having attended an institute where one of the workers gave a talk on “Personal Rights,” was quite pleased at one of the illustrations used. Standing before the teachers and swinging his fists around the speaker said: “Now, I have a perfect right to stand here and swing my fists, but if I start down the aisle this way,” suiting the action to the word, “my rights leave off just where your nose begins.”

Endeavoring to use the same illustration in his civics class later, he began, “Now, I can stand here and swing my fists, but if I come down among you swinging my nose –” and that was as far as he got..

Link for both references.

Please note that in no way was the physical altercation justified.

Just understand that the right to say/do whatever one wants is, in fact, limited and not absolute because that's the society we live in. Marching as zombie whatever doesn't make one a "free speech crusader" or whatever... it just makes one a totally insensitive jerk.

Oh...and your headline is as reasonable as the conservative argument that the judge that overturned Prop 8 did so because he's gay.

[cleanhippie]

13. Nice rationalization.

Jesus is proud, Im sure.

[Sal316]

16. Congrats on missing the point.

[cleanhippie]

22. Congrats on not having one.

[darkstar3]

14. Equivocation was unnecessary.

Your post should have ended here: "Please note that in no way was the physical altercation justified. " Going further is just an atempt to mitigate the egregious nature of the assault because the atheist's free speech offended you.

[Sal316]

17. Thanks for the suggestion.

It was part of a bigger point, which all 3 of you missed.

It wasn't justified.

But he shouldn't be surprised if someone takes his intentionally offensive display personally.

Just because the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech, it doesn't mean that the zombie dude wasn't being a total douche.

[darkstar3]

19. Did you miss the fact that I recognized your bigger point,

and consider it worthless equivocation? Just because I don't think your point was worthy doesn't mean I didn't get it.

[Sal316]

29. Yes I did.

I just didn't think your valuation was worth the electrons used to write it.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. You were doing fine until the second paragraph you wrote, then you fell off right field...

Seriously, you got the saying completely backwards as it happens, it applies to the guy who assaulted the atheist, the Muslim's right to swing his fist ends at the Atheist's nose. Yet you are so blind, you can't even see that.

[Sal316]

18. I do see that.

..and said the altercation wasn't justified.

But hey, if you want to contend the atheist's display of being a total douche by being intentionally offensive is justified, go right ahead.

Oh, and if you think it applies simply to physicality, then you completely miss the point.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Of course it was justified, its free speech, what about that is too difficult for you to understand?

Even more so considering the reaction he got, anyone who would physically assault people over symbols and being offended is a danger to society.

[darkstar3]

23. Goddamn right.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Too many people value their myths more than they do people, its sick and evil, period. n/t

[Rob H.]

27. It's like they believe a warped version of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Only in this case, it's, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unless you're mocking someone's religion, in which case all bets are off."

[Sal316]

30. No.

You have the right to say whatever you want.

You don't have the right, however, to abdicate responsibility for what you communicate under the guise of "free speech".

[cleanhippie]

33. And just what were the responsibilities of the victim in this case?

[Sal316]

35. Seriously....if you have to ask...

...then there's no point in continuing.

But I will give you a hint.

It rhymes with "how about not being a douche".

[cleanhippie]

37. Not that I disagree with you, but "being a douche" is not

Against the law. And being attacked for being a douche does not in any way excuse the behavior of the attacker.

Seriously, what responsibility did the victims have other than to stay within the law?

[Sal316]

28. So I guess that means...

... the speech that got the reaction it did out of Scott Roeder was justified.

...or what Beck or Limbaugh or Savage.

I guess in your definition, rights are absolute and people bear no responsibility for what they say or do.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. No, but I understand nuance...

this wasn't an incitement to violence for crying out loud, it was someone making fun of a mythology, get some perspective. What responsibility did he have to control the reactions of religious fanatics?

[Sal316]

36. #facepalm

[SnakeEyes]

38. Think about it...

So if you say something that offends a teabagger, they haul off and slug you, then you should bear some of the responsibility?

Think about what you're actually saying here and the chilling effects such a perspective in action can have.

[cleanhippie]

39. I think what Sal is getting at, is that religion deserves special consideration.

And that if one chooses to mock religion, one should be prepared to face the consequences, even if it means physical violence.

[DUIC]

41. If that were the case, then Blasphemy laws should be implemented.

Let's put it on the books then Until then, this was a battery where the Judge erred in his decision.

[Boojatta]

20. Link to TV news coverage of the story

Without the video, the simplest explanation would be that the story was invented out of whole cloth.

[wingzeroday]

25. other links/weird story

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/02/mechanicsburg_judge_headed_to.html

O_O

[2ndAmForComputers]

26. You know what this reminds me of?

That scene in Revenge of the Nerds where the nerds try to sue for harassment and the judge mocks them. "The Constitution says nothing about nerds!"

[humblebum]

31. This sheds an entirely new light on the case. And if true, needs to be investigated

and the judge suspended for the duration. Maybe disbarred.

[Angry Dragon]

32. Has the Onion now moved into court rooms??

[humblebum]

40. There now seems to be strong doubt that the judge is indeed a Muslim.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291964/does-judge-martins-not-being-muslim-change-bias-argument-andrew-c-mccarthy

Regardless, when referring to the laws in other countries, he overstepped his boundaries, as he is charged only with application of U.S. law and the laws of Pennsylvania.

The atheist was well within his First Amendment rights, but just as Westboro protesters, or parading American Nazis - he was a bigot on display for all to see, purposely degrading another group, but still within his rights.