Zombie Muhammad

[Shady]

This case is pretty appalling, and needs to be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The Pennsylvania man assaulted in October by a Muslim who was offended by his Halloween parade “Zombie Muhammad” costume said he has received hundreds of death threats after a judge dismissed his attacker’s criminal charges.

This is the most disturbing part...

Last week Judge Mark Martin sided with Perce’s attacker, saying in open court that Perce would be put to death in Muslim societies for showing disrespect to Muhammad. The judge dismissed the charges against Elbayomy.

“You’re way outside your boundaries of First Amendment rights,” the judge said during the trial.

DC

Exactly how is this individual way outside the boundaries of his first amendment rights?

[Guest American Woman]

The judge was just editorializing - it doesn't sound as if his opinion had anything to do with his decision. The charges of harassment were dropped because of lack of evidence. As the judge said, he had two conflicting stories with no evidence - so of course the burden was on the accuser to prove his case.

Edited to add: I certainly don't see how Perce was "way outside the boundaries of his first amendment rights," and if that's what the judge's decision was based on, I would agree that it needed to be appealed - but that's not the case.

Edited February 27, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

The judge was just editorializing - it doesn't sound as if his opinion had anything to do with his decision. The charges of harassment were dropped because of lack of evidence. As the judge said, he had two conflicting stories with no evidence - so of course the burden was on the accuser to prove his case.

Edited to add: I certainly don't see how Perce was "way outside the boundaries of his first amendment rights," and if that's what the judge's decision was based on, I would agree that it needed to be appealed - but that's not the case.

Huh? The case wasn't about harassment, it was about assult. And the charges weren't dropped, the case was dismissed by the Judge. Even though there was a police officer that could corroborate the victim's account.

[Guest American Woman]

Huh? The case wasn't about harassment, it was about assult. And the charges weren't dropped, the case was dismissed by the Judge. Even though there was a police officer that could corroborate the victim's account.

Harassment/assault - whatever the case was about, the charges were dismissed - which is different from saying they were dropped - how?

Did the police officer witness the event? Not from what I've read. The officer says that Elbayomy admitted to trying to choke Perce when he questioned him, but he didn't take a statement from him, and I think that's the only thing that would have stood up in court. - The officer tried to get Elbayomy to admit it in court, but Elbayomy denied it. There were no witnesses, from what I've read - no one tried to intervene, to break it up. As I said, the burden was on Perce to prove his allegations, and it sounds as if there was no evidence.

Edited February 27, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

This case is pretty appalling, and needs to be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Amend the two involved to be Greek Orthodox and the other a Wiccan and your radar would be completely broke on this.

Wouldnt maerit a scan of your eyes in a newspaper.

That said, he said she said.

[olpfan1]

All religion is satanic

[Shady]

Amend the two involved to be Greek Orthodox and the other a Wiccan and your radar would be completely broke on this.

Correct, because there wouldn't have been any incident in the first place.

[BubberMiley]

Correct, because there wouldn't have been any incident in the first place.

How about if it were you and the spammer you valiantly promised to assault?

[guyser]

Correct, because there wouldn't have been any incident in the first place.

No no, an incident involving the two as I described and you wouldnt care.

Its muslim,a nd mud slinging at them, even when you get the reasons for the case bein dismissed wrong, is what entertains you.

Transparent, that you are.

[Michael Hardner]

Regardless of whether anybody would or wouldn't comment, doesn't this case strike anybody else as a bit strange ? Don't people have the right to criticize religion without being assaulted ?

This judgement seems very wrong to me.

[Guest American Woman]

Regardless of whether anybody would or wouldn't comment, doesn't this case strike anybody else as a bit strange ? Don't people have the right to criticize religion without being assaulted ?

This judgement seems very wrong to me.

Of course they have the right to criticize religion without being assaulted, but there was no evidence of an assault - that's why it was dismissed. So why does it seem very wrong to you?

[Michael Hardner]

Of course they have the right to criticize religion without being assaulted, but there was no evidence of an assault - that's why it was dismissed. So why does it seem very wrong to you?

I'm going with the link to the Daily Caller in the OP. Unless that characterization isn't right, it looks like there was evidence but that the judge dismissed the case.

[Shady]

but there was no evidence of an assault

That's completely untrue. Stop repeating it.

[Shady]

I'm going with the link to the Daily Caller in the OP. Unless that characterization isn't right, it looks like there was evidence but that the judge dismissed the case.

You're correct. According to the case, there was a police officer that was corroborating the victim's story.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Shady

[fellowtraveller]

The judge was just editorializing - it doesn't sound as if his opinion had anything to do with his decision. The charges of harassment were dropped because of lack of evidence. As the judge said, he had two conflicting stories with no evidence - so of course the burden was on the accuser to prove his case.

Edited to add: I certainly don't see how Perce was "way outside the boundaries of his first amendment rights," and if that's what the judge's decision was based on, I would agree that it needed to be appealed - but that's not the case.

The accuser has no burden to 'prove his case'. Charges are brought by the state, and it is their duty to collect evidence and present it in court. The accuser has no duty in this regard.

[Shady]

No no, an incident involving the two as I described and you wouldnt care.

No, no, like I said. There wouldn't have been an incident. It's almost exclusively tied to one particular religion. You know, the religion of peace.

The religion you always to go bat for.

[guyser]

No, no, like I said. There wouldn't have been an incident. It's almost exclusively tied to one particular religion. You know, the religion of peace.

The religion you always to go bat for.

Thank you shady. You are some piece of work .

First off, we know you would nt give a rats ass if it were any other than a muslim.

Then you continually showcase , one should really use lie as the key word here, this as an assault .

Thirdly , accuse someone of going to bat for a muslim? Really, ddamn, more stupidity

The facts are, this was a harassment charge, not assault, or assult as you put it.

Huh? The case wasn't about harassment, it was about assult

Lies, wrong, nice way to try and frame another muslim bs charge from you.

A district judge dismissed a harassment charge against a man accused of attacking a man dressed as "Zombie Muhammad" during a Halloween parade last year in Mechanicsburg.

Judge Mark Martin said there wasn't enough evidence to convict 46-year-old Talaag Elbayomy of the summary offense. It was basically one man's word against another's, the judge said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/west_shore_judge_dismisses_har.html

Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out Charge For Harassing Atheist While Calling The Victim A Doofus

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/

Your apology for purposely lying is requested.

Edited February 27, 2012 by guyser

[Michael Hardner]

So the issue seems to be that the two news pieces are at odds with each other...

[Guest American Woman]

You're correct. According to the case, there was a police officer that was corroborating the victim's story.

The police officer didn't witness the altercation - he said the accused told him that the had grabbed at Perce's beard and sign when the officer interviewed him, but he denied it in court - and since the officer didn't take a statement from him, it didn't hold up in court.

And fyi, the charge was harassment, not assault, just as I originally said.

[guyser]

So the issue seems to be that the two news pieces are at odds with each other...

Not at all.

The MO of a particular poster is not one that stems from truth.

Find a horrible left-ish, or immigrant particularly Mulsim transgression, and the faux outrage comes pouring out.

The article linked. DC, is a fluff piece worse than a blog, and does not mention anything about what charge. Thats leaves those who would be dishonest about it framing it as an assault.

Pretty pathetic, but considering who, it makes it quite funny to see one fall flat on their face publically.

I guess we can call him toews-lite in that regard

[Michael Hardner]

I have no knowledge of Daily Caller as a news organization.

If it is indeed an opinion blog, then they would have to be discredited if they quoted information that was false, even as an opinion blog.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 27 February 2012 - 05:36 PM, said: but there was no evidence of an assault

That's completely untrue. Stop repeating it.

I'll repeat it as often as I like - and fyi, there weren't even any charges of assault - the charge was harassment, just as I had said.

[kimmy]

A few points:

First off, I am not familiar with the definition of "harassment" under Pennsylvania law. The incident as related by Officer Curtis certainly sounds like it would meet the legal definition of assault, so it seems like a rather pointless distinction.

Second, it seems entirely reasonable that the judge found there just wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction. I note that the judge did not allow the victim's cell-phone video of the incident into evidence.

Finally, to me it's not the acquittal that seems noteworthy here, it is the judge's comments.

Lecturing the victim on tenets of Islamic theology was a ridiculous tangent. Explaining that he was a "doofus" for wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume because (unlike Jesus) Muhammad did not rise from the dead is irrelevant to the substance of the case and invites speculation as to what the judge's intention really was. Going on to explain that in a Muslim country he could have been put to death for wearing that costume is even more inane. What point was he trying to make there? That the accused was actually going easy on him? Or just that he was lucky to be in the good ol' USA? But, as a point of fact the incident did indeed occur in the USA, which is an important point that we'll get back to.

The most troubling aspect of the judge's comments is the comment that the victim went far beyond his first amendment rights by insulting Islam. To me that's an indefensible comment. Here in Canada, BS like that might fly... Mr Perce could probably have ended up in front of a human rights tribunal or something equally repulsive for wearing that costume. But in America? I don't think Americans accept the idea that your freedom of speech ends when the feelings of a religious person (or a brown person or a gay person) get hurt. I think that would be a very controversial statement for a sitting judge to make regardless of the facts of the trial, and I think he is fully deserving of the scrutiny that he is now receiving.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Great comments Kimmy - unless DC outright lies the judges comments make no sense.

[kimmy]

Great comments Kimmy - unless DC outright lies the judges comments make no sense.

One needn't rely on Daily Caller for the judge's comments. They can be found from other sources.

-k