The most ridiculous ruling I've heard of in a while

[Gear_Jammer]

I could be wrong, but I think this should be in this forum and not the Theology forum because the issue is legal and not necessarily religious. Make sure to listen to what the judge said in court a little ways down the page. Abso-freaking-ridiculous. I hope the Administrative Judge and the Bar Association of PA comes down on this judge HARD!

Muslim Admits Attacking Atheist Over ‘Zombie Muhammed’ Costume, Muslim Judge Dismisses Case, Lectures Atheist on Joys of Islam

You may recall back in October The Blaze reported on the now-infamous “Zombie Muhammed,” who was attacked by an irate Muslim man over what he believed was the unspeakable act of dishonoring his prophet. Zombie Muhammed, along with his counterpart, “Zombie Pope,” were costumes worn by Atheists during a Halloween parade last year.

The assault was captured on video and the Muslim man admitted to his crime, saying that he did not know mocking Muhammed was actually legal in the U.S.. Charges, of course, were filed.

Seems like a clear-cut case in favor of the victim, no? Think again.

The court case in the assault has since come to trial and was dismissed by the presiding judge, who, in fact, happens to be Muslim as well.

The judge refused to allow the video as evidence, stating, “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.”

He added, “…he [plaintiff] 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 case brought by the victim, Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/musl...joys-of-islam/

[ThreeFingerPete]

What is wrong with these self righteous fucks?

[Osiris]

Wow!

[talisman]

That guy better be looking for a new job soon. Asshole.

[The King]

Why didn't the costumed atheist and his counterpart fight back against the irate Muslim man to teach him a lesson?

Otherwise, this judge should be defrocked of his robes.

[347Mike]

Why didn't the costumed atheist and his counterpart fight back against the irate Muslim man to teach him a lesson?

They probably thought they were innocent.

[Saleen781]

this Muslim shit is going too far. why do our politicians and judges bend over backwards to make these idiots happy? where is John Wayne when you need him.....

[ceyko]

Opposing Views reports:

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.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If it's good for me, it's good for him. I can't punch someone over the flag being burnt or my personal beliefs...legally.

That was quoted from the bottom of the link from the OP. That's really the best counter argument they have?

[Geor!]

Couldn't he be disbarred for that?

[CJ-95GT]

Can't seem to find the video, but I came accross this. Sounds one sided but still interesting.

[Binky]

If you spit in someones face and instigate violence, you are not innocent.

There is free speech, but that doesn't make you immune to the consequences. He knew putting on that costume that he was going to piss someone off, and did it anyway. Shows severe lack of judgement. He wanted to troll, he got the reaction and now he has righteous indignation that someone got offended? Please.

Lecturing someone about religous tolerance is within the right of the judge. There are also clear definitions about what harrassment is and is not - and if the fight didn't fit the definition it should be thrown out.

All this reads as someone (or the atheist group) trying to further their agenda through trolling and playing the victim.

[347Mike]

If you spit in someones face and instigate violence, you are not innocent.

There is free speech, but that doesn't make you immune to the consequences. He knew putting on that costume that he was going to piss someone off, and did it anyway. Shows severe lack of judgement. He wanted to troll, he got the reaction and now he has righteous indignation that someone got offended? Please.

Lecturing someone about religous tolerance is within the right of the judge. There are also clear definitions about what harrassment is and is not - and if the fight didn't fit the definition it should be thrown out.

All this reads as someone (or the atheist group) trying to further their agenda through trolling and playing the victim.

FYI I didnt read the article.

[Geor!]

If you spit in someones face and instigate violence, you are not innocent.

There is free speech, but that doesn't make you immune to the consequences. He knew putting on that costume that he was going to piss someone off, and did it anyway. Shows severe lack of judgement. He wanted to troll, he got the reaction and now he has righteous indignation that someone got offended? Please.

Lecturing someone about religous tolerance is within the right of the judge. There are also clear definitions about what harrassment is and is not - and if the fight didn't fit the definition it should be thrown out.

All this reads as someone (or the atheist group) trying to further their agenda through trolling and playing the victim.

You're way off base here.

[ceyko]

All this reads as someone (or the atheist group) trying to further their agenda through trolling and playing the victim.

Still can't attack someone legally over it. It's similar to me decking folks who wear a priest outfit with a kid doll attached to the crotch. This is America and you either let some stuff roll or deal with the consequences.

As a Catholic I have no more right to "attack" (Not really sure what that means per se, but I'm assuming it is physical) someone than a Muslim or Atheist. Just because something pisses you off, does not mean you can legally get physically involved.

Once a person decides to whine about it, the judge cannot say "Oh, it's okay because I understand where you were coming from on that one." Maybe ease the punishment since maybe it could be considered offensive, especially if the costume wearer was heckling him - but it's still illegal to attack another person over something like that.

[Binky]

You're way off base here.

How? Or is that all you got?

Someone burns an American flag and gets their ass beat by a vet, people would be all over it as "he deserved it".

We don't live in a bubble. if you instigate shit, you better be ready to accept responsibility for your actions. reading articles from several sources, it looks more and more like a planned stunt designed to get the reaction. It didn't go the way they planned so are crying foul.

===

edit: I agree that he broke the law in hitting him - never said i didn't. But there wasn't a mention of what charges were filed beyond "harrassment" - not Assault or Assault and Battery. You can't claim one thing and then apply something else to it - they are defined for a reason. It doesn't even sound liek this was a criminal court, it was a magistrate which might even be civil. If anyone can find the court case doc, that would be a help - i couldn't locate it.

The judge can't change the charge to fit the crime on the bench. If you get charged for murder and it was really just an accident, you can get aquitted because they didn't meet the definition of murder. Judge makes the decision on the case in front of him.