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

[ceyko]

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.

-Somone burns a flag
-Vet kicks that person's ass
-We all cheer
-Vet still has criminal things to worry about if charges are pressed.

[Geor!]

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.

No. I just wanted to point out that your intelligence appeared to be along the same lines as Relinquished with that post before I learn you something.

Islam is a "religion of peace," we've heard that more than once, right? In fact, all religions (possibly Islam included, but I kinda doubt that), teach of peace. The mere fact that someone gets offended is not reason to kick their ass. If that was allowed, you'd see people fighting every fucking where you went. The degree of the offense has absolutely no bearing. The vet who kicks someone's ass for burning a flag would be in just as much trouble as Abdul in this story.

While I won't argue your point that the judge certainly has the right to lecture someone about religion, what he does not have a right to do is not levy punishment on the assaulter. Spitting in someone's face is a physical provocation, wearing a goddamn costume is not. If I'm out in public wearing a shirt that offends you or your lady, is it then your right to kick that my ass for wearing that shirt? If I believe pigs fly but you don't, is that reason for me to kick your ass?

I'm no atheist sympathizer at all, but this was a complete horseshit move by the "judge."

[Binky]

Show me that he was up on Assault charges or something other than Harrassment.

"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."

§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).
(b) Stalking.--(Deleted by amendment).
(b.1) Venue.--
(1) An offense committed under this section may be
deemed to have been committed at either the place at which
the communication or communications were made or at the place
where the communication or communications were received.
(2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in
more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
(c) Grading.--
(1) An offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall
constitute a summary offense.
(2) (i) An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or
(7) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.
(ii) (Deleted by amendment).
(d) False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false
information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to
implicate another under this section commits an offense under
section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement
authorities).
(e) Application of section.--This section shall not apply to
conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of
June 2, 1937 (P.L.1198, No.308), known as the Labor Anti-
Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
(e.1) Course of conduct.--(Deleted by amendment).
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Communicates." Conveys a message without intent of
legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written
or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail,
Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar
transmission.
"Course of conduct." A pattern of actions composed of more
than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a
continuity of conduct. Acts indicating a course of conduct which
occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
"Emotional distress." (Deleted by amendment).
"Family or household member." (Deleted by amendment).
(June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 1997,
P.L.379, No.44, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59,
eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days)

2002 Amendment. See sections 9 and 10 of Act 218 in the
appendix to this title for special provisions relating to
references to section 2709 and references to section 5504.
Cross References. Section 2709 is referred to in sections
4954, 4955, 5708 of this title; section 3304 of Title 5
(Athletics and Sports); sections 6108, 6711 of Title 23
(Domestic Relations); section 3573 of Title 42 (Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure).

[Geor!]

Show me that he was up on Assault charges or something other than Harrassment.

"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."

§ 2709. Harassment.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another,
the person:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the
other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to
do the same;
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place
or places;
(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
acts which serve no legitimate purpose;
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd,
lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings
or caricatures;
(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;
(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient
hours; or
(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than
specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).
(b) Stalking.--(Deleted by amendment).
(b.1) Venue.--
(1) An offense committed under this section may be
deemed to have been committed at either the place at which
the communication or communications were made or at the place
where the communication or communications were received.
(2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in
more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
(c) Grading.--
(1) An offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall
constitute a summary offense.
(2) (i) An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or
(7) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.
(ii) (Deleted by amendment).
(d) False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false
information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to
implicate another under this section commits an offense under
section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement
authorities).
(e) Application of section.--This section shall not apply to
conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of
June 2, 1937 (P.L.1198, No.308), known as the Labor Anti-
Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
(e.1) Course of conduct.--(Deleted by amendment).
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Communicates." Conveys a message without intent of
legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written
or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail,
Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar
transmission.
"Course of conduct." A pattern of actions composed of more
than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a
continuity of conduct. Acts indicating a course of conduct which
occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
"Emotional distress." (Deleted by amendment).
"Family or household member." (Deleted by amendment).
(June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 1997,
P.L.379, No.44, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59,
eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days)

2002 Amendment. See sections 9 and 10 of Act 218 in the
appendix to this title for special provisions relating to
references to section 2709 and references to section 5504.
Cross References. Section 2709 is referred to in sections
4954, 4955, 5708 of this title; section 3304 of Title 5
(Athletics and Sports); sections 6108, 6711 of Title 23
(Domestic Relations); section 3573 of Title 42 (Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure).

You stopped reading too soon.

[talisman]

Try spitting in a cops face and see the world of shit you end up in. Spitting in someone's face is considered assault.

[Gtracer]

Try spitting in a cops face and see the world of shit you end up in. Spitting in someone's face is considered assault.

Also if said person is carrying an infections bacteria or disease...then you have assault with a biological weapon...

Most definitely a concern more so than just speaking your mind and voicing your disagreement...

[Binky]

You stopped reading too soon.

Everything has to apply, not just parts.

You can meet every one of the prerequisites, but without intent it doesn't apply.

[Geor!]

Everything has to apply, not just parts.

You can meet every one of the prerequisites, but without intent it doesn't apply.

I intend to type this reply out. Is that harassment? You have to meet at least of the rules listed below that statement.

[Binky]

I intend to type this reply out. Is that harassment? You have to meet at least of the rules listed below that statement.

The rules or prerequisites don't stand alone, they work in conjuction with the heading paragraph.

Yes, he struck him (prereq #1) but there was not enough evidence to say he did it with the intent to harrass, annoy or alarm him.

Therefore harrassment doesn't apply.

They should have claimed assault and it would have been an open/shut case. They chose poorly when picking the charges and that's not the judges fault.

[Geor!]

The rules or prerequisites don't stand alone, they work in conjuction with the heading paragraph.

Yes, he struck him (prereq #1) but there was not enough evidence to say he did it with the intent to harrass, annoy or alarm him.

Therefore harrassment doesn't apply.

They should have claimed assault and it would have been an open/shut case. They chose poorly when picking the charges and that's not the judges fault.

Forgive me, I thought you were referring to the atheist as being the harasser. Either way, if you punch someone, you're pretty much intending to annoy them. I know I get annoyed if I get punched, usually get pretty alarmed too.

[ram57ta]

Seems like thru all this arguing one very significant piece of information has been forgotten....that the attack was recorded on video and when presented as evidence the judge refused to allow it to be played to the court. I would appeal that shit all the way to the supreme court if I had to..not only to legally win my case...but then to get that fucking judge disbarred. I would be contacting every news station in the country to get this story out on the air and might also bring it to the attention of every Anti-Muslim hate group I could find (I'm sure they could come up with a few good attorneys to make it a very big deal).

[Binky]

I can see that as a valid argument -it depends on what his reasoning was for not allowing it.

If he didn't allow it because it offended his personal beliefs, he was most certainly wrong and should've recused himself.

If he disallowed it for another reason, it'd be interesting to know what that was and if there was a legal basis for it.

[YALE]

Also if said person is carrying an infections bacteria or disease...then you have assault with a biological weapon...

Most definitely a concern more so than just speaking your mind and voicing your disagreement...

No, you don't. You'd have to prove intent, there.

[mikec]

yup...

[Jimbo]

Jedi, I generally agree with your posts, but you are leaning too hard on this one. So what if the atheists were trolling. They went fishing and they caught one. That is not illegal. The muslim man, who is ignorant of the law and the very basis of our american society, did commit an illegal act. The judge in this case seems to be waaaay off here as well.