Thread: Interview: Infidel Victim of Pennsylvania Sharia Judge

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11  
    Senior Member JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.
    Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

    You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Please link your sources. You have a bad habit of not doing so.

    You know, at the time of the attack, the muzzie told the cops he attacked Zombie Mo guy for being dressed as Mo. You did read that part, right?


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ge_goes_viral/
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

    Boston.com ~
    "In actuality, I'm a Christian," Martin, a Lutheran, told The Associated Press. "Does that mean I should recuse myself in all cases that involve Christians?"
    Daily Mail
    Judge Mark Martin - a recent Islam convert - ruled there wasn't enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harassment as it was one man's word against other's
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.
    Stop the presses. Me and Wee agree on something.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    ok, so the daily mail says the Judge is a recent Muslim Convert and the Boston.com says he's Lutheran...so which is it?

    Boston.com ~

    Daily Mail

    There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

    Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

    On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

    As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.

    Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

    On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

    As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..
    Exactly how did the judge know the video was too dark to see anything?

    And when was the last time you saw a rapist get off the charge after admitting in court that he had committed the rape?
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    ...
    From your boston.com link:

    Martin said he dismissed the case for lack of evidence after Elbayomy testified that the confrontation was not physical, an apparent contradiction of what he told police the day of the parade.

    "The judge dressed (Perce) down, (and) as far as I was concerned, that was the right thing to do," Thomas said. "This guy was obviously the antagonist."
    ---> Perce was dressed as Zombie Mo. So not only are there judges in Pennsylvania that forgot the text of the 1st Amendment, there are lawyers that have forgotten too.

    And as someone already pointed out your other link has the judge as a muzzie convert, which the judge denies, so that story lacks credibility.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    So after reading some sources that aren't dedicated to anti-Muslim hysteria, I get a slightly less upsetting picture.

    The video wasn't allowed in the court because it was ruled as inconclusive. You can't see any indication of violence whatsoever in it. The supposed scene is almost entirely dark and consists of the guy screaming "he's attacking me!"
    If it's inconclusive, it's still evidence. The judge was obligated to admit it and then allow the jury to determine if it was conclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Without the video, the only evidence left in court was one guy's word vs the other guy's word. That's hardly enough to decide a case on. When you have a case that is nothing more than he said, he said heresay, what else can you do besides dismiss it?
    In that case, you've got both sides agreeing to the assault, as that was what Elbayomy told the cops when they initially responded to the complaint. Remember, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    That is hardly a case of "sharia judge" imposing islamic law onto Americans.

    As for the judge scolding the guy about offending other cultures. It is not unusual that judges take the chance in court to lecture the people who enter their court on doing the right thing, It's not officially part of the legal process, it's an informal gesture that is pretty common. Young men in inner-cities often get stern-talking to's about right and wrong, respect, and making good decisions when they find themselves in front of a judge.

    I agree his opinions about multiculturalism are irrelevant in the application of US law, but there's no evidence that those opinions influenced the application of the law.
    Here is what the judge actually said:

    'I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what's on our mind, not to p*** off other people and cultures, which is what you did.
    'You are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.
    'You've completely trashed their essence, their being. I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive.'

    The first statement is pure multicultural blather, but the second and third statements are clearly at issue. In the second statement, the judge is stating that the victim of the assault doesn't have a First Amendment right to mock Islam. In fact, he does, just as his pal had the right to mock the Pope. There is only one legal code in which Islam cannot be criticized or mocked, and that is Sharia. However, with the third statement, the judge clearly expressed bias in favor of the defendant. The judge's statement that he found Perce's expression of his opinion offensive, and therefore not worthy of protection, was completely indefensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If the case is based on hearsay and his word against hers, yes, that's an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a man of rape simply because he was accused.
    But it's not based simply on hearsay. There were witnesses to the crime, as well as the defendant's own statement, made before he realized that he'd confessed to assault.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    There are conflicting reports on that, but I don't think it matters.
    It mattered enough to the judge for him to bring it up in court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Take away the issue of his religion all together, the video shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, so why should it be admitted as evidence? If all you have is two men's word against each other in a case, without any additional evidence, on what grounds can the case go on?

    On a purely legal level, it seems this case should have been dismissed.

    As for the judge's extrajudicial commentary on the case, well that's up for discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the supposed application of Sharia in US criminal court as the OP implied..
    Uh, no, the judge's statements made it quite clear that he was interpreting the First Amendment as not protecting statements that offend Muslims, such as himself. One of the critical things that the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on is that any criticism, mockery or derogatory statements about Islam are criminal conduct. OTOH, US law holds the exact opposite. The judge's commentary demonstrated that he could not dispassionately apply US law, and he had a clear conflict of interest in the case. He should have recused himself if he was offended, but since he didn't, he violated his duty to apply the law.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757

    The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,788
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post

    The very point of the First Amendment is for people to do and say what they believe in politically with out fear of repercussions. It was the very BASIS of why many MANY came to the New World, to escape political persecution for their beliefs.
    fett, please...don't ruin a good weewee defense of lunatic muslims, while we watch him circle the drain, with a dose of common sense. You'll frighten him off.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •