Results 11 to 20 of 33
|
-
-
02-28-2012, 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
- Posts
- 8,757
02-29-2012, 12:04 AM
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?"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
-
-
02-29-2012, 12:23 AM
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..Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
-
02-29-2012, 12:48 AM
-
-
-
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.
-
02-29-2012, 12:50 AM
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."
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.
-
02-29-2012, 01:15 AM
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.
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".
Here is what the judge actually said:
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.'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.'
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.
It mattered enough to the judge for him to bring it up in court.
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!
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
- Posts
- 8,757
02-29-2012, 01:30 AM
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
-
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Mini-Me Dead Age 49
Today, 06:27 PM in General Discussion