Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case
I'm putting this up for DISCUSSION, NOT FLAMING.
The point being, imo is that this judge ignored his oath to uphold Pennsylvania law in favor of his religious beliefs.
Before commenting, please read the entire article and watch the two videos attached to the story.
FROM OPPOSINGVIEWS.COM:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...dismisses-case
[snip]Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case
Submitted by American Atheists on Feb 22, 2012
By Al Stefanelli
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
Un****ingbelievable.the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried
Ignorantia juris non excusat ring any bells?
Pretty vague, what do you mean? I understand the latin.Originally Posted by Wahnsinn
Ignorance of the law can not be used as an excuse.
Thus the perp should have been sentenced.
Actually that has been successfully used as a defense and it worked in the states.
On topic:
Actually the judge point is something that I agree with, though "that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” " A little courteously goes a long way. I don't think I want to state to develop laws to force people to be better people in that sense either.
I also think the judge was wrong in his decision.
I'm referring to the fact that the defendant claimed not to know he had commited an offence. Whether it means he should have been sentenced or not is not for me to say (we've got one account to go on and it isn't particularly objective although I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of it) but a poor excuse to give.
I'm aware of that but I'm not sure quite how that could be argued in this specific case.
1 Talaaq had no right to assault the man
2 Judge was wrong to not even view the evidence before making a decision
3 Judge should NOT let his beliefs hold higher than the law he swore to uphold
4 Judge is elected, and they should make his ass unemployed next election.
Can't he be impeached prior to that? Assuming this is as clear as the source claims it is, I'd have severe concers about his capabilities as a judge.
What is the good Muslim doing at the Halloween (old Celtic pagan celebration)?
WOW!<----- (sad emoticon, I could not find an emoticon throwing up. It will have to do.)
Wahnsinn, I agree with you and LD.
Is there an appeal process? Can it be taken to a higher court? I can imagine that this community will not re-elect the judge if that is how they do it there.
Me too, what has this world come to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote