Printable View
Leaving aside the question wether the guy was rightly acquited or not, the lecture that came with it is wildly inappropriate for a judge.
"in some countries, they'd have executed you for that, you doofus" :dizzy2:
It's to be expected that every once in a while, somewhere, a judge will hand out a ridiculous verdict. Some people are a little to eager to recognise patterns.
Perfect :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would have been quite happy for the atheist guy to get socked. It's amusing that he got lectured in court. No doubt he'll enjoy the pleasant warmth of outrage over that for years to come. The other guy getting off is a good thing. So will the judge getting fired or whatever, but I'm hardly baying for his blood.
Do yourself a favour and google the Nation of Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He's not a muslim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge
Sounds like he wasn't going to do anything legally so he gave the wacky atheist guy some decent advice.
He's an idiot, if this ruling isn't rectified by a higher court it can be used in other cases. It isn't being reasonable it only looks that way
No it's not, we only have that idiot Wilders who is worth more than everything combined. What I don't like, I did not like it when mere reason is murdered. I will never forget thatQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
So, where's the actual transcript of the hearing? That should sort it all out.
i dont understand how we got to this... i only pointed out that it is hard if not impossible to put this event under the multicultural left because they dont really have any things in common, unless "islamophaelia" is enough to make something "multicultural left". (which imo is not only hard to maintain but going to be empirically impossible because many things i have seen you classify as multicultural left had nothing to do with islam...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
however, now i've read the Judge's PoV, I could understand if you would call him multicultural (dunno if that immediatly means left...) but you didnt know that :P
that does look like a whole different story... the fact only that the obviously made up alot of lies makes the rest of his story less credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Southpark, I guess we've learned something today.
i dont know... the judges version of the story doesnt sound unreasonable at all. the case was a mocktrial in the first place. and if there truly was not enough evidence (which we cannot judge)... what was he supposed to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
if you check the film, which he himself posted as evidence, you will see a guy in a white shirt standing infront of the guy, nobody is reacting, the guy standing next to him doesnt understand what is going on (ive been in situations where friends of my got attacked and that is not how i would react, and even if you would not help you will definitly see when your friend is attacked if you stand next to him). then he says stop it you are on film, the guy immediatly backs off, then he says he is choking me, but nowhere in the film is the guy making choking sounds.
its all inference but based on that it all seems bit shabby. does that mean that the muslim guy shouldve done what he did... no, he was not allowed to do so. had the atheist guy the right to do what he did, i guess so... should the case ever have gone trial... hell no.
What actually happened does not matter, only how it is treated matters
doesnt how a case ought be treated depends on what happened? and if what happened was different from what you first used to base your oppinion upon, dont you think you should alter your oppinion, or atleast reconsider it? that would be the reasonable thing to do.
what do you suppose the judge should have ruled? what sentence if at all should the judge have given, and also take the article from the judges pov into account.
and do if what the judge says is true, what do you think of the behaviour of the socalled victim? (lying, slander, altering facts...)
'what do you think of the behaviour of the socalled victim? (lying, slander, altering facts...)'
That is what the judge says happened, doesn't mean it's actually true.
thats why i said "if". but ofcourse the same thing applies to the story of the other guy. and you readily believed that, (as did I, and many other people, but thats not my point anyway)
i agree that the whole speech thing of the judge is totally off-topic and i dont know why he is talking about his personal experiences and such, they should not matter. but what he is saying about the legal part is what i thought as well.
i dont know if that means the charges should be dismissed, i dont know much about american law...
Judge comes across as quite reasonable. Religious he appears, but not biased for any particular one. The left isnt know for its religious folk so I don't see the leftist multicultural agenda here. Mind you Lutherans and co are known for their human rights stance.
As for the atheist... I need to read up more about him to see if his protest was a troll, obnoxious fun or he is a general idiot with no respect for others belief systems (things that I could all readily accuse myself of). Him being an atheist does no automatically make him a free thinker, it is possible that he is just anti-thought.
I find the judge to be a hell of a lot more believable than the accuser.
Case closed in my opinion.
Conspiracy 0 - Reason 1
What can be used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A ruling which says that if there is insufficient evidence to prove that an assault has taken place, the defendant must be found not guilty?
The horror!!!!!
Having a different culture/religion, it was taken into the equation and that opens things up for future trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ehm, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This post is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It looks like the misunderstanding about the judge's religion was based on a particular grammatical structure he used, which invited misinterpretation. More here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Ajax
This thread and this story is a waste of bytes.
The judge responds:
Legal analysis (same link):Quote:
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
CRQuote:
But the worrying thing is what the judge (Mark Martin) seems to have said at the trial, based on what appears to be a recording of the hearing: The judge — who stated that he (the judge) was himself a Muslim and [UPDATE: see below] found the speech to be offensive — spent a good deal of time berating the victim for what the judge saw as the victim’s offensive and blasphemous speech, which seems to raise a serious question about whether the judge’s acquittal of the defendant was actually partly caused by the judge’s disapproval of the victim. Consider, for instance, this statement, at 31:15:
Doesn't matter wether or not the judge is a muslim or not, the danger is in the motivation of his ruling. Honour attacks for example can be aquitted in the same way with a smart lawyer. What the judge brought in simply doesn't belong there, stupid. And he knows that or he wouldn't have responded. Slippery slope.
I'm just angry because he got the grammar wrong and cannot express himself clearly, leading to a misunderstanding.
That's just silly. :yes:
Nah, his English was fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The part where the judge explained the Mohammed was never a zombie was, um, painful. How did this guy get to be a judge?
This is a good question. Apparently law is hard, so he had to go through the same exams and stuff like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I want to know how people like this get the awesome jobs. Friends in good places? Charisma? Please tell me I want to be emperor for life.
it seems to me those discussions on TWC are really better with real muslims so we know their stupidities, rather than Hax's usual "defend Islam" position despite he's blind about it.
too much lefties here... too much lefties here... ABB was right afterall.... (although his methods are... questionable, his prediction was right)