View Full Version : Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
This judge needs to be reprimanded, dis-bared, and Jailed....
http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html
COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion.
Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus."
In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
Words almost fail.
The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.
The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.
That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.
It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
:mad::mad::mad:
greenberetTFS
02-26-2012, 17:10
Absolutely.....:mad: :mad: My cajun son-in-law would know how to deal with him that's for sure....:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
MTN Medic
02-26-2012, 17:12
Some good ol' boys might go show that judge about THEIR culture.
MTN Medic
02-26-2012, 17:14
WAIT! Wait a minute....
Trumps the 1st amendment :eek:
Get outta town. This is outrageous!
This Judge should be immediately impeached, and possibly charged with obstruction of justice.
The victim was denied due process and equal protection under the law due to religious bias. If you changed (muslim) to (anything else) in the article, there would be no end to the outrage.
This should be an example to the federal appeals court who struck down the Oklahoma ballot initiative barring courts from implementing sharia law. Liberals ridiculed the statute, arguing that there is no risk of American courts drawing on sharia...., guess they were wrong Huh???
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29244
:munchin
John_Chrichton
02-26-2012, 23:30
No problem here, America. Just move along and keep tolerating...
Nothin to see here...
move along...
lets go sir, holdin up traffic...
move along.....
Gleaning as much as I could from the internet, I think this judge made the correct legal decision.
So?? I can go and beat the Shiite out of the Westboro Baptist Church peoples when they picket military funerals because they OFFEND me??
Need more data points to compute a firing solution??
:munchin
So?? I can go and beat the Shiite out of the Westboro Baptist Church peoples when they picket military funerals because they OFFEND me??
Need more data points to compute a firing solution??
:munchin
I think you are on to something!! Open season on WBC!!!
greenberetTFS
02-27-2012, 10:22
So?? I can go and beat the Shiite out of the Westboro Baptist Church peoples when they picket military funerals because they OFFEND me??
Need more data points to compute a firing solution??
:munchin
Again,I'm in total support of JJ........ Waiting to hear more from you lawyers and judges out there...........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
JJ, go beyond just the inflammatory way the media has of reporting things...you have to look at what actually went down,
...
It also means the State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. All that the prosecution offered was:
LEO's testimony, based completely on hearsay, as he never saw the incident
Perce's testimony
Elbayomy's testimony
In a he said/she said case, prosecution loses. There was some talk about a video that was kept out of evidence, but not enough to ascertain why.
Point taken,, So,, If no LEO's or MSM's are watching/recording, Westboro Baptist Church peoples is gonna take a lick'n..
I presume it's the same logic,, he say - she say,, if they can still talk?? :munchin
Thanks..
greenberetTFS
02-27-2012, 11:25
I'm still trying to figure out how Perce has no witnesses to this attack which presumably happened in a crowd of people....I dunno, something about this whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
N55G
Your right,it's the judge,he smells like S**T!!!!.........:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
[COLOR="Pink"].....
I'm still trying to figure out how Perce has no witnesses to this attack which presumably happened in a crowd of people....I dunno, something about this whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.
I don't know - but I do know we have a thread running about an old WW II vet who had to crawl through a parking lot because nobody would help him.
How many of the dozens of people who witness a car accident wil stop and be a witness - or just keep walking/driving?
GratefulCitizen
02-27-2012, 12:00
I have to assume it's still legal for people to defend themselves when attacked.
What would happen if a group of muslims were insulted, starting the brawl, and a counter-attack ensued (perhaps from a numerically larger group)?
Would it be considered a "set-up" and people would be denied their right to self-defense?
This page amplifies on the Yahoo article...
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
Streck-Fu
02-27-2012, 12:42
Claimed to be the audio of the judge's ruling and seems to be. His voice starts at ~2:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE
It doesn't take long for him to comment that the Founding Fathers did not want us to use the 1st Am. to piss of other people.
The Reaper
02-27-2012, 15:45
Good point.
Depends. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-" well as far as the law is concerned, whomever escalates the situation is the one at fault.
So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).
All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.
These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.
You are incorrect.
Deadly force may be met with deadly force, as long as it is applied reasonably and IAW the law.
If you are a 6'6" 275 pound martial artist, and you attack an elderly woman, she has the right to utilize deadly force to defend herself from what could reasonably be a lethal encounter, to include a firearm.
If you threaten me with a knife (or a baseball bat, a screwdriver, etc.), and are within a range where you could possibly harm me (usually considered to be 21 feet or less) before I can defend myself, I can employ any deadly weapon to protect myself, including a firearm.
If you brandish a firearm, and threaten me with it, and I have reason to be afraid for my safety, I may lawfully engage you with any lethal weapon I possess, to include another firearm. Obviously, if I engage you at 1000 meters, and you have a knife or a pistol, that is not reasonable.
There is no requirement that my response or weapon be proportional so long as you are offering a deadly threat to me, and have the means and opportunity to inflict it. The only requirements are that I have reason to fear for my life, and that you are threatening to harm me with force or a weapon that could be considered to be lethal.
There are some local nuances as far as rightful possession of the firearm, location in home, business, or vehicle, ability/duty to attempt to withdraw etc., but by and large, if you meet the above circumstances, I can shoot you until you have ceased being a threat to me or my family.
TR
The Reaper
02-27-2012, 16:07
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-"
Wrong. The phrase is normally expressed as "You shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." If you bring a knife to threaten me, are within range, appear intent on using it and I have a gun, I am going to shoot you till you are no longer a threat. No proportionality is required if the aggressor has a weapon considered deadly and within range.
So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).
Wrong. If the aggressor is the aforementioned monster, and attacks someone physically weaker his fists, and they respond with a knife or a firearm, it can be justified.
All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.
Wrong. I believe that I would be permitted to defend myself from an assailant with my hands, regardless of the skills mismatch, as he attacked me and initiated the assault. What do you think I should legally be required to do, take the beating?
These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.
I disagree. IMHO, you should not dispense imprecise or incorrect legal advice concerning the use of deadly force.
TR
greenberetTFS
02-27-2012, 16:10
In good old Mississippi if you step on my property and I tell you to get off and you refuse to leave and either threaten me with bodily harm with or without a weapon I have the right to defend myself with a weapon and shoot you if I feel my life's in danger....... That's what my LEO(State Police) grandson told me,I don't have any reason to doubt him,he did mention I'd be better off legally of course if I were to kill him to keep from being sued.......If there aren't any witness's it's my word over his because he died on my property and he was told to leave...... With witness's of course it would be to my advantage...........If I shot him invading my home and inside of my house it's a no brainer,especially if I take him out........:D ;) Hope TR agrees or I'm going to be the next to go into the wood shed.........:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Nice to see sound advice on this topic.
The reasonably contemporaneous 911 call (that is recorded stating that you are in fear for your life) if at all possible shortly before you engage the threat may be helpful after the fact, too. But first things first in order to preserve your life.
All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.
These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.
This it is where The LAW becomes a farce and why the Profession gets a bad name.
So if some clown is trying to stab me in the neck and face with a pencil, I pull out a pistol and put them down.....I could be found at fault. That's a joke!
This it is where The LAW becomes a farce and why the Profession gets a bad name.
So if some clown is trying to stab me in the neck and face with a pencil, I pull out a pistol and put them down.....I could be found at fault. That's a joke!
IME, the law is decidely not a farce. However, many folks - arm chair or otherwise may not always exercise common sense and they sometimes misapply, misunderstand and yes even abuse the law. Unfortunately, many in the personal injury field of law have never observed an injury that did not require a lawsuit. So, in some circumstances, yes, you may in fact rightfully protect your life and still face a civil law suit. That sucks but you are still alive.
Having said that, IMO, TR's well written summary captures many of the fundammental rules regarding self defense in many jurisdictions.
IME, the law is decidely not a farce. However, many folks - arm chair or otherwise may not always exercise common sense and they sometimes misapply, misunderstand and yes even abuse the law. Unfortunately, many in the personal injury field of law have never observed an injury that did not require a lawsuit. So, in some circumstances, yes, you may in fact rightfully protect your life and still face a civil law suit. That sucks but you are still alive.
Having said that, IMO, TR's well written summary captures many of the fundammental rules regarding self defense in many jurisdictions.
And trial attorneys are exactly what I am talking about. Many Trial Attorneys make an absolute mockery out of the law.
I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.
Counselor, I did not attack you personally or your credentials. I lamented the fact that the accepted practices used by some, not all, make a farce of the law and those individuals give your profession a bad name.
Essentially what we are discussing is a Bernhard Goetz scenario.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2012, 17:59
None of this has anything to do with the fact that the Judge's statements were outrageous and I expect there's going to be a serious investigation into the propriety of his conduct.
This has everything to do with the judge's statements in this case. It is clear that the judge was unable to render a correct legal decision, because of his personal biases.
All that aside, Paslode is right. People like this judge (and many others in the legal profession) make a mockery out of the law and the Constitution.
This case is just the latest sign of the radicalization of Muslims in our country. I'm sure the MSM will try to swipe this under the rug, just like it does with "honor" murders, for fear of offending our latest persecuted minority group.
The Reaper
02-27-2012, 18:32
I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.
You dispensed opinions that are not factually correct.
I have said nothing about your legal qualifications.
There are a number of aspects to the application of deadly force as understood in common law. Some states have further permissions or restrictions.
This is what one expert advises regarding lethal force:
http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Article-JudiciousUse.htm
"Deadly force is justified when you are confronted with "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm" to either yourself or other innocents, whose innocence and situation you are totally certain about. You can't intervene with deadly force in a situation you come upon without knowing what's really happening. Don't make assumptions based on what seems to be happening. The danger must be clear and present, immediate and unavoidable. This formula is based on English Common Law and Dutch/Roman Law, and it applies in all fifty states. It is determined by three criteria which can be remembered by the acronym A.O.J. Think "Administration Of Justice". The situation must meet all three criteria.
A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.
O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.
J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.
All of the above are judged by the doctrine of the "reasonable man". That is, what would a reasonable and prudent person have done in that situation knowing what the defendant knew at the time? After the fact information is inadmissible into the equation. Your defense of self-defense is affirmative if you knew all of the above at the time you employed deadly force....
Another caveat has to do with how you size up the criterion of ability. Here we are talking about the concepts of power and disparity of force. Clearly, a person with a gun or a knife, and the ability to use it, has the power to kill or cripple you. However, you can't shoot that person unless he has the immediate opportunity to use that ability on you, and he acts in such a manner that leads you to reasonably conclude you are in immediate jeopardy. What about if the threat does not have a gun, or a knife, or a bludgeon? There are several other factors that would fulfill the ability criterion:
One factor is force of numbers. Two or more threatening persons, even without identifiably deadly weapons, against you alone, would constitute a disparity of force. If they attack you and act in such a manner as to lead you to believe that, unless you do something, they are going to kill or cripple you, you are on solid legal ground. Against a group of attackers, each member of the group shares the same responsibility for the fear the group creates in the intended victim, and also shares the danger from the intended victim's lawful response.
A second factor is the able bodied against the disabled. So, if you are old and frail, or physically challenged, and you are viciously attacked by a younger, more able bodied man (and the criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play), you are on solid legal ground.
A third factor is greater physical size and strength. If you are attacked by King Kong Bundy, you are on solid legal ground in using a force multiplier (a weapon) to avoid being killed or crippled.
A fourth factor is training or reputation. Is the attacker or threat a person known to you to be highly trained in the destructive (martial) arts? For this criterion to be considered a valid, affirmative defense for the defensive use of deadly force, you must have known about it before you resorted to using deadly force. It is not valid if you didn't know it at the time, but learned that it was so after the fact. You will be judged based solely on what you knew at the time!
A fifth factor is male versus female. Our society assumes that females are more vulnerable and that there is a cultural predisposition for males to be more inclined than females to violent physical aggression. So, if you are female, and you are being attacked by a lone male, and the other criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play, you are on solid legal ground in terms of using deadly force if you have no other viable choice to avoid being killed or crippled. This would also include self-defense against rape....
The knife or edged weapon is a lethal threat.
Now let us briefly address the issue of being threatened by someone who has a knife. Clearly, a knife or edged weapon is a contact weapon, as opposed to a firearm which is a remote control weapon. So, a man one hundred feet across a busy street who yells and threatens to kill you with a knife is not an immediate threat. You can't shoot him! However, that same man brandishing a firearm is an immediate threat if, by his actions, he places you in imminent jeopardy.
The knife issue merits a closer look. Here, opportunity is of special importance. The opportunity factor is a component of two things: distance and obstacles. It may not be part of the common knowledge, but a man with a knife or club twenty-one or fewer feet away from you, has the ability and opportunity to place you in imminent jeopardy. Thanks to the pioneering work in the 1980s of Dennis Tueller, a since-retired Salt Lake City Police Dept. Lieutenant and Gunsite instructor, we now know that it takes around 1.5 seconds for a person with a knife to close a gap of twenty-one feet and be on top of you! For the average trained person who is carrying a concealed handgun, it will take more than 1.5 seconds to draw from concealment, fire, and hit the target at seven yards. So, a person who is threatening you with a knife at twenty-one feet is placing you in imminent jeopardy. The original Tueller study was published in 1983 in SWAT Magazine in an article entitled, "How Close Is Too Close?"
I have spent a fair amount of time studying lethal force, I suspect more time than is devoted to the subject in law school.
I believe that I can apply the law in this case properly and am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which requires training in the state statutes pertaining to lethal force.
Under the previously mentioned circumstances you described, you may, in fact, employ lethal force via a firearm in self-defense against person(s) who attack you with fists, chairs, brooms, knives, or firearms.
The key is not going out looking for trouble, and understanding when it is justifiable and necessary to employ lethal force. Of course, you must also have the willingness to use the lethal force when you are threatened by someone with the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy to harm you.
The decision to carry is a personal one that requires knowledge of the law and the ability to employ a firearm within the legal limits. Anyone who is not willing to learn the rules and discipline themselves should not carry.
TR
The Reaper
02-27-2012, 19:12
Okay. Let's review your statements and you tell me if they are correct or not. They are your direct quotes, just so there is no misunderstanding.
So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...
Is that actually correct? If three assailants of my approximate size and age attack me, may I not legally defend myself with a lethal weapon, to include a knife or a gun?
If you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault.
Really? So I have to stand there and let him carve me up with a knife, even though I have a gun, because it is somehow illegal to defend myself with it? Now I have to travel with an entire satchel of weapons when I am armed, so that I might call time out and select the appropriate and equal weapon with which to defend myself? Seriously?
If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).
Okay, are you again saying that I may not use a lethal weapon (specifically, a firearm) to defend myself, even if the assailants are numerous or armed with knives?
What, I should hand my pistol to a bystander, strip to the waist ala Jim Bowie, and draw my knife to make it a fair fight? Are you serious?
If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.
Really? So even if I am attacked with fists, I cannot defend myself with my own hands, because I went to the SFQC? My hand to hand defense against an assault makes me guilty? Of what? Do tell.
I would like to see your explanation of the above quotes, if you would be so kind.
TR
GratefulCitizen
02-27-2012, 20:19
Had to use force (less than lethal) in more instances than I care to remember.
Knew the law (in Colorado) quite well and took into consideration how local law enforcement tended to apply it.
Therein lies the problem.
Not every LEO agency, prosecutor's office, or judge views the exact same law the same way.
It's a crap shoot.
Have a buddy who became the target of an assistant DA in his town a few years ago.
He gets in frequent scraps, but knows the law and the limits.
She prosecuted him for felony assault, attempting to force a plea bargain.
He was in his suit getting ready to walk in the courtroom for trial when the charges were finally dropped.
To much power with DA's and judges to selectively bully some citizens.
If you don't know your rights, the law, or lack the resources, you'll get railroaded.
MTN Medic
02-27-2012, 20:41
Good point.
Depends. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight-" well as far as the law is concerned, whomever escalates the situation is the one at fault.
So, if you are attacked, with fists, and you defend yourself with a knife, you're at fault...if you're attacked with a knife and you defend yourself with a gun, you're also at fault. If you return fists for fists and knife for knife, you're ok (at least legally).
All of this of course, is dependant on case-by case facts. If you respond to fists with fists, but you happen to be a black-belt (or, you know, otherwise deadly like ...uhm, say an SF soldier) you just might be the one found guilty.
These are just the very very basics and "surface" of the law, so don't get too worked up about it.
No offense, but you kinda seem like a s#!t-house lawyer. I have taken concealed carry courses in 4 different states and not one of them concurred with your line of reasoning.
If you are in fear for you life and it can reasonably be proven, you can use whatever available means to protect yourself; including lethal force.
I usually don't care, but I don't want anyone second guessing their rights to protect themselves where it could cause them to not act in their defense for fear of prosecution.
MTN Medic
02-27-2012, 20:45
I am neither wrong, nor am I dispensing incorrect information. Your attack on my professional credentials is completely unwarranted.
And IMHO, you are deliberately twisting my words to form an unwarranted and very personal attack. I have stated over and over again that I was giving a very basic very sketchy outline of the law: deadly force = deadly force = ok and non-deadly force = deadly force - not ok.
Reasonable force based on what is justified in the circumstances.
WE could just as easily make that old elderly sick woman in our hypothesis a secret FBI Ninja, and then we would be here all night, and I don' t have the energy.
He sin't the only one. Think about the secondary and tertiary effects of your words; as a lawyer on a BBS. They could cost someone their life.
Plus, you are straight wrong. Lawyer or not, there are a few things I know about and the legality of protecting myself with my POW is one of them.
TacOfficer
02-28-2012, 00:04
Attached is a link that might provide some guidance on the subject. Feel free to read my intro. Professionally, this is not a hypothetical, it's an everyday decision making process.
Civilians, are given greater latitude in the application of the use of force for self defense because it is assumed that they have not had formal training.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/ipra/general/Use%20of%20Force%20Model%20Chart.pdf
Iraqgunz
02-28-2012, 05:31
I think there are numerous examples of people using deadly force when faced with a disparity of force.
I have 4 CCW's and never once has anyone told me that a person with a gun cannot use deadly force against an attacker with a knife, bat or even a screwdriver. If a person has the means to cause you death or bodily injury and you are in fear of your life you can defend yourself.
One of the keys is the obvious need to articulate why you did what you did. The other is being in fear of your life or the safety of another. Many jurisdictions in fact will allow someone to use deadly force in defense of another.
If three assailants of my approximate sizae and age attack me, may I not legally defend myself with a lethal weapon, to include a knife or a gun?
You changed the fact pattern. I said in an earlier post that I was envisioning two parties with the same physical qualities. This indeed, changes the situation in which deadly force could possibly be used.
So then if the 3 assailants are dwarfs wielding machetes you better think twice about using deadly force if you are of larger stature..... And you better verify the machetes are are razor sharp and not plastic or foam rubber so your actions don't get called into questions like the cops who shot the kid in the hallway with a realistic looking air pistol.
That's insane!
1stindoor
02-28-2012, 08:37
...never once has anyone told me that a person with a gun cannot use deadly force against an attacker with...a screwdriver...
It certainly worked for Bernhard Goetz.
Are y'all brainstorming a script for a return of Boston Legal?
Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
But - according to reports, it was brought as a harrassment case and not an assault charge - and the judge is a Lutheran, not a Muslim.
'Zombie Muhammad' Case In Mechanicsburg Sparks Misguided Debate About Muslims
PennLive, 27 Feb 2012
The Zombie Muhammad had his day in court, and now he’s gone viral.
Cumberland County District Judge Mark Martin dismissed a harassment charge against 46-year-old Talaag Elbayomy of Mechanicsburg for allegedly attacking Ernest Perce V of the Parading Atheists of Central PA for dressing as "Zombie Muhammad" during an Oct. 11 Halloween parade.
Martin said there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Elbayomy.
Since then, a YouTube video playing an audio recording from the hearing alleges the judge says he is Muslim -- although he could be saying "if I were" Muslim or something else entirely -- and cites that as the reason for the dismissal of charges. A Yahoo news story picked up on the video through a blog, sparking national responses calling for Martin's dismissal as an “activist judge” and saying as a Muslim he was biased.
Martin is a Lutheran, he said. He is dismayed his actions were grossly misrepresented. “People shouldn’t believe everything they read on the Internet,” he said. “They should analyze news with a grain of salt.”
Martin has fielded calls from national media, including CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press.
“This seems like one of those cases where people are reading into it whatever they want to read into it, as is so often the case,” said Jeffrey W. Robbins, chairman of the religion and philosophy department at Lebanon Valley College. People are viewing this case in the culture wars about activist judges or religious fanaticism or secular hostility to religion, he said. “In some ways it’s like a perfect storm playing into so many of those narratives.”
It’s upsetting when Muslims attack people, said Akram Khalid, president of the central Pennsylvania Ahmadiyya Muslim community. “They are hijacking Islam. The same thing happened on 9/11. They didn’t just hijack the airplanes. They hijacked our religion also.”
Instead, Muslims should live peacefully with their neighbors, Khalid said.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...in_mechan.html
As far as the 'evidence' offered by the video goes...it's as clear as proverbial mud to me, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3...eature=related
However, y'all can ask the judge yourself if you want:
http://www.ccpa.net/directory.aspx?EID=101
Kinda wonder who was harrassing whom there - and who's vying for the role of Denny Crane here.
Must be a La Niña election year - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
"................It’s upsetting when Muslims attack people, said Akram Khalid, president of the central Pennsylvania Ahmadiyya Muslim community. “They are hijacking Islam. The same thing happened on 9/11. They didn’t just hijack the airplanes. They hijacked our religion also.” ........................"
Hijacking - again!
I supose 74% of the voters in Egypt are "hijacking" also.
Iraqgunz
02-28-2012, 10:53
I think you misunderstood me. If I was attacked with a screwdriver then I would defend myself accordingly. I would treat just like any other object that could be used as a weapon.
IIIRC Bernard was convicted only of the unlawful possession of the handgun and not the actual act itself.
It certainly worked for Bernhard Goetz.
1stindoor
02-28-2012, 10:56
I think you misunderstood me. If I was attacked with a screwdriver then I would defend myself accordingly. I would treat just like any other object that could be used as a weapon.
IIIRC Bernard was convicted only of the unlawful possession of the handgun and not the actual act itself.
No brother...I didn't misunderstand...I was being sarcastic because of the screwdriver. Seems to me (in my old age) that one of the attackers was brandashing a screwdriver.
Iraqgunz
02-28-2012, 10:57
Shit my bad, I realize what you wrote just now.
No brother...I didn't misunderstand...I was being sarcastic because of the screwdriver. Seems to me (in my old age) that one of the attackers was brandashing a screwdriver.
It’s upsetting when Muslims attack people, said Akram Khalid, president of the central Pennsylvania Ahmadiyya Muslim community. “They are hijacking Islam. The same thing happened on 9/11. They didn’t just hijack the airplanes. They hijacked our religion also.”
Instead, Muslims should live peacefully with their neighbors, Khalid said.
It's Taqiyya... > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlvS2a2AVE Akram Khalid is simply following the tenets of his faith...
:munchin
dr. mabuse
02-28-2012, 22:00
Well, yea Paslode it is. In fact it's f88king insane. That's the problem ...the "reasonable person standard" is a legal fiction. There is no "reasonable person" because everything is subjective!
Think about this: if someone attacks you, and you have a gun, isn't it "reasonable" for you to use it? Well, yea, duh, of course it is. Aren't you then " a reasonable person with a firearm?"
If the guy who attacked you had what you thought was a gun, but it was a toy gun, but he took the orange tip off and it was dark and etc etc etc.....
With a random fact-pattern generator you could generate a million different fact-patterns and get a million different legal outcomes.
FWIW ( absolutely nothing ), 550GIRL, I understood, in context, exactly what you meant. You didn't step on my weenie on this one. And it appears that few appreciate the fiction of the reasonable person test. I do.
I fully understand what "effective defense to prosecution" means and it's ramifications. Self-interpretation of the law is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Strong opinion and self-translation of these laws doesn't impress the Grand Jury.
Yes, one can defend person and property and still tend to stay out of trouble despite the vagaries of Grand Juries, et al. if they dispassionately look at the whole picture, a rare commodity.
Simply because they read the law and take a few concealed carry courses does not impress the courts when deadly force is used. Just because one has strong emotions, er, opinions about the law doesn't mean the juries share your particular take on the subject.
I gave up years ago commenting on this subject online because no one really wants to hear it. So be it. Lots of emotions flying around in these comments. They get stuck in either/or thinking. " Oh! So I have to wait for someone to shoot/stab me before I can do anything!!!!?!?!! Is that what you're saying!!!?!!?!". I see/hear that emotional/ irrational attitude a lot in the concealed carry business. Paul Howe and a few others understand how it really works but they're very rare and don't teach CCW/CHL anymore, IIRC.
And yes, I know exactly what it's like to fight desperately for my life when someone is trying to commit murder and still get shot, cut-up and broken-up so for me, it's not bullshit theory and ego circle-jerk here. More than I care to remember, as it were.
I have personally seen people go to jail to later graduate as felons because they wouldn't listen and interpreted the law on their own. As GratefulCitizen accurately called it, it is a crap shoot. You can posture all you want, but when you go to jail, it seems to have a "calming" effect on some people. ;)
Take care 550. I've got to go put on my Titanium cup and Nomex underwear now and perhaps walk the gauntlet. ;)
Back to the topic.
Bill Harsey
02-29-2012, 18:44
FWIW ( absolutely nothing ), 550GIRL, I understood, in context, exactly what you meant. You didn't step on my weenie on this one. And it appears that few appreciate the fiction of the reasonable person test. I do.
I fully understand what "effective defense to prosecution" means and it's ramifications. Self-interpretation of the law is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Strong opinion and self-translation of these laws doesn't impress the Grand Jury.
Yes, one can defend person and property and still tend to stay out of trouble despite the vagaries of Grand Juries, et al. if they dispassionately look at the whole picture, a rare commodity.
Simply because they read the law and take a few concealed carry courses does not impress the courts when deadly force is used. Just because one has strong emotions, er, opinions about the law doesn't mean the juries share your particular take on the subject.
I gave up years ago commenting on this subject online because no one really wants to hear it. So be it. Lots of emotions flying around in these comments. They get stuck in either/or thinking. " Oh! So I have to wait for someone to shoot/stab me before I can do anything!!!!?!?!! Is that what you're saying!!!?!!?!". I see/hear that emotional/ irrational attitude a lot in the concealed carry business. Paul Howe and a few others understand how it really works but they're very rare and don't teach CCW/CHL anymore, IIRC.
And yes, I know exactly what it's like to fight desperately for my life when someone is trying to commit murder and still get shot, cut-up and broken-up so for me, it's not bullshit theory and ego circle-jerk here. More than I care to remember, as it were.
I have personally seen people go to jail to later graduate as felons because they wouldn't listen and interpreted the law on their own. As GratefulCitizen accurately called it, it is a crap shoot. You can posture all you want, but when you go to jail, it seems to have a "calming" effect on some people. ;)
Take care 550. I've got to go put on my Titanium cup and Nomex underwear now and perhaps walk the gauntlet. ;)
Back to the topic.
Dr. mabuse,
I'm not that smart but I'm pretty sure my weenie didn't get stepped on here either.
So what part of what you all just stated made it any clearer about the use of deadly force?
Bill Harsey
02-29-2012, 20:10
Dr. mabuse, also forgot to ask who is involved in your stated "ego circle jerk" here?
So we make no mistake where I'm coming from, that's an asshole statement.
Ambush Master
02-29-2012, 21:23
FWIW ( absolutely nothing ), 550GIRL, I understood, in context, exactly what you meant. You didn't step on my weenie on this one. And it appears that few appreciate the fiction of the reasonable person test. I do.
I fully understand what "effective defense to prosecution" means and it's ramifications. Self-interpretation of the law is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Strong opinion and self-translation of these laws doesn't impress the Grand Jury.
Yes, one can defend person and property and still tend to stay out of trouble despite the vagaries of Grand Juries, et al. if they dispassionately look at the whole picture, a rare commodity.
Simply because they read the law and take a few concealed carry courses does not impress the courts when deadly force is used. Just because one has strong emotions, er, opinions about the law doesn't mean the juries share your particular take on the subject.
I gave up years ago commenting on this subject online because no one really wants to hear it. So be it. Lots of emotions flying around in these comments. They get stuck in either/or thinking. " Oh! So I have to wait for someone to shoot/stab me before I can do anything!!!!?!?!! Is that what you're saying!!!?!!?!". I see/hear that emotional/ irrational attitude a lot in the concealed carry business. Paul Howe and a few others understand how it really works but they're very rare and don't teach CCW/CHL anymore, IIRC.
And yes, I know exactly what it's like to fight desperately for my life when someone is trying to commit murder and still get shot, cut-up and broken-up so for me, it's not bullshit theory and ego circle-jerk here. More than I care to remember, as it were.
I have personally seen people go to jail to later graduate as felons because they wouldn't listen and interpreted the law on their own. As GratefulCitizen accurately called it, it is a crap shoot. You can posture all you want, but when you go to jail, it seems to have a "calming" effect on some people. ;)
Take care 550. I've got to go put on my Titanium cup and Nomex underwear now and perhaps walk the gauntlet. ;)
Back to the topic.
I'm with Bill, AND more so, TR!!
As I see it, "From the perceived perspective that you two stand, being knowledgeable about the Law and having consulted with Legal Council prior to an "Incident", you would feel that a Grand Jury would/should(?) find "Cause" and would issue an indictment as to "Unlawful use of deadly force"?!?!?!
Later
Martin
dr. mabuse
02-29-2012, 21:46
Dr. mabuse,
I'm not that smart but I'm pretty sure my weenie didn't get stepped on here either.
So what part of what you all just stated made it any clearer about the use of deadly force?
Bill, you're plenty smart enough. My ability to communicate clearly through the written word is limited due to issues beyond my control.
Hope this helps. One can do what they like, I just don't want to see any of the good guys go to jail.
To start off, some of the comments did appear personal and were uncalled for IMHO. A lady is still a lady. My 1/2 centavos only.
Here goes, sorry if it's long.
With respect, the use of the words "I believe" in some comments as to what a law means has shown to be a big problem. The court ( jury ) wasn't there and doesn't care what you or I think or feel particularly about the situation. This approach doesn't work well, sometimes not at all, in court. Why not fight smart?
After teaching 10's of thousands of students to date including judges, politicians from local to state to federal level and attorneys, playing a tiny role in clarifying some issues of the CHL bill here in Texas, and having criminal court judges and others in the court system here contact me on this very subject for personal and/or professional reasons, you learn a few things. My view only comes directly from the people that will take away your CHL, then take away your freedom. I have discussed, in great detail, for many years, use-of-force issues with these people. My personal views are unimportant. Why underestimate/ignore the perspective of the people that will actually decide your fate? Is that fighting smart?
4 of my students that took the "I believe" or "never or always" or "black and white" approach to self-interpreting the law paid a dear, dear price. All of them are felons now, one will die of old age before becoming eligible for parole.
In a nutshell, considering the below elements "as-is" works very, very well in court.YMMV. I did notice a pattern that virtually all people that get into trouble with using force strayed from the "When" and/or "Why" list.
When can you use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of particular crimes? Warning: The totality of the circumstances can skew this in your local court.
"The WHEN list" (when you can do it)
1. Reasonable belief ( that pesky average person view, "The big crap shoot" )
2. Imminent threat ( happening right here, right now )
3. Force/Deadly Force ( Force known to cause serious injury or death )
"The WHY list" ( Specifically why you're doing it, to protect yourself or someone else )
1. Murder
2. Robbery
3. Aggravated Robbery
4. Sexual Assault
5. Agg. Sexual Assault
6. Agg. Kidnapping (( may vary due to jurisdiction/state.(why?))
Hope this helps some. Feel free to pm with specific, serious, detailed questions ( no midgets with hatchets scenarios ), especially regarding Texas laws.
dr. mabuse
02-29-2012, 22:00
I'm with Bill, AND more so, TR!!
As I see it, "From the perceived perspective that you two stand, being knowledgeable about the Law and having consulted with Legal Council prior to an "Incident", you would feel that a Grand Jury would/should(?) find "Cause" and would issue an indictment as to "Unlawful use of deadly force"?!?!?!
Later
Martin
Hey Martin. I was slowly writing something longinsh on this and missed your post initially.
To answer your question, it could happen. Not my "perceived perspective".
Just saying what happens. My opinion is completely unimportant. What really happens is important.
It sucks, it's wrong, but there you go. I'm saying that you can absolutely defend person/property and reduce the impact of an under-educated court. Remember in your CHL class the concept of considering the "totality of the circumstances" and that the CHL is an "effective defense to prosecution"? Not an automatic get-out-of-jail-card. The State of Texas requires that one fully understands this. When one signs the paperwork, they are legally confirming that they do understand this and all of it's ramifications.
I have seen people get thrown under the bus and spend some serious money simply proving they didn't do anything wrong. A few students went to jail. They should have been no-billed IMHO. And I have seen questionable/illegal things done and people were no-billed.
Just saying be professionally paranoid and consider the perspective of some of the nuts that will decide your fate.
Take care.
Bill Harsey
02-29-2012, 22:01
Dr. mabuse,
That seems very clear to me, thank you Sir.
dr. mabuse
02-29-2012, 22:12
Dr. mabuse, also forgot to ask who is involved in your stated "ego circle jerk" here?
So we make no mistake where I'm coming from, that's an asshole statement.
Guilty as charged. I'm not asshole free yet. Working on it. :o
Ambush Master
02-29-2012, 22:18
Hey Martin. I was slowly writing something longinsh on this and missed your post initially.
To answer your question, it could happen. Not my "perceived perspective".
Just saying what happens. My opinion is completely unimportant. What really happens is important.
It sucks, it's wrong, but there you go. I'm saying that you can absolutely defend person/property and reduce the impact of an under-educated court. Remember in your CHL class the concept of considering the "totality of the circumstances" and that the CHL is an "effective defense to prosecution"? Not an automatic get-out-of-jail-card. The State of Texas requires that one fully understands this. When one signs the paperwork, they are legally confirming that they do understand this and all of it's ramifications.
I have seen people get thrown under the bus and spend some serious money simply proving they didn't do anything wrong. A few students went to jail. They should have been no-billed IMHO. And I have seen questionable/illegal things done and people were no-billed.
Just saying be professionally paranoid and consider the perspective of some of the nuts that will decide your fate.
Take care.
Thanks!!
And, as those that know me will understand, my SA and intuitive senses are always operating @ MAX+%!!
Do have a good week for what's left of it, and a GOOD Weekend!!
Later
Martin
I've heard the saying, but have also heard it this way (some have probably heard this before so not a surprise):
You don't want to bring a gun to a gunfight...you want to bring two or three. Maybe a grenade launcher with some grenades, and a claymore.:D
So let me get this straight.
Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a case of a slighted Muslim Halloween parade watcher who was arrested by an unusually alert gendarme for trying to grab a placard from a marching athiest zombie prophet and went before a judge who threw a harassment charge out of his court for a lack of evidence in a 'he said-she said' manner and lectured the zombie whereby he recorded it and interpreted an inaudible passage by the self-professed Lutheran judge to have said "I'm a Muslim..." vice "I'm no Muslim..." OWTTE and then proceded to blog his opinion on it all in a First Amendment scree which caused a full-scale blogospheric F5 disturbance and now a major panties-in-a-wad 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight' dustup in here over the incensed dumb@$$ery of some Islamic and athiest Halloweenies...
I see...and personally wish there was some sort of a separation of church and church clause applied to this planet.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
So let me get this straight.
Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a case of a slighted Muslim Halloween parade watcher who was arrested by an unusually alert gendarme for trying to grab a placard from a marching athiest zombie prophet and went before a judge who threw a harassment charge out of his court for a lack of evidence in a 'he said-she said' manner and lectured the zombie whereby he recorded it and interpreted an inaudible passage by the self-professed Lutheran judge to have said "I'm a Muslim..." vice "I'm no Muslim..." OWTTE and then proceded to blog his opinion on it all in a First Amendment scree which caused a full-scale blogospheric F5 disturbance and now a major panties-in-a-wad 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight' dustup in here over the incensed dumb@$$ery of some Islamic and athiest Halloweenies...
I see...and personally wish there was some sort of a separation of church and church clause applied to this planet.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Is that all in one breath?? :D
Dozer523
03-01-2012, 08:25
Even if she says f*ck a lot, Doc?:o
this is the best thread ever. God Bless us, EVERY-one.
this is the best thread ever. God Bless us, EVERY-one.
We're Knights of the Round Table.
We dance whene'er we're able.
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.
We dine well here in f*ckalot.
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.
We're Knights of the Round Table.
Our shows are formidable,
But many times we're given rhymes
That are quite unsingable.
We're opera mad in f*ckalot.
We sing from the diaphragm a lot.
In war we're tough and able,
Quite indefatigable.
Between our quests wear sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable.
It's a busy life in f*ckalot.
I have to push the pram a lot.
And so it goes...:p
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
03-01-2012, 10:09
Is that all in one breath?? :D
JJ
If I read that post correctly,Richard said all that in actually one(1) sentence,but I don't have the balls to challenge him about it..........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
greenberetTFS
03-01-2012, 10:12
this is the best thread ever. God Bless us, EVERY-one.
I want to know what harm have you done to Dusty?........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
GratefulCitizen
03-01-2012, 18:55
Wow. That was interesting.
Could only follow part of the thread on my wimpy phone for the past few days.
N550G:
Sorry about piling that kindling.
The question was just a musing (like if a group were BBQing pork on a Friday too near a mosque.)
The back and forth you had with TR kept reminding me of a Christopher Walken/Will Ferrell SNL skit.
MORE COWBELL!
:D
(No disrespect meant to TR. I'll put down the cowbell.)
MTN Medic
03-01-2012, 19:01
So, If this is to be taken as a precedent; in the future, if some thin skinned muslim with a chip on his shoulder attacks me for calling Ol Muhummad a pederast, can I kick the stuffing out of his worthless shell?
Point being is, if allowed to kick the everlastingunholly$hitouttta him, it seems that his attack was indeed, not justified; despite his faith.
Now, if I can't.... WTF? :confused: I am supposed to let some 120lb boy humper lay his hands on me with no recourse?
I don't understand how the logic of this inescapable connundrum is common sense to a combat arms soldier and is not to a JUDGE! :confused:
To start off, some of the comments did appear personal and were uncalled for IMHO. A lady is still a lady. My 1/2 centavos only.
Until she takes a shine to shit-talking on social media.