Atheist Gets Trial By Quasi-Sharia From American Muslim Judge
Via lujlp, American Atheists is reporting that an American citizen was attacked by a Muslim immigrant, and the Muslim-American judge threw out the case and blamed the victim, an Iraq veteran, for being attacked, and said he would have been put to death in a Muslim country:
You don't have the right to not be offended -- well, not so long as you're living under the Constitution instead of Sharia law.
The police officer who testified said that the Muslim man admitted to grabbing Pierce's sign and beard on the night of the incident.
Here, Judge Mark Martin scolds victim who insulted Islam (after a brief bit about freedom of religion in America):
More from American Atheists:
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.The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he'd be put to death. Judge Martin's comments included,
"Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
"Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture. It's their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it's very common when speaking to each other it's very common for them to say uh this will happen it's it they are so immersed in it."Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
"Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people's rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say."...The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, 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.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce's behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn't give an accurate account or doesn't give it any weight.
...Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
This judge should be disbarred. As Buckeyenonbeliever writes on American Atheists:
So, if I were to rip a sign off of a christian, jew, or muslim which read: "Nonbelievers are going to hell", would I merit such protection from this judge? Or would I be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law?
CORRECTION: The judge isn't a Muslim and there seems to be plenty that isn't right with the above story. See the piece by Cathy Young in reason.







'But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights.'
:-O What the hell?
crella at February 23, 2012 1:57 AM
Here we go.
"Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it..."
Excuse me, your "honor" (and I use that term loosely)...
1. Mocking someone else's religion is no basis to justify assault. It's also not a crime.
2. Offending someone else, also no basis to justify assault. ALSO NOT a crime.
3. It was a halloween costume. What moron thinks it needs to have some factual basis?
4. Some of us do in fact know a little about your religion. That's the one where your prophet married a 9 year old, and killed people who refused to convert, right?
Let me just close with as salaam alaikum, because when most of us adults are offended, we can smile and walk away.
DrCos at February 23, 2012 3:50 AM
The one thing that jumped out for me is that the Muslim thought that in the USA it was a crime to insult the Prophet Mohamed. Reminds me of another case where PC liberals decided that feelings need to be protected.
Ezra Levant. He republished some cartoons, some Muslim felt insulted and decided to actually go to the police. Where they even informed him that not it is not against the law. In the end the "victim" decided to use Canada's Human Rights Tribunals to sue him. It goes on.
Still I think some public service announcements need to be done to inform that NO insulting against Prop Mo is not an insult, same with lampooning Joseph Smith, the pope or L Ron Hubbard.
The judge made a bad decision. He can lecture the victim all he wants. He just has to deal with consequences.
What next lecturing rape victims for dressing sluttish. "Well Miss, by the way you where dressed, the defendant could not control himself with your alluring bewitching looks. It like leaving uncovered meat for a cat. He felt he had every right to assault you. Of course in his country no female would dress that way, so when he found himself here in the USA of he was confused. You should have know better and covered yourself up. That is why I have decided to dismiss this case. Now Miss go back to your mother...., be a good girl and put your Burkha back on"
John Paulson at February 23, 2012 6:49 AM
Sigh. Why do so many people's allegedly omnipotent gods need defending from mere humans? Isn't it a sin in some faiths for someone to presume to act on their god's behalf?
How the hell did that judge make it to the bench if he's so incapable of reason and impartiality?
LeKevbo at February 23, 2012 7:35 AM
Judge: "Here in this country we have a constitution that gives us many rights, like the first Amendment right"
FAIL.
The First Amendment acknowledges the pre-existing right that we have, by virtue of being humans. It does not GRANT us any rights. It merely restrains the government from infringing on preexisting human rights.
Get this ignorant jackass off the bench ASAP.
TJIC at February 23, 2012 8:02 AM
Also, Judge, your so-called "Prophet" is a child rapist and a murderer.
Feces Be Upon Him.
Travis J I Corcoran
39 Evergreen Ln
Arlington, MA
TJIC at February 23, 2012 8:03 AM
Sounds like a mob of zombie Muhammads needs to protest in front of this courthouse. The citizens of this county need to recall this judge immediately.
I live on the other coast so can only join in spirit. If I were there, I'd be there.
Janet C at February 23, 2012 8:43 AM
Weren'y Jesus and Lazarus zombies?
Eric at February 23, 2012 11:27 AM
The judge should be benched out of hand. However you may be able to chalk it up to PTSD. The judge is/was a Lt. Col. in the US army and spent years at the head of an MP Detachment in Iraq. That type of service will mind fuck anyone.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/02/mechanicsburg_judge_headed_to.html
vlad at February 23, 2012 11:42 AM
I thank the judge for his service, but his impeachment is still in order, PTSD or not. Legislatures are failing in their responsibility here, Just as they do with budgets.
The last judge I can remember being removed from office is Alcee Hastings. The same one now serving in Congress. You couldn't make this stuff up, nor is it possible to hold Congress in sufficient contempt.
MarkD at February 23, 2012 12:08 PM
Impeach, tar/feather and ride out on a rail.
Sio at February 23, 2012 5:17 PM
Actually the prosecutor should be filing an appeal with the state district court. The victim should be filing a civil action.
The judge should be held in contempt for violating the First on both speech and separation of religion and state. His own words declare that.
Jim P. at February 23, 2012 7:39 PM
http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Crid at February 25, 2012 2:38 PM
Leave a comment