US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

[RACER X]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49740

People who are concerned about the spread of Muslim sharia law into American jurisprudence used to be dismissed as alarmists. That won’t happen again for a while, thanks to a Pennsylvania judge who just dismissed assault charges against a Muslim who was videotaped attacking a man dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” during a Halloween parade.

The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country.

The astonishing details, from Opposing Views:

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.

Muslim judge Mark Martin ruled in favor of the assailant… and insulted the defendant for good measure.

Martin offered the court a little lesson in Islamic theology, which he believes transcends that silly First Amendment free-speech stuff in the U.S. Constitution:

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.

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.

Since Islam is, therefore, at the very center of a Muslim’s being, speech they find objectionable – such as depicting the Prophet in any form, much less as an extra from The Walking Dead – “trashes their essence, their being,” and violence is justified, especially from a recent immigrant accustomed to living in countries properly governed by sharia law.

As Al Stefanelli notes at Opposing Views, the judge didn’t even pretend to understand what the First Amendment means, never mind pondering the laws against physical harassment:

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.

Martin went on to call the plaintiff a “doofus.”


----------------------------------------
a little more balanced

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html

A storm of controversy has erupted over the ruling of a Pennsylvania judge to dismiss a case against a Muslim man accused last October of attacking an atheist who marched as "Zombie Muhammad" in a local Halloween parade.

Citing a lack of admissible evidence, Cumberland County Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin dismissed harassment charges against Talaag Elbayomy, a muslim immigrant who was recorded in a grainy video last October physically engaging another man, Ernest Perce V, during the Oct. 11 parade in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Perce, a member of the "Parading Atheists of Central PA," filed a complaint with police alleging that Elbayomy attacked him during the parade and inflicted bodily harm, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

"He grabbed me, choked from the back, spun me around to try to get [my "Muhammad of Islam" sign] off that was wrapped around my neck," Perce told ABC 27 News.

Elbayomy in turn filed a complaint with police alleging that Perce instigated the attacks and told courts that he never touched him during the argument. But the officer who took the pair's complaints, Sgt. Brian Curtis, told ABC 27 that Elbayomy admitted at the scene to grabbing Perce's sign and pulling his fake beard, which led Curtis to charge him with harassment.

Saying that the case represents one man's word against the other and that the video is inadmissible, Judge Martin threw out the charge against Elbayomy, Fox News reports.

But in announcing his ruling, Martin also made remarks that have led a number of organizations to accuse him of bringing religion into the courtroom.

Writing for American Atheists, Al Stefanelli said he was particularly concerned with portions of Martin's remarks where he "offers a lesson on Islam."

According to a transcribed audio recording of Martin's remarks posted to YouTube by Perce, which was later re-transcribed for clarity by the National Review Online, the judge told Perce that "what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive."

Judge Martin continued:

If I were a Muslim, I'd 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.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote that wherever Martin's religious leanings many fall, the greater issue is that "his legal views seem grotesquely out of place."

"There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture," Turley wrote. "... I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct."

Since the controversial ruling was handed down, Perce says he has received hundreds of death threats.

“People have said that they would kill me, rip my eyes out, run me over, shoot me and then laugh at me, since I have blasphemed Muhammad,” Perce told The Daily Caller. “They say I will be found out and hung in front of my family.”

[RACER X]

The second article indicates that he dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. Another article includes the fact that he disallowed a video to be shown as evidence.

Here is the other article... from

http://tpaoa.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/i-am-outraged-listen-to-an-american-muslim-judge-mark-martin-rule-in-favor-of-sharia-law/

"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”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”[/

[jtemple]

The judge, who is a Muslim, didn’t even care to see the videotape, because the assault was entirely justified under sharia law, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. In fact, the beaten Zombie Muhammad should just be thankful he wasn’t killed, because that’s what would have happened in a Muslim country.All I really read was that.

Just a fine example of the one-way street that is tolerance.

[Trip]

Muslim dude is a white dude that is an Iraq war veteran too. Recent convert...

Pic goodness of zombie mohammed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html

[tommymac]

how bout next year we go to that town and all dress up as mohammed zombies and beat this guys ass.

[pauldun170]

http://volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/

[pauldun170]

....key sections
A police officer reports that Elbayomy had admitted that he grabbed the parader and tried to grab his sign; but it’s possible that the judge found this evidence to not be credible enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal harassment, which requires an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,” and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not qualify, see the pen-grabbing discussion in this case. The acquittal itself might thus be justified, depending on exactly what evidence was introduced.
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.

[Homeslice]

Muslim dude is a white dude that is an Iraq war veteran too. Recent convert...


Are you serious? :lol: If so, what a fucking idiot

[Adeptus_Minor]

So now we know what we have to get the Westboro assholes to dress up as so their asses can be beaten in such a way that leaves them no legal recourse.

[Trip]

Are you serious? :lol: If so, what a fucking idiot

Dude in the middle is the Judge, his name is Mark Martin.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/514307/thumbs/s-PENNSYLVANIA-JUDGE-large.jpg

[pauldun170]

http://katzjustice.com/Penn.pdf

[pauldun170]

Judge responds because of the internet barrage he is getting, apparently he isn't muslim, he's Lutheran...
May wanna scan the thread Dr Redundancy

[Trip]

May wanna scan the thread Dr Redundancy

I have you on ignore lol

[Homeslice]

I have you on ignore lol

pwnd

[Papa_Complex]

You guys elect your judges, right? Think this guy will get re-elected?

[pauldun170]

I have you on ignore lol

I have me on ignore too.

[Papa_Complex]

Judge lied. He said that he was a Lutheran and had been for 41 years, but in his decision he stated he was a Muslim, as clear as day on tape. He might be a Lutheran. He might be a Muslim. He lied about one of the two, if not both.

[pauldun170]

Judge lied. He said that he was a Lutheran and had been for 41 years, but in his decision he stated he was a Muslim, as clear as day on tape. He might be a Lutheran. He might be a Muslim. He lied about one of the two, if not both.

I haven't listened to the tape and have to rely on
He states
If I were a Muslim,

Then he follows with later
you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.

there is two ways to approach that comment.
One: Focus on "I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive" and assume it to mean that he is now contradicting himself

Two:
you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. "I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive."

Using empathy to convey his argument.

An example would be a sexual harassment case

If I am not a woman,

you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. "I’m a woman, I find it offensive."

The guy went off on a lecture fest and may have rambled.

[Trip]

Judges don't need to lecture on what is being mean or offensive, just what is legal or illegal. Dressing like zombie religious figure is not illegal, he needs to shut the fuck up about it. Proof in the case at hand is another matter, we haven't seen any either. Anyone seen the video?

[Papa_Complex]

I listened to an excerpt, from the judgment, and it sure as hell sounded to me like he said, "I'm a Muslim...."

*EDIT* Yup, I'm right. Judge's ruling from 28:28 and the statement that he is a Muslim at 31:28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs

[pauldun170]

Judges don't need to lecture on what is being mean or offensive, just what is legal or illegal. Dressing like zombie religious figure is not illegal, he needs to shut the fuck up about it. Proof in the case at hand is another matter, we haven't seen any either. Anyone seen the video?

Judges do not need to lecture just like people don't have to talk through a movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Dressing like a zombie religious figure - protected
Dressing like a zombie religious figure with intent to incite - not automatically protected.

So the guy dresses up like zombie Mohamed. Not a crime.
Idiot flips out and goes gay kung fu turtle ninja on him. Crime

Gay kung fu turtle ninja charged with was Criminal Harassment.
The Crime he SHOULD have been charged with is Assault.

Judge decides gay kung fu turtle ninja's act did not meet the standard of the law.
Judge proceeds to call Atheist a dick.

Hilarity ensues.

I'm guessing that all involved (cop, prosecuter, judge) thought atheist and gay kung fu turtle ninja to be acting like doochebags but none really felt its was enough doochebaggery to justify giving them criminal records.

Not uncommon...unfortunately athesists and muslims are involved so interwebz has to blow up like Captain Morgan's ball's half way through his 40 days and 40 night bullshit.

I listened to an excerpt, from the judgment, and it sure as hell sounded to me like he said, "I'm a Muslim...."

*EDIT* Yup, I'm right. Judge's ruling from 28:28 and the statement that he is a Muslim at 31:28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs

Is it what I quoted? (youtube blocked at work)

[Papa_Complex]

Is it what I quoted? (youtube blocked at work)

No, it's not. Watch it when you get home. He clearly says, "I'm a Muslim..."

[pauldun170]

No, it's not. Watch it when you get home. He clearly says, "I'm a Muslim..."

Is this it?

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, 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 cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is — they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether 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’re 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.

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

This the part you are referencing?

they find it very, very, very offensive.
I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive.
Followed by
F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

[Homeslice]

Dude's a tool in any case. Trying to lecture people and thereby get his name in the press. I also like how he says spending 2.5 years in the Middle East makes him knowledgeable about Islam.

[Papa_Complex]

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

[pauldun170]

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

Sounds like he say "I'm a Muslim". fucking lying lawyer scumbag
Guy rambles on for longer than my attention span allows but to be honest, I dont care.
I've read enough transcripts to realizes that a lot of Judges like to yap and try to "school" people who appear in front of them if they are in that kind of mood.

My concern is whether the law was properly applied.
Based on Pennsylvania state law (though I haven't sifted through case law) and the testimony I agree that Gay kung fu turtle ninja was not guilty of the Harassment charge.

I don't care if the judge lectured on how he was a super hero unicorn that liked to spread whale spunk to Ethiopian children over Yom Kippur while wathing Tom and Jerry re-runs.

Was the law correctly applied?
Apparently so.
The testimony was not exactly sparkling
There isn't any clear video evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That's the way it works.

full video of incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yP-X3hpCfR8

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.

[Papa_Complex]

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

[pauldun170]

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.


He wasn't charged with assault.

[Papa_Complex]

He wasn't charged with assault.

No, he was charged with criminal harassment, right? Reading the statute it comes off as a lesser assault-like charge, as for a case in which no lasting physical harm is caused. The definition is, precisely, assault.

[pauldun170]

Murder vs manslaughter vs manslaughter in 2nd degree etc etc.

[pauldun170]

I definitely understand why this pisses off some people.
A man was doing his thing in the parade...free speech and all.
Some asshole gets all doochey and tries to infringe

He did something wrong.
He should be punished.
We all want him to be punished and for the judge to say otherwise...it creates anal leakage.
You should only be punished if convicted of the crime you are charged with.

[pauldun170]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the witness testimony was from the police officer who did not witness the alleged altercation.


18 Pa. C.S. § 2709. Harassment. (2003)

(a) OFFENSE DEFINED.-- A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person:

(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same;

(2) follows the other person in or about a public place or places;

(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose;

(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures;

(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;

(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or

(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in
paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

(b) Deleted by 2002, Dec. 9, P.L. 1759, No. 218, § 1, effective in 60 days.

(B.1) VENUE.--
(1) An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been

committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received.

(2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one
jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act

occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

(c) GRADING.-

(1) An offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall constitute a summary offense.

(2) (i) An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or (7) shall
constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(d) FALSE REPORTS.-- A person who knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to implicate another under this section commits an offense under section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).

(e) APPLICATION OF SECTION.-- This section shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of June 2, 1937 (P.L. 1198, No. 308), known as the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.

(f) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:


"Communicates." Conveys a message without intent of legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar transmission.

"Course of conduct." A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

[Papa_Complex]

Murder vs manslaughter vs manslaughter in 2nd degree etc etc.

Any way that you slice it, it still sounds like assault to me. The descriptive words used are the same as for assault. Seems like a needless distinction in law, to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the witness testimony was from the police officer who did not witness the alleged altercation.

You're wrong. The witness, that I'm speaking of, was the Zombie Pope, who is the person that the victim was asking to help him during the incident. He saw the whole thing. When a judge throws out evidence (video) and discounts an eye witness, without reason, he creates correctable error. if this had been the other way around, with it being a defence witness and evidence, it would be cause for appeal.

[pauldun170]

Any way that you slice it, it still sounds like assault to me. The descriptive words used are the same as for assault. Seems like a needless distinction in law, to me.



You're wrong. The witness, that I'm speaking of, was the Zombie Pope, who is the person that the victim was asking to help him during the incident. He saw the whole thing. When a judge throws out evidence (video) and discounts an eye witness, without reason, he creates correctable error. if this had been the other way around, with it being a defence witness and evidence, it would be cause for appeal.

Good thing we aren't on a jury together.
We'd drive the other jurors and each other crazy.

[Papa_Complex]

Good thing we aren't on a jury together.
We'd drive the other jurors and each other crazy.

I figure that my way out of jury duty, is to just let drop that I'm the moderator of the Law and Highway Traffic Act section, on my local board.

[EpyonXero]

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

That video showed nothing. There was audio of the plaintiff yelling that hes being attacked and nothing else. Its also pretty obvious that the zombie guy was out there looking for some kind of reaction. Im not surprised the judge threw out the case, where he messed up was his little lecture.

[Papa_Complex]

That video showed nothing. There was audio of the plaintiff yelling that hes being attacked and nothing else. Its also pretty obvious that the zombie guy was out there looking for some kind of reaction. Im not surprised the judge threw out the case, where he messed up was his little lecture.

Perhaps so, but the only crime committed in this case was the assault (harassment, whatever). The price of free speech is occasionally being offended.

[derf]

Judge has moved due to threats

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/zombie-muhammad-judge-relocated-due-to-threats-criticism/