A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy’s sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.
Yes, you read that correctly.
There will be much more to say about this. For now, you can find details, here, including the YouTube recording of Judge Martin hectoring the assault victim, Ernie Perce, an activist atheist who paraded last October in a “Zombi Mohammed” costume. Before dismissing the case, Martin lectured Perce about the principles of Islam and the tender sensibilities of Muslims, calling him a “doofus” for failing to appreciate same.
In 27 years of trying and analyzing legal cases, this performance is as shocking and disgraceful as anything I’ve ever seen from an American trial judge.
UPDATE: This post has been corrected because, after further review, it appears Judge Martin’s reported statement on the audio of the court proceeding, “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive”, is actually, “F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive.” For further details, see this post.
Coming soon, sharia judges dismissing rape charges because the victim had it coming for not wearing a burkha. And besides, her testimoney is inadmissable because she's a woman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was probably just following his conscience
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHar-de-har-har!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a wit!
You probably think you are just sooo cute & precious, but in reality you are only exactly what you proclaim to be - a robot.
The poster (intentionally?) conflates the "right" to free birth control with the right to not be assaulted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr maybe the judge found a copy of the Koran hidden under the penumbra's of the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have never regretted a single vote I have cast RE: judges in my state of Pennsylvania. I vote to fire all of them, every time. So much easier than keeping track of their various individual transgressions.
Hopefully this particular judge will get the boot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a Pennsylvania attorney. The DA can and will almost certainly refile the charges. District Judge Martin only decides preliminary hearings and after reading this decision I don't imagine he will be doing so for much longer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen it is refiled the DA can ask for a different judge to decide this case. Having appeared before him I am shocked.
this should have been dismissed immediately, this country balks about separation of church and state!!! where was that logic now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are shocked, why! This is what Islam is all about. They infiltrate, they abuse, they intimidate to gain power and control. They upsurp the laws of the land. This Judge should be removed from the bench immediately, impeached. Time to file whatever needs to be filed. I'm discusted by this and if anyone should be monitored for terrorist activity, it should be this judge!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am speechless. This is horrific. This is not the US of A. This "judge" should be disbarred immediately and then made an example of (what a judge, nay, what an American should not be). I can't even imagine how anyone can take this seriously. The "judge" isn't even pretending to uphold any law - he just agrees with his coreligionist and approves his religion allows him to break the law. Just awful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThink the British used to refer to cases like "Judge" Martin's as having "gone native" after too strenuous or too long foreign service. He is free to practice his adopted religion as he sees fit (as long as he obeys U.S. law). However, we as a country cannot afford to have him in any position of authority in our government. He should be impeached and disbarred immediately.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis judge clearly needs to be recalled. Can you imagine the outrage if a devout Christian assaulted an athiest and claimed "my religion made me do it?" We'd be hearing the screams even on MSNBC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's contact information for the citizens who must suffer this fool:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Having read the actual article it appears they tried the defendant as a summary offense rather than a criminal charge. That means the police cut the defendant a break at the scene and now he can't be retried (unless the DA wants to get creative). I will be writting the board of judicial discipline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the police toe the PC line too, huh? How reassuring. The liberals would be screaming about this on every television channel if a Christian had attacked an atheist, Muslim, or anyone else for this reason. However, I'm sure this case won't make any of the network news shows!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd liberals are pulling their hair out because Santorum speaks about Satan. I cry for my children and grandchildren.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess that Oklahoma law (or was it a state constitutional amendment?) forbidding courts from considering Sharia or other religious law in making decisions wasn't as far out there as people thought, eh? Of course, an idiot judge in Oklahoma declared that invalid. He looks even more stupid now. That Pennsylvania judge should be impeached or removed by the judicial board of conduct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis judge is a jerk, I don't like the way he talked to the victim, and he should be removed from the bench.
BUT, to put this in context: in this so-called 'assault', everyone admits that the perpetrator didn't even touch the victim.
Basically, the Muslim man just yelled at the guy. I have been yelled at before...I have never thought about calling the police. Apparently, the police at the scene told BOTH guys to file charges, since witnesses said they were both yelling at each other the same amount. The biggest travesty in court? Hardly. The case deserved to be dismissed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" in this so-called 'assault', everyone admits that the perpetrator didn't even touch the victim"
Assault charges in Pennsylvania (and most states, I believe) don't require actual harm, just the imminent threat of harm. As long as the victim reasonably believed he was in immediate danger of being harmed, an assault charge is valid. If there was actual physical contact, the charge would be battery rather than assault. See: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy understanding is that assault is the threat of violence. Actual violence is battery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse