February 26th, 2012, 02:04 PM #1
Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad - Yahoo! News
I just keep reminding myself that judges are also lawyers..."The Obama Administration is almost over. It is the end of an error."
February 26th, 2012, 03:49 PM #2I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 26th, 2012, 05:07 PM #3
Upon appeal, this judge gets reprimanded or worse. What an idiot.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 26th, 2012, 10:22 PM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
If he's electable, methinks he won't have another term.Get off of my roof!
February 26th, 2012, 10:25 PM #5
This islamic "judge" forgot what country he's in. . .Unofficial TechIMO record holder for the number of times being added and removed from beemer's ignore list.
February 26th, 2012, 10:55 PM #6
February 27th, 2012, 12:50 AM #7
Here's some reading material for ya.
February 27th, 2012, 01:06 AM #8
February 27th, 2012, 01:26 AM #9
February 27th, 2012, 09:25 AM #10
I assume you have a counterpoint to Chucks inflametory news source. By far his news source is superior to any you have presented.
I do find this to be a news worthy story but thus far I have not been able to find a whole lot of press on the issue. According to all sources I can find it looks like this judge really should be reviewed by the BAR of Pensylvania. At the very least he should have recused himself.
But of course I am all for Gomer providing more than lip service to the biased Fox news service. The transcript if true is blatantly out of order.
Originally Posted by Transcript? From National Review online
Last edited by Epidemic; February 27th, 2012 at 09:51 AM.
February 27th, 2012, 10:32 AM #11
The baseball conditional in the Zombie Mohammed case
From Language Log:Last Wednesday, the judge in the "Zombie Mohammed" case dismissed a charge of harassment against Talaag Elbayomy for attacking Ernest Perce V during a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg PA. Mr. Pence, a member of the Parading Atheists of Central PA, was costumed and labelled as "Zombie Mohammed", marching next to a "Zombie Pope" who was not attacked. There's been an extensive discussion of this case over at The Volokh Conspiracy (here, here, and here).
Mr. Perce apparently recorded the hearing (without permission from the judge, whose name is Mark Martin) and posted it on YouTube. Eugene Volokh linked to the recording and noted:
Commenters have queried whether the judge is actually Muslim; I think that at 31:25 in this audio he does expressly say “I’m a Muslim, I find it very offensive,” and not in a context where a “not” seems to be lost or somehow implied; but some commenters disagree, partly based on other passages in the audio — if you’re interested, check out the discussion in the comment thread. Naturally, I think the judge’s condemnation of the victim is out of place (and casts doubt on the judge’s objectivity in his decision about the defendant) whether or not the judge is a Muslim. [NOTE: The judge, in the message below, says he is not a Muslim.]
The question at issue here is not whether the charges against Mr. Elbayomy should or should not have been dismissed, nor whether the lecture that Judge Martin directed against Mr. Pence was or was not appropriate. What I hope to explain is why, if Judge Martin is not in fact a Muslim (apparently he's a Lutheran), he seems to have said "I'm a Muslim".
Here's the passage in question:
They find it very, very, very offensive -
I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive.Couldn't be clearer, right? The judge just said he's a Muslim. But then later he claims to be a Lutheran! What's going on?
As it happens, we discussed this construction almost five years ago ("Baseball conditionals", 5/23/2007). Barbara Partee contributed the initial example and the analysis:
Here's an example of the now-common way of expressing counterfactual conditionals among baseball players and managers that's so extreme I had to read it twice before catching on that it was a counterfactual; the preceding sentence and the play-by-play show that it must be, and it's grammatically consistent with other slightly less extreme examples I encounter almost daily.
(Structure: Clause1, clause 2. — both plain indicatives. Interpretation: if clause 1 had been the case, clause 2 would have been the case.) Oh, I think what makes this one a little unusual is that the first clause is in the past tense. I think usually they're both present tense.
"He could have been a little rusty early on, and then the inning he gave up four runs I think he kind of lost his composure a little bit," Orioles manager Sam Perlozzo said. "He just did a little damage control in that situation, we're OK." (AP Recap of Toronto 6, Baltimore 4, game of May 22, David Ginsburg, AP Sports Writer)
In the Volokh comments section, a couple of commenters make the same point, e.g.
I do not think the judge actually said he is a Muslim.
Rather, he was using some kind of subjunctive “[If] I’m a Muslim, I find that offensive.” Compare the common “sports subjunctive.” E.g., “He catches that pass, Steelers win the game, Steelers go to the playoffs, I’m a Steelers fan, I’m going crazy” spoken by a sports announcer who is not a Steelers fan after the receiver dropped the pass.By "subjunctive", I think that the commenter really means "counterfactual".
But maybe we should adopt the other half of his terminological suggestion (which is well established on the web) and call this the "sports conditional".I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 27th, 2012, 10:42 AM #12
Bottom line; The Muslim assaulted him and the case was dismissed because apparently "that's what Muslim's do."
Like calling a black guy the N word, or calling a white guy Whitey. Or calling asking the Coke guy for a Pepsi.
The judge was an idiot. And as Theo's post points out, the weasel lawyers have a lot to play with. It's not about whether the judge is a Muslim or not, it's about whether making light of a Muslim's faith as a valid excuse for and excusable assault.
Last edited by Chuckiechan; February 27th, 2012 at 10:47 AM."The Obama Administration is almost over. It is the end of an error."
February 27th, 2012, 11:18 AM #13
There was no assault, chuck. There was no assault charge.
As usual, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
February 27th, 2012, 11:22 AM #14
I think you are missing the point of this. As chuckie points out, there is no excuse for letting this guy off. The judge was wrong 100%. Whether he left the "if" off of the "I'm a muslim comment" is really irrelevant.
hell if he was a muslim it would still be irrelevant. He is a judge in America and he is supposed to render judgments based upon American law.
February 27th, 2012, 11:25 AM #15
February 27th, 2012, 11:52 AM #16
Obviously, a police officer felt it was or we wouldn't be in court now would we/
And yes, ripping at a person's clothing is considered assault."The Obama Administration is almost over. It is the end of an error."
February 27th, 2012, 12:26 PM #17
My most recent post only addressed the question of whether the judge was a Muslim. Clearly he's not.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
February 27th, 2012, 12:37 PM #18
sorry theo, I did not see your opinion on the subject only the posting, I read chuckie's post and thought he was addressing your opinion that it was not a problem.
sorry, I am usually on the other side of issues from you, I did not think it possible I could have been on the same page as you
February 27th, 2012, 01:19 PM #19
Your misrepresentation of what happened doesn't change that.
And per the trial, the harassment charge required specific intent. And that criteria was not met.
Watch the video. I'll post it later when I'm not on mobile.
Chuck and Co are reaching pretty hard to make this something it wasn't.
February 27th, 2012, 06:24 PM #20
How did he wind up in front of a judge if he wasn't charged?"The Obama Administration is almost over. It is the end of an error."
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 14Last Post: January 30th, 2013, 09:08 PM
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 3Last Post: November 29th, 2007, 06:28 PM
By Beemer in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 60Last Post: February 7th, 2006, 10:58 AM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 56Last Post: November 2nd, 2003, 05:16 AM
By OuTpaTienT in forum Suggestion BoxReplies: 21Last Post: February 22nd, 2003, 05:16 AM