Posted on 02/27/2012 10:00:42 AM PST by James C. Bennett
Someone is lying then -
Judges, muslims and reporters - you know how they all lie.
Did you read the original post?
"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’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve 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. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights."
If you were to mock gays in a “pride” parade, how long do you think that you would have to live? How about making fun of black pride?
In New York City, some spectators were furiously attacked by gays for expressing too freely their critical “audience response.” No one was arrested.
APPARENTLY -
I would disbar him anyway.
In fact - if I had ever had a case before him - and lost - I would use this as an immediate support for appeal. (I’m sure some lawyer will correct me - as “insane judge” is not appealable) - but - seriously - if he can be this far off target here - anyone has a case that their case was mishandled.
The judge - clearly - has no idea what he is doing there.
People manage to wear Yankee caps in Fenway .... etc.
He didn’t just screwup the assault - he sided with the assailant.
I suppose nothing should surprise me any more.
That was transcribed from a very bad recording, that was published by the atheist defendant. The judge responded quite clearly that he is not in fact a Muslim.
There are a couple of possibilities. Someone is lying. (Could be the judge, could be the atheist). The tape was deliberately edited by the atheist. The judge misspoke. The judge was speaking in the subjunctive. The tape didn’t catch him saying “IF” or “NOT”.
If you look at the rest of the transcript, it wouldn’t make sense for the judge to refer to Muslims as “THEY” throughout much of the tirade, then to suddenly switch and say “I’M”.
Logically, that doesn’t compute.
Also, it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to claim to follow Christ as a Lutheran, and the Judge actually did that in the response.
I guess though, the internet crowd is specifically invested in the judge being a Muslim, fact or not.
Having a bible alongside his Koran, being a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserve and having served three tours in muslim countries does not automatically mean he is not a muslim.
Why didn't he just clearly state "I am not a muslim" if he was concerned about the statement being incorrect?
Regardless of his religion - he is a pee-poor judge who showed poor judgment for engaging in a pro-Islam rant on the bench. Especially in a case when he is dropping charges against a muslim defendant.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on his judgment as a Lt. Colonel in a muslim land when my life is in the balance.
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.
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.
Having a bible alongside his Koran, being a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserve and having served three tours in muslim countries does not automatically mean he is not a muslim.
Why didn't he just clearly state "I am not a muslim" if he was concerned about the statement being incorrect?
Regardless of his religion - he is a pee-poor judge who showed poor judgment for engaging in a pro-Islam rant on the bench. Especially in a case when he is dropping charges against a muslim defendant.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on his judgment as a Lt. Colonel in a muslim land when my life is in the balance.
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.
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.
He can’t be disbarred. He isn’t a lawyer. Disbarment is a remedy applicable to lawyers. District Judges in Pennsylvania are elected Magistrates. Many are not lawyers. There is no requirement to be a lawyer to be a District Judge.
An acquittal cannot be appealed.
He can’t be disbarred. He isn’t a lawyer. Disbarment is a remedy applicable to lawyers. District Judges in Pennsylvania are elected Magistrates. Many are not lawyers. There is no requirement to be a lawyer to be a District Judge.
An acquittal cannot be appealed.
Reminds me of a quote:
I hate this fact, but in this case I am on the side of the Muslim. He did not real harm to the guy.
So, you're okay with random strangers suddenly appearing from nowhere and strangling your neck? In my book, if a stranger merely as much touches me with a feather against my will, the person deserves to face legal consequences. It's not about the amount of harm, but rather, the principle of the invasion.
Your misdirection attempt is noted. The "internet crowd" is specifically invested in the fact that this was a bad verdict made spectacularly worse by the judge's pedantic ramble in which he displays his woeful lack of understanding of US law, specifically the First Amendment.
The principle of the guy being able to insult me to my face and he gets immunity? Fact is that the marshall of the parade should not allow such stuff. Once upon a time, he would not, but now atheists and gays are thought to have the right to ridicule the religion of other peoples.
The principle of the guy being able to insult me to my face and he gets immunity? Fact is that the marshall of the parade should not allow such stuff. Once upon a time, he would not, but now atheists and gays are thought to have the right to ridicule the religion of other peoples.
“Bulls are dumb animals and are not expected to be able to conform themselves to difficult rules of conduct like, “don’t attack humans.” Muslims, OTOH”
You’re saying Muslims are different in their behavior than bulls?
Not from what I’ve seen and read they aren’t. Just replace the word “Bulls” in the first place in your comment and you’ll see it works and sounds correct.
Guess this should show the Atheists just which is the religion of peace.
The principle of not having your person violated by a stranger. Do you not see that the Muslim attempting a strangulation on the person in question was a violation of his rights?
That said, who ever guaranteed you immunity against insult? Anyone should be free to insult anyone else. Otherwise, the freedom of expression has no meaning.
For the last 15 years or so there has been a creeping concept in the US that we have the right to not be offended. What I call the missing section 11 of the bill of rights.
This is one of the results of this type of thinking. It’s the same logic that says if someone burns a Koran then those offended can kill, burn, and destroy property because of the offense.
Look at #51. If that’s not a sign...
Don’t worry about how long I would live if attacked,worry about the lives of those attacking me.
Wrong. He specifically says he is Lutheran.
I understand.
I’d do it anyway - I mean - look - if his ruling makes any sense - why should anything make any sense? Why not just - disbar non-lawyers?
He shouldn’t be the only one to have fun. Everyone else should just act crazy around him. As a form of ridicule.
I mean - symbolically disbar him as ridicule/satire.
Indeed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.