Quantcast

«

»

Feb 27 2012

Update on the ‘Zombie Mohammed’ case

Jonathan Turley has posted an update based on a statement reportedly made by the judge that challenges some of the facts reported in the original story about the assault on an atheist dressed as a zombie Mohammed. In return, the atheist has added to his version.

As is often the case, the story is more complicated. For starters, it turns out that the judge claims he is a long-time Lutheran and not a Muslim.

While the judge’s view on what the First Amendment means remains problematic, this illustrates that getting the facts of a story correct is not always that easy and usually takes time.

2 comments

  1. 1
    itzac

    The identification of the judge as muslim in the mainstream media is unfortunate, as it will undermine criticism of him. In the audio of the hearing, the judge says, “I’m not muslim.” but the manner in which he says it made it pretty easy to mistake for “I’m a muslim.” if that’s what you were expecting to hear.

  2. 2
    Sean

    In his recent decision regarding an assault case, Judge Mark W. Martin dismissed an assault charge against a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy, citing an excuse that, the victim Ernie Perce was to blame for being a victim because his dress offended the attacker’s religious beliefs.

    This is just an obscene decision which is wrong on so many levels, morally, ethically and legally.

    This decision brings law and order into disrepute, and as such constitutes malfeasance by Judge Martin.

    The state must act and intervene to restore law and order and to protect the constitution from being diminished by the actions of Judge Martin.

    In addition Judge Martin stated, in his decision, a clear conflict of interest which would have required him to recuse himself from this case.

    His negligent and egregious conduct in this case should permanently disqualify him from the position of judge. He is not fit or qualified to sit on the bench.

    Judge Mark W. Martin should be censored, reprimanded and dismissed from the bench for his actions in this case.

    Furthermore, if the state refuses to intervene and rectify this miscarriage of justice then the state of Pennsylvania should be held liable both for damages to the victim and for allowing justice to be brought into disrepute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>