Dhimmi? Dummy? Thinker! : Judge Martin,address him “Your Dishonor”

So there is no lack of blog chatter regards the Pennsylvania judge who dismissed charges against a Muslim man recently.

The story is something like this:

A pair of atheists are at a Halloween parade in PA. One is dressed as Zombie Pope the other as Zombie Mohammed. A 46 y/o muslim immigrant took exception to Zombie Mo and since his son was with him he felt compelled to attack Zombie Mo. The assault seems to be that he grabbed the sign around Zombie Mo’s neck which identified him as…Zombie Mo. I guess the costume wasn’t that great. Anyway both the atheist and the muslim waited for police and pretty much told the same story. At trial the judge,Mark Martin makes statements that there was insufficient evidence. That probably could’ve been end of story but Martin then goes on a monologue about how he is a muslim and proceeds to school the atheist on Islam and Sharia. This of course explains the hysterics and outrage that followed.

In maintaining the consistency that has always been the feature of the DDT series I went a lookin’. Here is my opinion.

The charge all along was harassment,not battery or assault etc. This perked my interest,so much so that I looked up what PA calls harassment:

§ 2709. Harassment.
(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) Stalking.–(Deleted by amendment).
(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.
(ii) (Deleted by amendment).
(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.
(e.1) Course of conduct.–(Deleted by amendment).
(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.
“Emotional distress.” (Deleted by amendment).
“Family or household member.” (Deleted by amendment).
(June 23, 1993, P.L.124, No.28, eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 1997,
P.L.379, No.44, eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59,
eff. 60 days; Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days)

2002 Amendment. See sections 9 and 10 of Act 218 in the
appendix to this title for special provisions relating to
references to section 2709 and references to section 5504.
Cross References. Section 2709 is referred to in sections
4954, 4955, 5708 of this title; section 3304 of Title 5
(Athletics and Sports); sections 6108, 6711 of Title 23
(Domestic Relations); section 3573 of Title 42 (Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure).

In his non sharia praise statements Judge Martin stressed this law. From what I see he missed the mark.

I find this law a pretty scary one in that it appears both the muslim and the atheist could have been charged.There are a couple of other things in it that speak specifically to PA politics as well. It seems pretty clear to me that by his own admission that the muslim violated this law.

All in all Judge Martin has disgraced the Court,hurt the law and very likely ratcheted up the hate. Case closed!

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. Raji says:

    BIZARRE! Here’s the entire transcript along with Martin calling the complainant a “Doofus” in a court of law.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy

  2. Alfie says:

    Thanks Raji for supplying the link. When I posted I debated going link crazy, I had the local paper,other news sources,NRO (as you’ve included) and any number of blog links.I went lazy and included none.
    Yeah I think Martin is way out of bounds. I even looked into some other cases of his. He gave a guy that was already charged with battery on his wife/girlfriend bail of only $1,000 when he broke the leg of an 8 week old girl.

  3. That has huge sections that sound a like like assault, or Battery. In any case, he seems way off base…

    The guy broke an eight week old baby..? That’s a whole rack of felonies!

  4. Alfie says:

    PA has battery and assault laws too it appears this is a different kind of charge. Look at it though
    (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;
    two examples of some scary crap in the wrong hands. On the flip side you apparently can do most of the things in this statute if you’re part of a labor action. lol

  5. You noticed that too…

  6. Raji says:

    I figured you had seen the link. I went searching and had to go back a couple of google pages to get the actual transcript but thought I would throw it out for information. I would hope he could be disbarred for this decision and a few others but I guess that is wishful thinking.

  7. Alfie says:

    In a final update of sorts it seems the judge isn’t a mUslim but that part of the story wasn’t the big deal for me.
    The actual lecturing did happen and the bizarro flopping re the charge and appreciation of the Muslim assailant were.

Comments are closed.