Judge rules against atheist attacked in costume

[rug]

Posted: Feb 21, 2012 6:55 PM EST Updated: Feb 22, 2012 9:17 AM EST
By Dennis Owens

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. (WHTM) - It almost sounds like the makings of a joke: an atheist, a Muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren't laughing about an attack and insist what's really frightening is the way a district judge ruled on it.

The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammed. On YouTube, you can catch a scary moment. It's dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.

"He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.

The Muslim man and Perce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/midstate-judge-rules-against-attack-on-atheist-in-costume

[baldguy]

1. If atheists can be assaulted with impunity, can they be killed also?

Since atheism obviously isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.

[rug]

4. Here's the statute.

§ 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).

. . . .

(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.

. . . .

(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.

. . . .

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.027.009.000.html

The defendant was charged with a summary, i.e., non-criminal, offense. In Pennsylvania those cases are prosecuted by the arresting officer, not an A.D.A., before a local magistrate without a jury. A magistrate does not have to be a lawyer.

That's the long answer. The short answer to your question is no.

[baldguy]

8. That wasn't my question.

According to the story, the incident meets all the criteria of harassment under the law you've cited: "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;".

The judge disregarded the statute, because the victim professed to be an atheist. Why should any atheist now expect the protection of the courts in any matter? Including murder?

[rug]

12. Your question was can atheists be killed also.

The answer is no.

The statute is posted because the defendant wasn't charged with assault.

I presume your question was rhetorical.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[Yooperman]

2. I read the article and it is astounding that the judge threw this out....

blaming the victim for antagonizing!!

As one of the posters that commented on the story asked... "What about the Westboro Baptist Church then?"

Can we now attack them physically because they offend us?

I also wonder how limpballs would handle this story..."A Muslim attacks a man in a parade!! ...wait... it was against an atheist? (cough, snort) Well ...never mind well.... well... he must have deserved it!"

[Angry Dragon]

3. The judge needs to go back to law school

[unblock]

5. and here the jewish community were all upset at the idea of neo-nazis marching in skokie

turns out they should just let them march and, having been legally offended, beat the crap out of them!

[humblebum]

6. According to the statute, it appears they might have both been guilty of harassment.

Maybe they cancelled each other out.

[rug]

9. That's what a lot of the local non-lawyer judges do.

It also happens a lot in domestic cases when no injury has occurred.

[2ndAmForComputers]

17. Going out as Zombie Mohammed in a Halloween parade is harassment? Explain how.

[humblebum]

28. Does that even warrant an answer? Overt ridicule could very

easily be considered as that.

[2ndAmForComputers]

80. By somebody who's lost all sense of measure.

Good fucking grief.

[humblebum]

83. I have a feeling I'm not alone in my opinion. nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

84. Of course not. There wouldn't be religious wars or religious-inspired terrorism if you were.

[humblebum]

86. And, of course, there has never been any atheist-inspired terrorism or war making.

LOL SARCASM

[2ndAmForComputers]

92. "Waah waah waah they do it too" got old by 4th grade.

An aggressor got away with his aggression (pending possible appeals) because a bigoted judge shares the aggressor's beliefs and dislikes the victim's. These are the facts of the matter. You think that's fine and dandy because you share the judge's dislike. That, too, is a fact.

[humblebum]

94. No, the fact is that no one was hurt. End of story.

[darkstar3]

96. Only for those wearing blinders and shouting at the world to do the same.

[humblebum]

101. And it may also be that the blinders are coming off and people are

beginning to see what is going on.

[darkstar3]

103. CH was right, you are incoherent. That didn't even make sense at all in context.

[humblebum]

104. I really didn't expect you to understand. Oh well. nt

[cleanhippie]

30. Don't do it! Just don't do it.

He is trying to bait you into yet another one of his illogical, irrational arguments. The best advice is to just walk away. You will be much, much happier, I promise.

[humblebum]

40. And you don't consider bigotry illogical and irrational? nt

[cleanhippie]

44. I consider your arguments to be illogical and irrational.

Have a nice day.

[humblebum]

57. Well since I consider the act to be somewhat bigoted, I guess I was

right in my assumption.

[cleanhippie]

59. You are right, in that your responses are irrational and illogical, and do not align with reality.

Glad we agree on that.

Bye now.

[2ndAmForComputers]

81. I know. I have exotic, unusual tastes.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

56. Why then was only the Muslim man charged?

He himself called the police and reported an act of blasphemy, which he believed was illegal. No charges were brought against the atheist man, so it would seem that he did not violate any laws.

[humblebum]

58. If the story had continued instead of being called a draw, it may have

played out differently.

[cleanhippie]

60. It wasn't a draw, a believer ATTACKED an non-believer, and a judge let him go.

I know your blind hatred of non-believers shields you from seeing things, but this is just ridiculous. Your responses no longer jive with reality. And that is sad.

[humblebum]

62. Your characterization of my "blind hatred of non-believers" I find offensive. Criticism is

not a display of hatred. And if the case was dropped without any consequences as it was, it is safe to say that it was a draw.

What if someone would have portrayed a zombie Hitchens being surrounded by a torrent of consuming flames, would that have been somewhat bigoted? I think so. And what if an on-looker attacked that someone, would they have been violating the rights of the someone who was attacked? How would that fictitious scene be any different?

The rationalization for your biases is, at times, almost comical because it is so obvious.

[cleanhippie]

63. You find everything offensive.

Perhaps you should read what the judge actually said, and see if you can get past your hatred of believers for just a second and see the travesty of justice that took place here.


Fuck, who am I kidding? Its pointless to try and reason with you. Whatever, I'm done.

[humblebum]

64. Both sides walked away without further incident. It was a draw, and

you failed to answer my question. More evasion.

[cleanhippie]

65. Without further incident? One was attacked, the other was charged.

What reality are you dwelling in? Do you just make it up as you go along?

Maybe you missed this. I know it won't jive with what you call reality, but here in the world the rest of us inhabit, this really happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121810734

[humblebum]

69. So something else happened after the incident?

BTW, I thought you were done.

[cleanhippie]

70. I am.

[humblebum]

71. Yes you am.nt

[cleanhippie]

74. Even your parting shot is incoherent.

[humblebum]

76. No more so than your definition of 'done.' nt

[cleanhippie]

77. in-co-her-ent

[humblebum]

79. Yes you am. nt

[ChadwickHenryWard]

61. The officer inovled in the case said:

Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him

Sargent Brian Curtis

The officer said that Mr. Perce did not violate any laws. What he did may have been offensive, but it most certainly was not a violation of the law.

[2ndAmForComputers]

85. Must have been an evil, god-hating, Nazi atheist cop.

Ask humblebum.

[cleanhippie]

7. This is exactly the outcome many believers wanted to happen.

Even many right here on DU.

[rug]

10. Link?

[2ndAmForComputers]

16. Unnecessary due to abundance.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664

[cleanhippie]

20. It will be interesting to see what response, if any, rug will give.

My bet is that IF he responds, it will be an evasion/denial.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Yes, wouldn't surprise me. n/t

[cleanhippie]

35. And just as I predicted, he replied with evasion.

As if linking to the banned users profile is a refutation of the claim that it never happened. WTF.

[rug]

41. Considering that poster is no longer on DU,

your statement "right here on DU" is pretty much a crock of shit.

[cleanhippie]

45. You keep telling yourself that, rug. You will convince yourself eventually.

Good luck with that.

[rug]

47. Nice evasion.

[cleanhippie]

48. Again, you keep telling yourself that.

Its plainly obvious to any ready just what happened here, and your denial of that changes nothing.

Have a nice day.

[rug]

50. Don't forget your hat.

[cleanhippie]

51. Don't forget to keep convincing yourself.

[rug]

32. Remind me not to go to a casino with you.

You lose too many bets.

[cleanhippie]

34. Why, because I was right?

As I stated, i thought you would reply with evasion/denial.


You came through with flying colors. Well done. Exactly as thought.

[rug]

36. Considering that poster was banned, your comment attacking DU pretty well fails.

But that's often the case.

[cleanhippie]

37. Only in your mind.

Keep telling yourself that, you will be convinced eventually.

[rug]

39. The proof is there.

[cleanhippie]

43. Yeah, the proof that it happens is there.

Not sure how linking to a banned poster refutes that.

[rug]

49. Considering your visceral rejection for anything religious is now seeping onto your view of DU,

I'd say it does.

[cbayer]

24. The member that made those outrageous statements was banned.

[rug]

31. Right here on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=243453

[Silent3]

29. Link? See post #28 in this same thread. n/t

[rug]

33. This?

"28. I just did a quick check of local news sources.

"There was no mention of the event on any of them. I live in Mechanicsburg and didn't hear anything about the incident today."

[Silent3]

42. No. I don't know if you're seeing different post numbering than I am...

...but here's an actual link then:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121810673#post28

And for good measure, in response to...

Q: Going out as Zombie Mohammed in a Halloween parade is harassment? Explain how.

...the post in question says:

A: Does that even warrant an answer? Overt ridicule could very easily be considered as that.

That certainly sounds like someone right here on good ol' DU who's happy to consider public parody of religion as a legally punishable offense.

[cleanhippie]

46. Bingo!

[rug]

53. That's quite a stretch.

There's plenty of nonstatutory harassment going on in here daily.

[Silent3]

75. Not a stretch at all

That comment flows directly out of the line of conversation proceeding from the legal definition of harassment. The only stretch here is trying to pretend that post #28 is nothing more than a casual expression of distaste.

[cbayer]

15. Oh, bullshit. Give it a rest.

[cleanhippie]

18. Yawn. You give it a rest. Actually, should give it a read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x308664


Then next, you can do something to try and change the sentiment around here for non-believers. Be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

[cbayer]

23. No I didn't. And the member who made the outrageous statements was banned from

the site.

[darkstar3]

66. AND? How does that change the fact that the shit was posted and allowed to stand?

That is an awful dodge.

[cbayer]

68. The person who made the really outrageous anti-atheists statements

did not belong here and was banned. He had several posts removed from that thread. That was the moderator team identifying, acting on and then banning a bigot.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Actually, a lot of people had posts removed in that thread, including you.

Perusal of that thread is a nice reminder of how much this group has changed. It's a much more civil place, imo.

[darkstar3]

72. Still doesn't change the fact that CH's statement was factually correct.

It was here on DU.

And the place isn't more civil, it's just less busy. The old agitators are still agitating, they just have a smaller audience.

[cbayer]

73. Well, there certainly is a lot of truth in your last statement.

[demosincebirth]

11. FReedom of speech, freedom of expression. I see no problem. As long as you don't yell "fire" in

a crowded theatre.

[rug]

13. I actually agree with the cop's statement on this.

That doesn't happen very often.

[msongs]

14. terrorist act in the name of his religion, typical bullying from a person insecure in his beliefs nt

[cbayer]

25. It appears that the judge was far from unbiased in this case and should have recused himself.

That the man attacked was an atheist seems to have nothing at all to do with the attack. He was attacked due to the costume he was wearing.

Either way, it was wrong and pretty unbelievable that the attacker walked.

[cleanhippie]

27. Far from unbiased is an understatement. Have a look at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121810734

[2ndAmForComputers]

82. Correct. It had nothing at all to do with the attack.

But it had EVERYTHING to do with the bigoted judge's reaction.

I am 100% sure the outcome would be very different if Zombie Mohammed Guy was a Christian.

[cleanhippie]

26. If only it were that simple. The judge BLAMED the victim, and called him names.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121810734


There is more to this than meets the eye.

[rug]

38. Are you objecting to name-calling or the fact that a magistrate did the name-calling?

Because the former would be precious.

[cleanhippie]

52. Are you objecting to anything about the case or just me bringing it up?

Because the former would be precious.

[rug]

54. I'm objecting to your bizarre reaction and shit slinging.

Does that answer your question?

[cleanhippie]

55. No, but it confirms what most suspect.

That your responses do not mesh with reality.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

78. Hey rug

If a christian dressed up as Stalin got beat up by an atheist would you continue to blame the victim?

Just wondering if your cognitive dissonance extends to analogies or if you're too obtuse to even see it.

[rug]

88. If you read this as my defending this decision you should reacquaint yourself with the word obtuse.

But go on defending the parading mummers of central Pennsylvania. It will advance the course of reason.

[darkstar3]

67. A man assaulted another man because he was violently intolerant of "blasphemy",

and people here call the victim a bigot. THAT is why he got away with it in a nutshell.

[opiate69]

87. bingo

[rug]

89. To be precise, I consider him an idiot.

And to be more precise, the charge was harassment not assault, which you'd realize if you read the thread.

[darkstar3]

90. That was the charge, not the action,

and you're still part of the problem even though I wasn't originally referring to you.

[rug]

91. If you advocate these ludicrous displays, you're more than part of the problem.

It make your position look ridiculous.

[2ndAmForComputers]

93. What do you think of so-called "anti-blasphemy laws?"

[rug]

97. They're illegal in the U.S. and illiberal elsewhere.

They're wrong and don't work in the long run anyway.

[darkstar3]

95. Oh look, the oldest argument I know against Gay Pride parades!

Clues are free you know...

[rug]

98. Anyone else you want to hide behind?

[darkstar3]

99. Any other cliche'd tidbits you want to throw out?

Maybe next you'll call the atheists on this thread "strident" or "militant"...you're flat wrong here. Get over it. Blasphemy is not only a right, it's necessary in today's climate. People need to learn and deal with the fact that their cows aren't sacred for everone.

[rug]

100. Come on, your cliche bin is much bigger than mine. Who else?

[darkstar3]

102. I hide behind no one. I simply don't mind mentioning it when I find parallels

between your hate here and the shit directed at other groups. I guess I shouldn't be surprised...you are your church's faithful defender, and we all know how they feel about gays, unbelievers, and others.

[rug]

105. No, it is a pattern with you.

When your position is challenged you invariably hide behind another, truly oppressed, group and insinuate bigotry. After all, if someone disagrees with darkstar3. ipso facto, that person is a homophobe, a misogynist and any other type of bigot you can conjure to avoid shining daylight on your position.

[darkstar3]

106. Oh sure, I'm afraid of daylight, that must be it...

It couldn't possibly be that your derision sounds exactly like that directed at other groups, oh no...it must be that I'm desperate to protect myself.

I'll say this about Catholic school...they trained you well. Even when you're clearly, flatly wrong, you can still believe wholeheartedly in the righteousness of your position, and indeed when people tell you that you're wrong it only strengthens your convictions.

What an example of faith.

[rug]

107. QED

[darkstar3]

108. Yes, but not in the way you "believe". ;)

[rug]

109. Don't roll over your argument while you're down there.

It can't take much more.

[darkstar3]

110. How many last word contests at one time does it take for you to be happy?

[rug]

111. Why are you playing it?

You know, the last word will not salvage a failed position.

[darkstar3]

112. Because for the moment I find your addiction entertaining,

and the irony delicious. "Failed position..."

[rug]

113. It's not your first and it won't be the last.

You'll get the hang of it eventually.

[darkstar3]

114. Now I'm beginning to think you have an overly glossy screen and a brightness problem.

I'm also wondering how small a post I can make in order to force you to reflexively reply to and insult me...