A lot of times misdemeanor trials are just before a judge, not a jury

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't take the time to actually look up the statute for my post, I was basically going off of 1L criminal law. I still think that the prosecutor should have gone with the safer charge of simple assault:

§ 2701 Simple assault

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he:

(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;

(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or

(Only parts 1 and 3 apply here).

Assuming this was a State charge, and not under municipal ordinance, it looks to me like the prosecutors were reaching for the more serious charge and failed to include a lesser-included offense that might have got them the conviction.

Either way, I agree that the judge was out of line.

I do find that curious and I am in by no means defending the judge in this case. I have no doubt that he was biased. My point however, is that you could have a biased judge who still comes to the same conclusion a non-biased judge would come to. That being, that a video of an assault does not rise to the level, or meet the elements of the charged crime, of harassment.

Just watched the attached video, so I am amending my response. They should have filed assault charges, not harassment.

Read my post below.

While I agree that the comments made concerning the judge's faith and the comments directed at the victim were completely inappropriate, the dismissal of the harassment charge was likely correct.

If there wasn't enough evidence, or the correct evidence, to point to the elements needed to prove harassment, then the charge should be dropped.

The author of this entry does mention that it was only the harassment charge dropped, but the way this piece is written makes it sound like the entire case was dismissed. From what I can tell, that is not the case. The man will still be tried, and likely convicted, of the assault charge.

Ok, wait a second. When I first read the headline and most of the article I was outraged. (UPDATE: The headline to the story is just wrong, he dismissed a harassment case, not an assault case. If the prosecutors had charged assault, they likely would have won.)

As an attorney, I am still outraged that the judge would bring his own religious beliefs into this case, and that he would admonish the victim with these clearly wrong-headed views (That her First Amendment rights were trumped by the need to not to offend, the entire purposed of the First Amendment is "to protect the Speech that we hate".)

HOWEVER, when I got to the final line, I realized that - what the judge said aside - there is less to be outraged about here as far as the actual ruling.

The judge dismissed the HARASSMENT charge, not the assault charge, which would be backed up by the video. Harassment is a different crime with different elements. The attack itself would likely not be enough to prove harassment. The video of the attack would, and probably will, be enough to prove assault/battery.
(UPDATE:
Based on the incorrect headline and the story written here, I had assumed that both harassment and assault charges were filed, but they only charged this guy with harassment, which was a dumb move, as he actually admitted to an assault. Harassment is usually more on-going than just an attack like this.)

The judge threw out the harassment charge, but not the assault charge. It makes sense and is not as zany as this blogger wants to make it sound. (UPDATE: Again, thought there were two charges. The judge still had discretion that there wasnt enough proof to make the harassment charge stick. The prosecutors screwed up not charging assault.)

His first CD: True Stories I Made Up is one of the funniest comedy albums I've ever heard, along with the comedy central special "Completely Serious", with much of the same content. His second special, Happy Thoughts - the one I think you are talking about - was not nearly as funny, on all levels basically. Take the Founders joke out and it was still not as funny.

I went to see him last summer when he came to Omaha - secretly hoping he'd do his bit about how he knows why there are storm chasers here, because after an hour in Omaha he's hoping for a tornado to take him anywhere else. I was afraid it would just be the live version of Happy Thoughts, but it was all new material and I was laughing HARD the entire time. He is hilarious.

I was going to say he is "hit or miss" but honestly, he hits WAY more than he misses.

I was shocked that Quint's account of the sinking of the Indianapolis in Jaws wasn't on the list.

No, Hangover 2 did much better at the box office than the first one. #2 was the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time.

So Hangover 2 DID much better than the original, but Hangover 2 WAS a lot worse than the original.

It seems to me that the problems they are talking about are basically inherent in moving from a time of war to a time of peace. With the troop draw down in Iraq there is more of a role for building peace. We are still fighting in Afghanistan, but if we don't want to repeat the past mistakes of just going to war then leaving (and creating more enemies in the process...read: The Taliban, post cold war) then we have to do the clean-up work as well.

It's definitely a change of pace going from all out war to ... less war.... but we weren't fighting anywhere pre-9/11 and the fact our troops were not engaged in active combat didn't stop us from being the elite fighting force we were going into Afghanistan and Iraq.

The complaints almost sound like "What cant we just keep having non-stop war?!?!? If we don't we wont be ready for more war!!"