New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers

[Ravi]

why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

Still with the presumption that black voters only vote for black candidates?
Projecting, Ravi?

That was the message the press drummed into everyone 24/7 and apparently it turned out to be true for the large majority.

If that gets your knickers in a twist then why would Democrat supporters need to intimidate Democrat supporters?

 

[Ravi]

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

People do not always use intimidation for those reasons. They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you. Drug dealers use those tactics all the time. Think about it. You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.

White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate. That is why they were wearing that gear. They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out". The threat was evident.

Immie

Yet that did not occur. btw...how the hell would anyone know who people voted for? Jesus, this is getting to be more and more of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, it's not that - it's whether or not voter intiimidation took place with sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the law - that is what matters, whether the law is upheld. Otherwise - you could claim "intimidation" just because I looked at you funny when you were voting.

And was it blown out of proportion? Seems like it - it morphed into 3 men all carrying billy clubs and even guns in some accounts, but in the end, only one had a nightstick, and that one had an injunction against him.

The law shouldn't be politically biased - is it in this incident? All we seem to have is one man's hearsay account of what went on the DoJ - and there is no evidence at the moment supporting his claims.

IF voter intimidation is such a hot issue, why aren't these same people clamoring for a look at the case of the Minutemen intimidating hispanic voters dismissed under the previous administration? That guy actually had a gun.

It is because of this hypocrisy - and lack of strong evidence - combined with a hell of a lot of emotionally-charged accusations of "racism" being flung around by both sides - that I am very skeptical.

These things need to be decided by law, not emotion and if the Civil Rights Commission is looking into it, then I am convinced it will be done in accordance with the law and not political partisanship.

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.

I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?

Do you have a problem with a Hooded KKK member standing in front of a polling place with a baton?

KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

See my answer....

Sworn testimony is hearsay?

 

[Foxfyre]

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

It was in the news and I remember being pissed about it. I was mad at the minutemen for acting like that and still dont support them as a result.

I remember a case where a Republican candidate for Congress or something was accused of sending out mail to people with Hispanic surnames informing them that illegals could not vote or something like that. The state GOP party was embarassed and angry at this guy and asked him to drop out of the race. In other words it was his action and his alone and not part of any organized movement and he was not supported or defended in any way by the party.

I've been hunting for a Minuteman case re voter intimidation that was dropped though, but haven't been able to find it anywhere but on leftwing blogs and I think maybe Huffington Post? If there was something to it, don't you think the wide array of mainstream leftwing media would have covered it? I'm not saying it didn't happen because I don't know, but if there was such a case, I would think it would be better publicized.

But regardless of who commits voter intimidation, it should not be acceptable or tolerated or defended in any form.

 

[Coyote]

And THAT is the most frustrating thing about all this. If those guys standing in front of a polling place had been Minutemen or Tea Party advocates or NRA representatives, and had been charged with voter intimidation. . . .

. . . .and if later a member of the Justice Dept. quit in protest and went public that the Justice Dept. had dropped the case with instructions that no Minutemen or Tea Partiers or NRA guys would be investigated. . . .

. . . .you KNOW every major newspaper would carry that on the front page and every television network would be leading their newscasts with it, and everybody would know about it.

If it wasn't for Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet, only half the news in this country would be reported at all these days, and most of us wouldn't know half the stuff that is going on.

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.

No, two wrongs don't make a right but - that is an argument frequently brought up when someone attempts to show that a similar issue, was handled in a similar way - recently - but ignored! Part of the Commission's investigation includes examining whether the NBT case indicates a significant departure from standard practice/interpretation of law in the DoJ and, bringing up a similar case dismissed for similar reasons would seem to indicate it is not.

If Holder dropped the sentencing of these NBP members because of the Minuteman issue in a little "tit for tat" then he needs to be fired.

If the Minuteman case is representative of a case where the demands for evidence did not meet the law then it was correct to drop it - as with the Black Panther case. I'm not going to say there is a tit-for-a-tat here becuase there is no evidence to support that beyond circumstantial.

If he did it because it's policy not to prosecute Black on White intimidation - because as we all have been told, "blacks don't hold the power in this country so there can't be any black racism against whites" - He should probably re-check who the president and the attorney general are. I think he's been making the argument so long, he forgets.

IF that is the case, then yes he should be held accountable - but WHAT evidence is there beyond hearsay and circumstantial? Adams himself admitted that he has no first-hand knowledge of the events and conversations he claimes to support his accusations.

In any case, it seems more than clear to me (and oh by the way, to the court) that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase.

What court? My understanding is that the judgegment that would have been obtained was by default of the guy not showing up not as a matter of evidence. In fact, judgement was obtained against the person that actually had a nightstick (which, by the way, is more than any judgement against the Minutemen).

Have any voters claimed to have been intimidated?

Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.

That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.

I actually agree with that - and, in this case - the fellow with the nightstick did have an injunction filed against him as a result.

 

[Coyote]

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.

I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?



KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

See my answer....

Sworn testimony is hearsay?

In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.

 

[Immanuel]

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow.

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct. Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so. They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.

Immie

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.

As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.

Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.

You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.

So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?

You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct. Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so. They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.

Immie

True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, Immie...you said it would make a difference if it were a mostly black precinct. It looks like that is the case.

I don't know if the intent was to intimidate or not, but I suspect not since it was a mostly black precinct. With the press all over the place claiming the vast majority of blacks would vote for a black man...why would anyone feel the need to intimidate blacks into voting for a black man?

That and I do not see anything in the evidence presented that shows these two dudes intimidating anyone.

People do not always use intimidation for those reasons. They were there to scare white voters... as in, we're coming to get you. Drug dealers use those tactics all the time. Think about it. You go vote and leave the precinct, three days later a brick comes through your window or tires are flattened or three thugs are pounding on your door.

White or black people in paramilitary gear are there to intimidate. That is why they were wearing that gear. They were calling attention to themselves and telling people... "you better watch out". The threat was evident.

Immie

Yet that did not occur. btw...how the hell would anyone know who people voted for? Jesus, this is getting to be more and more of a conspiracy theory.

I never said anyone would know. That has nothing to do with it.

They were there in paramilitary gear to intimidate people. That is all that matters.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

how the hell would anyone know who people voted for?

Well, if they're black they voted for the black candid.......oops.....
I mean; if they're Democrats, they obviously voted for a Democrat.
And the white peop......errr..ummm...
I mean the REPUBLICANS voted for a Republican.

Yea.
That's how it works.

What a fucking idiot.....

 

[Immanuel]

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

It is not only the thought that they might bash your brains in on your way out of the precinct. Typically thugs don't do that and definitely not when they might be arrested for doing so. They have someone follow you home and then in the middle of the night when you are asleep they attack.

Immie

True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.

Do you have kids?

How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?

As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters. That is bullshit. No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off. That would have been a suicide mission.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?



KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".



See my answer....

Sworn testimony is hearsay?

In his sworn testimony he admitted he had no first hand knowledge of the events or conversations he was claiming to know about.

Read what he has to say for yourself. That is if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough.

Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice's hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.

 

[Coyote]

I hate to say this, because I respect both you and Coyote, but I believe you two have suffered from this confirmation bias. The facts have been presented and you both ignore the facts. Those two men were there to intimidate voters. It does not matter whether or not anyone was actually intimidated by them, but that was what they were there for.

IMHO the important part of this equation is intent, not success.

You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?

They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.

Immie

Have the facts been presented or, opinions? I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters. But laws can't be decided on intent alone.

Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?

I think this National Review article says it best:

Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation -- no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.

The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.

(entire article in link​

Only 3 cases in 45 years! That is a hell of a high bar.

 

[chanel]

As silkcity has mentioned - 99% of the voters in that neighborhood are black. I don't doubt that. No rabble rousing whities would be dumb enough to make trouble in that area. Especially on election day.

 

[Ravi]

What legitimate purpose was there for the guy to have a billy club in his hands?

Why are you not intimidated when you approach a large, apparently strong man, who is slapping his hand -- like he wants to use it -- with a billy club and he is not in law enforcement? Are you dumb? Self preservation instinct set on -- "thin the herd"?

If that guy doesn't intimidate you, you're either lying or stupid. I'm pretty big and pretty fit and trained and I'm pretty sure it would be an all day affair if I tangled with that guy. If you aren't, you'd have no shot.

The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.

As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.

Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.

You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.

So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?

You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.

IMO, there is no evidence of voter intimidation. You asked for an alternate scenario...I gave you one. I didn't say I agreed with it.

I have seen no evidence that voter intimidation was taking place.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As silkcity has mentioned - 99% of the voters in that neighborhood are black. I don't doubt that. No rabble rousing whities would be dumb enough to make trouble in that area. Especially on election day.

I'll be there in November.

 

[Ravi]

how the hell would anyone know who people voted for?

Well, if they're black they voted for the black candid.......oops.....
I mean; if they're Democrats, they obviously voted for a Democrat.
And the white peop......errr..ummm...
I mean the REPUBLICANS voted for a Republican.

Yea.
That's how it works.

What a fucking idiot.....

No, that would be you.

Ballots are secret...there is no way for anyone to know who voted for who.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.

Care to explain?

Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.

No, two wrongs don't make a right but - that is an argument frequently brought up when someone attempts to show that a similar issue, was handled in a similar way - recently - but ignored! Part of the Commission's investigation includes examining whether the NBT case indicates a significant departure from standard practice/interpretation of law in the DoJ and, bringing up a similar case dismissed for similar reasons would seem to indicate it is not.



If the Minuteman case is representative of a case where the demands for evidence did not meet the law then it was correct to drop it - as with the Black Panther case. I'm not going to say there is a tit-for-a-tat here becuase there is no evidence to support that beyond circumstantial.

However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.

IF that is the case, then yes he should be held accountable - but WHAT evidence is there beyond hearsay and circumstantial? Adams himself admitted that he has no first-hand knowledge of the events and conversations he claimes to support his accusations.

Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).

In any case, it seems more than clear to me (and oh by the way, to the court) that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase.

What court? My understanding is that the judgegment that would have been obtained was by default of the guy not showing up not as a matter of evidence. In fact, judgement was obtained against the person that actually had a nightstick (which, by the way, is more than any judgement against the Minutemen).

The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.

Have any voters claimed to have been intimidated?

That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.

Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.

That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.

I actually agree with that - and, in this case - the fellow with the nightstick did have an injunction filed against him as a result.

Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The woman standing behind him chatting on the phone wasn't intimidated...was she? So I think your argument is ridiculous.

As for legitimate purpose...I did read somewhere that the NBPs were expecting people to intimidate the voters at that precinct and therefore they were providing guard duty. That may or may not be true but it is a logical assumption and makes more sense than them intimidating their own group.

Are they stupid...apparently. Were they trying to intimidate voters? I don't see it.

You can't argue from the particular to the general (i.e. the woman talking on the phone...) it's a logical fallacy. So you get a FAIL on that.

So, your argument is that yes, they were intimidating, but it's ok because they were guarding against other people who "might" intimidate others? So the aforementioned "crackers" were going to go to what you claim to be a predominantly black precinct and intimidate voters? In Philly? Come'on, you don't even expect anyone to believe that do you?

You can't believe that story yourself, hell you won't even believe voter intimidation when you see it with your own two eyes. You can't tell me you would believe some cock'n bull story like that.

IMO, there is no evidence of voter intimidation. You asked for an alternate scenario...I gave you one. I didn't say I agreed with it.

I have seen no evidence that voter intimidation was taking place.

Thankfully, the court did.