WT: Official: Black Panther case lacks proof

[Duckus]

That video is pretty crazy. If that is not illegal - it SHOULD be.

Voter intimidation is a real problem - and surprisingly the most widespread problems are actually in really rural, small city America. Not violent intimidation, but social intimidation.

Say you live in a town of 20-50 people. You know exactly who votes in which primaries (public record in most places - not who you vote for, but which primary you vote in). If you are your family are the only Democrats or Republicans in a small small town - it can be extremely intimidating.

I hear stories of people scared they will lose their jobs if they vote a certain way and their boss finds out. Yes, I know that is illegal, but people still fear it.

Anyhow - back on topic. Stuff like this should never happen.

[Larry]

A second question concerning the legality of these actions:

If he had been handing out fliers in exactly the same location, would that have been permitted?

[Predicto]

A second question concerning the legality of these actions:

If he had been handing out fliers in exactly the same location, would that have been permitted?

No. He was too close to the polling place. (Honest answer).

But he wouldn't go to jail for it either. They would just make him stop.

[Predicto]

This stuff sickens me, whether the perpetrators are wearing black uniforms or white sheets. I really don't want to live in an America where this sort of tactic is OK, so long as you don't intimidate a specific person.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that this is OK. It isn't ok. That's why the police made this guy leave. That is why the Dept of Justice got an injunction against this guy and the Black Panther Party so that it won't happen anymore.

What I am saying is that everyone here assumes that a Criminal prosecution should have gone forward too, and assumes that the decision not to criminally prosecute was made due to political or racial bias, rather than because the case ultimately wasn't very strong.

That assumption really looks unfounded to me. The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a hard standard to meet under these circumstances. Maybe people want a show trial, where the prosecution goes forward even though they know they are unlikely to lose? I don't generally go for that myself.

[Predicto]

you can start by not making sarcastic, condescending posts that pretend that you, or those who share your views, would act differently.

I made the sarcastic post because I have been reading crazed editorials and blog posts about this case for over a year, and it has become incredibly annoying. Sorry if I offended you.

[Teller]

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that this is OK. It isn't ok. That's why the police made this guy leave. That is why the Dept of Justice got an injunction against this guy and the Black Panther Party so that it won't happen anymore.

Oh, I know you better than that. I know you wouldn't support the appearance of what this was, even if we disagree slightly on the substance of it.

But the injunction, as I read the story, is literally against this one guy, and only keeps him from bringing a weapon to a polling place until the NEXT presidential election!

I really don't see how that "solves" anything. Frankly, I think it could motivate some of the crazies out there. (i.e. -- "They got away with it! I bet we could too!")

This is wrong. We agree on that. It shouldn't happen again. I think we agree on that. How do we make damned sure it doesn't happen again? (Or come down on it HARD if and when it does?)

What I am saying is that everyone here assumes that a Criminal prosecution should have gone forward too, and assumes that the decision not to criminally prosecute was made due to political or racial bias, rather than because the case ultimately wasn't very strong.

That assumption really looks unfounded to me. The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a hard standard to meet under these circumstances. Maybe people want a show trial, where the prosecution goes forward even though they know they are unlikely to lose? I don't generally go for that myself.

But the civil suit was dropped too, and isn't there a lower standard of proof (reasonable suspicion, if I'm not mistaken) in a civil case? I'm sorry, buddy, but I think I could read a book or two and put a reasonable suspicion in 12 people's minds just by showing them that video. (Of course, as with all proceedings in this country it seems, WHICH 12 people I'm talking to matters too.)

I don't mean to discredit your profession, or oversimplify it in any way. I know you worked your ass off to get where you are. But I just don't see how this decision by the DOJ corrects the wrong committed here, nor prevents it from happening again.

While I, and others, have used the KKK example, haven't we essentially told every group of idiots in this country, "Hey, go stand there and just look intimidating. As long as you don't physically prevent someone from voting, it's OK?"

Is this where we want to live? Is this how we want to exercise one of our most treasured rights in this country? Is this RIGHT???

You've already said that it's not. And I respect that. My question to you, deferring to your expertise in this area, is how in the name of all that is good and holy do we keep this from happening again???

[Major Harris]

I made the sarcastic post because I have been reading crazed editorials and blog posts about this case for over a year, and it has become incredibly annoying. Sorry if I offended you.

your stance on the subject does not offend me in the least. nothing about it really offends me, just the knocking of one side for doing what both are guilty of. this kind of thing elicits the same kind of response no matter which side is pissed off in any particular instance.

you've always been able to stay above that.

[Predicto]

Oh, I know you better than that. I know you wouldn't support the appearance of what this was, even if we disagree slightly on the substance of it.

But the injunction, as I read the story, is literally against this one guy, and only keeps him from bringing a weapon to a polling place until the NEXT presidential election!

I really don't see how that "solves" anything. Frankly, I think it could motivate some of the crazies out there. (i.e. -- "They got away with it! I bet we could too!")

This is wrong. We agree on that. It shouldn't happen again. I think we agree on that. How do we make damned sure it doesn't happen again? (Or come down on it HARD if and when it does?)

Well, I think it is pretty early to assume that it is a significant problem, isn't it? If there was some indication of a broad coordinated effort by some group to indimidate voters all over the place, then a conspiracy charge would fit.

When it is one guy carrying a stick and he leaves quietly when when police show up, then maybe it was an isolated incident that is much ado about nothing. :whoknows:

But the civil suit was dropped too, and isn't there a lower standard of proof (reasonable suspicion, if I'm not mistaken) in a civil case?

The civil suit wasn't dropped. They got an injunction against him. What else would a civil suit be for? In general, civil suits are about injury and damages, but no one here got injured or suffered any damages. If he had assaulted someone, then you would have a civil suit for injuries. Or if someone could even show that they were prevented from voting - they would have grounds for a civil suit for denial of the right to vote.

But you don't bring a civil suit because he looked like a thug on a video. You need an injury.

I'm sorry, buddy, but I think I could read a book or two and put a reasonable suspicion in 12 people's minds just by showing them that video. (Of course, as with all proceedings in this country it seems, WHICH 12 people I'm talking to matters too.)

I think you are wrong. That short video is not going to be the only evidence. The defense is going to get its say as well. Has anyone from the Washington Times or any other newspaper even asked this guy why he was standing there that day, what he was trying to prove? He claims that he went to that polling place because he heard that the Aryan Nation was going to show up there. It's probably bull, but who knows for sure? Dude probably lives in a world of paranoid rumors.

It is really, really, hard to convict someone and put them in jail for an

"intent crime" like this without something more specific. When was the last time that anyone, anywhere was prosecuted for voter intimidation, that you can recall? I can't think of a single case (involving radicals of either side) since the 1960s.

By the way, the guy got kicked out of the Black Panthers for this stunt.

I don't mean to discredit your profession, or oversimplify it in any way. I know you worked your ass off to get where you are. But I just don't see how this decision by the DOJ corrects the wrong committed here, nor prevents it from happening again.

Millions of wrongs go unprosecuted every year, because the District Attorney (or the Department of Justice) makes the judgment call that the case isn't reasonably likely to get proved. That's their job.

This is the reason that no one criminally prosecuted the white guys in Fayetteville, North Carolina who (allegedly) heckled black people trying to vote that same day. No one criminally prosecuted the guy who left fliers around Virginia Tech telling students that if you register to vote you will lose your tax dependency status from your parents, or the guy who left fliers around Drexel University saying that undercover officers will be at the polls checking for unpaid parking tickets. It's not because these things were acceptable - it is because they are hard to prove.

While I, and others, have used the KKK example, haven't we essentially told every group of idiots in this country, "Hey, go stand there and just look intimidating. As long as you don't physically prevent someone from voting, it's OK?"

Is this where we want to live? Is this how we want to exercise one of our most treasured rights in this country? Is this RIGHT???

You've already said that it's not. And I respect that. My question to you, deferring to your expertise in this area, is how in the name of all that is good and holy do we keep this from happening again???

This was a guy in front of one polling place one time, who left when confronted by law enforcement. I just don't see an epidemic here. Just because this one guy doesn't go to the slammer this time doesn't mean that all hell is going to break loose and we are going to lose our right to free and fair elections.

[Predicto]

your stance on the subject does not offend me in the least. nothing about it really offends me, just the knocking of one side for doing what both are guilty of. this kind of thing elicits the same kind of response no matter which side is pissed off in any particular instance.

you've always been able to stay above that.

Seriously, I should not have been so dismissive. But this one guy at one polling place has been the subject of more outraged editorials and blog posts than can ever be imagined, for 18 straight months.

The conservative blogsphere has converted this into one million Black Panthers with submachineguns at every polling place on the East Coast, with Barack Obama on top of an ACORN bus cheering them on.

It's ridiculous, and I got fed up. I was rude and I apologize. I hope my substantive comments in this thread have made up for some of it.

[Teller]

It's about precedent, P.

We've done nothing but assure the idiots (on all sides) that nothing is going to happen to them if they pull crap like this. Well, except for the fact that they won't be allowed to do it again until the next presidential election.

How often are our laws about just one incident? If that was the case, we could close the SCOTUS completely.

[Bang]

It's about precedent, P.

We've done nothing but assure the idiots (on all sides) that nothing is going to happen to them if they pull crap like this. Well, except for the fact that they won't be allowed to do it again until the next presidential election.

How often are our laws about just one incident? If that was the case, we could close the SCOTUS completely.

Like I said a bunch of posts back, it is exactly about precedence.

And if you bring a case to court and lose, then you've set legal precedence for just what you're wanting stopped.

~Bang

[Teller]

Like I said a bunch of posts back, it is exactly about precedence.

And if you bring a case to court and lose, then you've set legal precedence for just what you're wanting stopped.

~Bang

Right.

Or you can dismiss it and accomplish the same thing.

OK, serious question for all.

Two goofballs who claim to be klansmen dress up (without covering their faces, that's a crime by itself in a lot of areas) in sheets and pointy hats. One of them carries a 2x4, and they behave exactly as the pair in this video.

That's OK? And that shouldn't be prosecuted?

[Bang]

Right.

Or you can dismiss it and accomplish the same thing.

OK, serious question for all.

Two goofballs who claim to be klansmen dress up (without covering their faces, that's a crime by itself in a lot of areas) in sheets and pointy hats. One of them carries a 2x4, and they behave exactly as the pair in this video.

That's OK? And that shouldn't be prosecuted?

OK, except they were not klansmen, and playing that game is pointless. Quite frankly, i want to know the last time the Klan did anything publicly that it didn't backfire in their faces? When they have a public march or rally, people show up in droves ro ridicule them. Happens every time they do anything outside of their private parties.

Based on that video, what exactly will you be able to prove they did? You can't go to court and say "You're honor, let's pretend these are two klansmen and see the reaction" and expect that to mean anything. And if the Klan showed up and didn't do anything with their 2x4 and the DA decided to not pursue a charge he couldn't win, I'd feel the same way. You seem to think this means people are condoning what these two guys did. I don't think anyone is, but you have to pick your battles, and this one isn't a good one.

They never even raised their voice. And if you take a case like that to trial to 'send a message', and then lose, well, the message you sent is totally opposite of what you wanted, and now there's a legal decision to back them up.

~Bang

[Larry]

Right.

Or you can dismiss it and accomplish the same thing.

Nope.

"Did not prosecute" doesn't set precedent.

Court rulings do.

Based on what I can see from out here in the cheap seats, it sure appears to me that prosecutors and governments try really, really, hard to cherry pick their cases when they decide to do something that might establish a precedent.

For example, that's why the feds really, really, really wanted Timmy McVeigh to be the first guy prosecuted under the brand-new federal death penalty law. They wanted the "test case" to be the biggest mass murderer in US history. Because they wanted to make sure that no judge would consider ruling the law unconstitutional (and letting America's biggest terrorist loose).

Think it was a coincidence that the first person prosecuted from Gitmo under Bush's new "people who've been waterboarded, and then confess, can have their confessions used as evidence" rules was KSM (and not some other guy who they don't have as much of a case against)?

I'm firmly convinced that somewhere in the Manual for Power Hungry Prosecutors, there's a rule that says "When you're trying to give yourself more power, make sure that the first person you use that power against is Hitler." (After you've prosecuted Hitler, and it's been upheld, then you can use it against your political enemies, because hey, it's been upheld.)

----------

On a similar note, I recall reading a few years back that the FBI has never been turned down for a wiretap.

Because the FBI won't allow agents to ask for a wiretap, unless the request has gone through FBI channels. And the FBI's standards of what's a good enough reason for a wiretap is tougher than the courts standards.

The reason they do that is: If the FBI ever gets turned down for a wiretap, then that sets precedent. Other judges can use that precedent to turn down other requests. Defense attorneys can use that precedent, after wiretaps have been used, to argue retroactively that the warrant shouldn't have been issued, and get the evidence thrown out.

The FBI's position is that it's better to not ask for a wiretap, than to ask for one, and get turned down.

[Larry]

Nope.

"Did not prosecute" doesn't set precedent.

Court rulings do.

Just thought of a possible argument against myself, though.

If a lot of people don't get prosecuted for something, then I have heard of laws being thrown out because of "selective enforcement".

Don't know how high the bar is to (successfully) make that argument, though.

[Bang]

Just thought of a possible argument against myself, though.

If a lot of people don't get prosecuted for something, then I have heard of laws being thrown out because of "selective enforcement".

Don't know how high the bar is to (successfully) make that argument, though.

Well, i would bet that the Black Panthers aren't in any grace with the Philadelphia Police.

Let's not forget, this is the police force that firebombed a neighborhood to root out some domestic terrorists. Frank Rizzo's ghost still watches over these guys

If at all possible they aren't going to let a couple of Black Panthers get out of line. I'd bet ten bucks on it.

~Bang

[zoony]

Okay, now Larry's so bored with all you fools he's arguing with himself

[Larry]

Okay, now Larry's so bored with all you fools he's arguing with himself

It's only a real problem when you start losing.

[aREDSKIN]

Jerry Jackson, notorious member of the New Black Panther Party, who was seen in the video below intimidating and threatening voters in 2008, is running for re-election as a member of the Democratic Executive Committee in Philadelphia.

Below is the “sample ballot” for the 14th Ward, 4th Division. A sample ballot is posted outside of each polling location. You can see Jackson is listed first in a field of three. The top two vote getters will be elected to a four year term as a member of the Democratic Executive Committee. In 2008, Jackson was issued a certificate by the Democratic Party to be inside of the polling place where he was seen intimidating voters.

Jackson and King Samir Shabazz were originally indicted for intimidating voters, but the Department of Justice spiked the case.

No reports of Jackson or Shabazz at the polls yet.

Any bets that he gets re-elected??

http://www.electionjournal.org/2010/05/18/only-in-philly-black-panther-on-the-ballot/

[Major Harris]

Seriously, I should not have been so dismissive. But this one guy at one polling place has been the subject of more outraged editorials and blog posts than can ever be imagined, for 18 straight months.

The conservative blogsphere has converted this into one million Black Panthers with submachineguns at every polling place on the East Coast, with Barack Obama on top of an ACORN bus cheering them on.

It's ridiculous, and I got fed up. I was rude and I apologize. I hope my substantive comments in this thread have made up for some of it.

class act, as always.

i can excuse it....i'd go bonkers if i read any political blogosphere for 18 months.

[Teller]

Looks like this isn't going away. Good.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/

And here's a little background on the nice man with the nightstick, in his own words:

http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2010/07/06/new-black-panther-king-samir-shabazz-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-their-babies-video-transcript/

[IHOPSkins]

So are we really going to imply now that blacks get a pass in the judicial system?......

In this case yes

Legal experts have called the department's reversal exceedingly rare, especially because the defendants had not contested the charges......

......In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny......

.......In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. A new supervisor, Julie Fernandes, arrived to oversee the voting section, and Coates testified that she told attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases - under a key voting rights section - only on behalf of minorities.

"Everyone in the room understood exactly what she meant," Coates said. "No more cases like the Ike Brown or New Black Panther Party cases."

Fernandes declined to comment through a department spokeswoman......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102203982.html

"No Comment"

Some example

[IHOPSkins]

Related:

NAACP says Eric Holder’s DOJ goes too far with race policy

In Dayton Ohio, you can get the same as a D or F on the police exam and still become a cop. The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division run by Tom Perez (the same unit that dismissed the New Black Panther voter intimidation case) is requiring Dayton to lower police exam scores to 58 and 63 percent so enough black applicants can join the force. The Obama administration mandate is too much for even the NAACP: “‘The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,’ agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.”

UPDATE: The person running the section in charge of this policy is none other than Loretta King, the person deeply involved in the New Black Panther dismissal and who gave a racially charged introduction to Eric Holder as covered previously by Pajamas. h/t to the DOJ insider.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/13/naacp-says-eric-holders-doj-goes-too-far-with-race-policy/

http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml

Not very Colorblind at the DOJ....are they?

[aREDSKIN]

Colorblind??

Ha they wear it on their sleeves proudly. They rationalizes behavior because of something that happened 1/2 a century ago?? The entire civil rights division of the DOJ should be brought upon charges.

Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_Black_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

[Duckus]

Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_Black_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

Could not agree more with Holder What happened was inappropriate and upsetting but should not be compared to the 1960s.