New Black Panther case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact is, the Black Panthers don't have to prove they DIDN'T do it, the prosecution has to prove they DID, something they can't do.

So, by your argument, you want an unreported crime, that may or may not have happened, to be prosecuted?

Again, I'm not saying the actions by the Black Panther member was appropriate. But without any evidence to demonstrate that voter intimidation took place, what do you want to happen?

By the way, another poll watcher saying he was told of intimidation is hearsay. It's worth investigating, yes, but again, the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is on the government/prosecution and they failed in this regard.

This is willfully obtuse. First, a default had already been entered -- the case was essentially won at that point. Second, you have still provided no evidence that it did not happen, and if I recall correctly there is some video of the event. Not sure this matters, since, I'm not claiming the Black Panther was not entitled to his day in court -- of course, if he had a defense one would expect him to show up and present it. Third, hearsay is sometimes admissible in court, and always admissible on message boards to refute your claim that "no one was intimidated." Not sure I follow this point. Fourth, I've cited to a written account from a career voting rights prosecutor characterizing the case as a slam dunk for reasons that sure sound plausible to me. Fifth, it is literally unheard of, in my experience, for political appointees to interfere in a prosecution at this stage of the case. I'll leave the last word to you; I think the facts are pretty compelling viewed objectively.

[Anonymous]

Now you are being willfully obtuse. You want to ignore the rules of evidence and due process to suit your argument. You want to submit an article written by the prosecutor of the case as unbiased fact. You want to ignore the fact that there were no official complaints of intimidation filed.

What exactly is your point, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Some more info:

From the DOJ:
"According to the complaint, party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Samir Shabazz and Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day. The complaint alleges a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against "any person for voting or attempting to vote." The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations."

So basically, they want to bar the New Black Panther Party, as a whole, from voting institutions. And seeing how the party's "uniform" is simply dressing in all black, that would essentially bar anyone in black from being at a polling location. Now, I agree that weapons should be barred and it was wrong they were there in the first place. But you really want to say that the DoJ's move here, to bar a SINGLE group from polling locations nationwide because of the wrongful actions of one man (which were later denounced by the party itself) is NOT a political move? BS.

[Anonymous]

I thought they were holding sticks or something? Is that the uniform?

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

Here we go. A billy club "We're security".

Is it up to private clubs to provide security at polling stations?

[Anonymous]

One guy had a billy club, yes, that he held in clear view. And if a single vote felt the least bit intimidated by that, he, as an individual, should absolutely be brought up on charges. It's worth noting that in the final settlement the DOJ enforced, this individual was found guilty and will see further punishment (I don't know the exact details on exactly what/how/when). But the administration, rightfully, vacated the charges on the other individual, who had secured a poll watching pass (just like the young man with the camera had) and vacated the DoJ's initial attempt to bar the entirety of the New Black Panther Party from being at polling places.

Again, I'm not sure what the outrage is about? The person in the wrong (the man with the club) will be punished. Everyone else, who did nothing wrong and who were only targeted because of politics, will be cleared.

[Anonymous]

"The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." " from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1&

Reading the quotes from the complaint, it's hard not to conclude that they were politically motivated. Apparently wearing black with logos of your organization qualifies as "military style uniforms", black boots are automatically "combat boots", and black pants are "battle dress pants". Really???

[Anonymous]

Wow. Just wow. Only in DC. Too many lawyers, journalists and bloggers with too much time on their hands. Much like the "interesting" hoax military letter, it's increasingly obvious that some Obama-bashers are using this forum as target practice. So to speak.

The Times is a sad, sad shell of a news source. And YouTube? Oh yeah, like that's official.

I was hoping to find something insightful here. Next!

[Anonymous]

It's hilarious to me that you disparage YouTube -- who said it was official? It was a little moment recorded for posterity. Do you think the people in it were paid actors? I found it pretty illuminating in terms of the type of polling scene under discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that you disparage YouTube -- who said it was official? It was a little moment recorded for posterity. Do you think the people in it were paid actors? I found it pretty illuminating in terms of the type of polling scene under discussion.

Exactly what type of voter intimidation is demonstrated in that video? As far as I can tell, when the photographer arrives there are two white guys on telephones -- from the background sounds it seems they are trying to tell someone about the situation. The guy with the billy club is not paying any attention to them. The guy doing all the talking says he is a poll watcher and has permission to go inside. Billy club guy says, "fine, I'm just wondering why you came up here taking pictures". Eventually, billy club guy turns his back to the photographer and ignores him as well. That doesn't seem too intimidating to me. That doesn't mean that I agree with people hanging out at polling places with billy clubs, but that is a different issue. I simply don't see where this video shows voter intimidation.

[Anonymous]

Jeff-

I've been the poster most defending the gentlemen in this case, so I agree with your larger sentiment. However, I would say that voter intimidation is a VERY fine line. A direct threat does not need to be issued in order to be considered intimidation, especially if we look back at the history of how blacks, religious minorities, women, and other marginalized groups were disenfranchised, both legally and illegally. So, I submit that it's possible merely standing there, with a visible billy club, and asking questions of people COULD be intimidating to some.

That being said, the video isn't really worthwhile evidence because the man with the camera wasn't a voter and was clearly attempting to cause a scene. I would contend that videotaping/photographing at a polling station, without proper credentials, could be just as intimidating. Voting is a private matter and no one should be filmed while engaging in it without their permission (at least in my mind). The video gave the impression of some punk kid with a camera phone trying to make a point and, when the guys didn't cooperate, he tried to elicit an intimidating reaction from them and failed.

The problem here is our general society's fear of angry black men. Some people are inherently intimidated by black males. Those who don't assume a deferential position and who don't align themselves with white culture are even more scarier. If these were white college kids in suits, would there be an issue? Probably not. But because it's two black guys dressed in their own stylings one with *GASP* dreadlocks... they immediately get branded as intimidating, despite any real evidence to demonstrate they intimidated anyone. I agree that the billy club was problematic and rightfully should be barred, along with any other weapons, from a polling place.

For discussion's sake though, I DO find it interesting that Republicans are leading the charge in opposition to this man carrying the club. Aren't they party that believes in unrestricted access to owning and carrying weapons? OOPS!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff-
The problem here is our general society's fear of angry black men. Some people are inherently intimidated by black males. Those who don't assume a deferential position and who don't align themselves with white culture are even more scarier. If these were white college kids in suits, would there be an issue? Probably not. But because it's two black guys dressed in their own stylings one with *GASP* dreadlocks... they immediately get branded as intimidating, despite any real evidence to demonstrate they intimidated anyone. I agree that the billy club was problematic and rightfully should be barred, along with any other weapons, from a polling place.

Of course I agree fully with your post. This is a bit off-topic for this discussion, but does hit on an interesting point that I think ties together other discussions in the forum. It's true that our society has an inherent fear of black men. But, a number of factors is causing disruption in our society that I believe is leading to great numbers of white men feeling threatened. This phenomenon is not only reflected in concern about black men, but of non-white Christians in general. It shows why there is so much concern about Acorn. Why immigration is many people's biggest concern. As I wrote in the Tea Party thread, I believe it's what drives many of the Tea Partiers. it's why people protest the building of Mosques and Islamic centers. White male Christians who are used to ruling the roost are finding themselves marginalized and are not happy about it.

[Anonymous]

J-

Absolutely. People who were previously part of the privileged elite are seeing that privilege crumble. Like it should. They don't know what to do now that the system isn't working 100% in their favor. Now that it only works 75% in their favor, that's just not good enough!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that you disparage YouTube -- who said it was official? It was a little moment recorded for posterity. Do you think the people in it were paid actors? I found it pretty illuminating in terms of the type of polling scene under discussion.

Exactly what type of voter intimidation is demonstrated in that video? As far as I can tell, when the photographer arrives there are two white guys on telephones -- from the background sounds it seems they are trying to tell someone about the situation. The guy with the billy club is not paying any attention to them. The guy doing all the talking says he is a poll watcher and has permission to go inside. Billy club guy says, "fine, I'm just wondering why you came up here taking pictures". Eventually, billy club guy turns his back to the photographer and ignores him as well. That doesn't seem too intimidating to me. That doesn't mean that I agree with people hanging out at polling places with billy clubs, but that is a different issue. I simply don't see where this video shows voter intimidation.

I didn't say it was intimidation. That's why it was interesting. There were lots of factors: billy club, innocuous line of conversation, presence of camera. I'm not sure if it helped me understand what was going on in absence of camera, but it gave me a better sense of the scenario. Don't jump to conclusions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff-
The problem here is our general society's fear of angry black men. Some people are inherently intimidated by black males. Those who don't assume a deferential position and who don't align themselves with white culture are even more scarier. If these were white college kids in suits, would there be an issue? Probably not. But because it's two black guys dressed in their own stylings one with *GASP* dreadlocks... they immediately get branded as intimidating, despite any real evidence to demonstrate they intimidated anyone. I agree that the billy club was problematic and rightfully should be barred, along with any other weapons, from a polling place.

Of course I agree fully with your post. This is a bit off-topic for this discussion, but does hit on an interesting point that I think ties together other discussions in the forum. It's true that our society has an inherent fear of black men. But, a number of factors is causing disruption in our society that I believe is leading to great numbers of white men feeling threatened. This phenomenon is not only reflected in concern about black men, but of non-white Christians in general. It shows why there is so much concern about Acorn. Why immigration is many people's biggest concern. As I wrote in the Tea Party thread, I believe it's what drives many of the Tea Partiers. it's why people protest the building of Mosques and Islamic centers. White male Christians who are used to ruling the roost are finding themselves marginalized and are not happy about it.

Are you speaking for yourself?