New Black Panther case

[Anonymous]

To elaborate, if I decide that I am inherently intimidated by large black men (something a lot of people feel), then I can use that to justify their complete exclusion from a polling place, regardless of their intent or their actions. If someone else feels intimidated by white guys in suits or the police or little old ladies with walkers, suddenly they are excluded. Without any direct evidence of explicit attempts to intimidate, I don't think any claims of such are worth acting upon. My initial point, way back when, was how much of the intimidation had to do with what the men actually did and how much were because of a socialized fear of black men. Why were their "uniforms" described as militarized? Why were the actions of the one man with the billy club generalized to the other men? GENERALLY SPEAKING we respond very differently to black folks and white folks engaged in the same behavior, which opens up a pandora's box if we start acting on those responses.

[Anonymous]

Why worry about little white women with billy clubs? This situation involves this man with a billy club. Why should it be examined in light of little white women with billy clubs? I'm tired of hypotheticals. Has the Justice Department examined the facts as they stand and made a determination of this case? Voting is fundamental. They need to address this case, and its facts, one way or other.

[Anonymous]

They have addressed the case and dismissed most of the charges. The OP brought this up saying there should be more outrage finding this following.

Hypotheticals DO matter because of something called due process and equal protection under the law. Ever here of those things? If we would handle this case differently if the accused was a little old white lady, that is worth nothing. We have to be sure that "intimidation" is a result of intimidating actions, not someone's appearance. The government found that there were not enough intimidating actions to justify a voter intimidation charge. But some folks are angry because the big scary black man didn't get thrown in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... The government found that there were not enough intimidating actions to justify a voter intimidation charge. But some folks are angry because the big scary black man didn't get thrown in jail.

To agree with you, I would note that the big black scary man was never a legal issue. It was the scrawny little black man with the nightstick. If the big black guy had not been there as an accredited poll-watcher, the little black guy might not have been an issue.

Just a hypothesis.

[Anonymous]

But don't you realize that EVERY black man is big and scary to some folks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But don't you realize that EVERY black man is big and scary to some folks?

Ironically, though, not to any of the people who were involved in the story. They were bothered by the presence of the black guys, but clearly not frightened,

[Anonymous]

Good point. Apparently just the GOPers who made the accusations and pushed for charges to be pressed.

[Anonymous]

The issue is the little scrawny black guy with the billy club. If the Justice Department conducted an investigation and that is par for the course, great. I'll accept their findings. I do hope he parks his scrawny little self and club outside your polling station next time however, posters above, and you can conduct real life experiments in how enlightendly 'unthreatened' you are by people with billy clubs outside your polling stations.

[Anonymous]

STRAW MAN ALERT! STRAW MAN ALERT!

We all indicated that the billy club was inappropriate and he was rightfully charged with that. No one is advocating weapons having a place at a polling station. The use/presence of weapons could certainly qualify as intimidation and, as such, the man has been banned from bringing the club or any other weapons to polling stations.

So what exactly is your point? If you're taking issue with those who are promoting the use of billy clubs, the door is to the left, since no one here is doing that.

[Anonymous]

SO, I asked my black husband this morning his view on this case--and he said the issue is that attorneys at the DOJ had made a case to a judge that was proceeding, and Holder ordered it to be abandoned (without notifying them in a professional way). They (generally liberal lawyers) are the ones now raising questions about how this was handled. I am not sure what people are defending here. It sounds like the very attorneys who started the case feel it was mishandled and want it to be re-examined. I personally feel that voter intimidation--black or whites with bully clubs--is abominable, and I wonder why any of you would challenge a thorough investigation any time it may have occurred?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:SO, I asked my black husband this morning his view on this case--and he said the issue is that attorneys at the DOJ had made a case to a judge that was proceeding, and Holder ordered it to be abandoned (without notifying them in a professional way). They (generally liberal lawyers) are the ones now raising questions about how this was handled. I am not sure what people are defending here. It sounds like the very attorneys who started the case feel it was mishandled and want it to be re-examined. I personally feel that voter intimidation--black or whites with bully clubs--is abominable, and I wonder why any of you would challenge a thorough investigation any time it may have occurred?

You and your husband are misinformed. J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ lawyer who is making the tv rounds these days (he was the attorney on the case), is far from being a liberal. Adams was hired by Bradley Schlozman, the Bush appointed head of the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman violated the rules against politicized hiring and then lied to Congress about it. Ironically, Schlozman would likely have been prosecuted for this had it not been for the Obama/Holder decision not to "look backward". Of course, I don't expect you to protest that Holder decision. Basically, Schlozman rid the Civil Rights Division of minorities and anyone suspected of being a liberal. Then, filled the spots with right-wingers such as Adams.

According to this article:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/justice_department_lawyer_behind_new_black_panther.php

"[A]s a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, Adams publicly criticized a black couple that refused to accept a provisional ballot" and "Adams is also a former volunteer with the right-wing National Republican Lawyers Association".

So, ask your husband how he would view this case in the reality that it was prosecuted by someone with a history of antagonism toward African-Americans who was appointed primarily because of his right-wing views. Also, ask your husband if he believes that it is racist of the Obama administration not to prosecute the slew of white guys such as Schlozman who have walked away scott free.

[Anonymous]

OK let's say he's Republican. You may be right. My hubby is often disgusted by race politics and I am always fine with double-checking his info. Let's move on to the following point. Is it true that a judge approved the case going forward, based on the facts and Holder then intervened to have it dismissed?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SO, I asked my black husband this morning his view on this case--and he said the issue is that attorneys at the DOJ had made a case to a judge that was proceeding, and Holder ordered it to be abandoned (without notifying them in a professional way). They (generally liberal lawyers) are the ones now raising questions about how this was handled. I am not sure what people are defending here. It sounds like the very attorneys who started the case feel it was mishandled and want it to be re-examined. I personally feel that voter intimidation--black or whites with bully clubs--is abominable, and I wonder why any of you would challenge a thorough investigation any time it may have occurred?

You and your husband are misinformed. J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ lawyer who is making the tv rounds these days (he was the attorney on the case), is far from being a liberal. Adams was hired by Bradley Schlozman, the Bush appointed head of the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman violated the rules against politicized hiring and then lied to Congress about it. Ironically, Schlozman would likely have been prosecuted for this had it not been for the Obama/Holder decision not to "look backward". Of course, I don't expect you to protest that Holder decision. Basically, Schlozman rid the Civil Rights Division of minorities and anyone suspected of being a liberal. Then, filled the spots with right-wingers such as Adams.

According to this article:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/justice_department_lawyer_behind_new_black_panther.php

"[A]s a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, Adams publicly criticized a black couple that refused to accept a provisional ballot" and "Adams is also a former volunteer with the right-wing National Republican Lawyers Association".

So, ask your husband how he would view this case in the reality that it was prosecuted by someone with a history of antagonism toward African-Americans who was appointed primarily because of his right-wing views. Also, ask your husband if he believes that it is racist of the Obama administration not to prosecute the slew of white guys such as Schlozman who have walked away scott free.

I'm fairly certain that my husband would be disgusted wherever someone who shouldn't walk free, walks free. Please don't extrapolate that b/cause he is disgusted by the Black Panther case he would not be disgusted by the 'little white lady with a billy club' scenario. I am very curious though why Holder dismissed this case if a judge found it worthwhile.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:OK let's say he's Republican. You may be right. My hubby is often disgusted by race politics and I am always fine with double-checking his info. Let's move on to the following point. Is it true that a judge approved the case going forward, based on the facts and Holder then intervened to have it dismissed?

There were three components to the case:

1) charges against the guy with the billy club;
2) charges against the other guy;
3) charges against the New Black Panther Party.

Not only was the case approved to go forward, but the Government essentially won its case because none of the defendants chose to show up to defend themselves. However, the Government did not seek default judgement against all three of the parties. The maximum penalty was sought and received against the billy club guy (however, this was simply an injunction). The DOJ decided to have the charges against the second guy and the party dismissed. Tom Perez, Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division testified before Congress that the decision was made by two career attorneys.

So, was the case approved to go forward? Yes, but as the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. Was the case ever contested in court? No, the defendants never answered the charges. Was the case dropped? Only in two out of the three parts. Did Holder order that it be dropped? Not according to Perez.

I will say again. This case cannot be understood outside the context of the politicalization of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. The charges against the New Black Panther Party were a real stretch and those particular laws had never been used in response to such a limited incident (those laws were designed to protect against state-wide voter intimidation). Outside a summary judgement, the Government had little chance of winning its case.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info. Seriously. So what is the perspective of other side/ie the controversy? Can you explain that to me? I am not trying to put the onus on you--but this seems to be an issue that will not go away and I truly don't understand where the 'truth' lies. What is the argument that justice was not done and something has run afoul?

I am not clear on what an injunction is (I thought it was a beginning to a process, not a maximum penalty--would appreciate more info.) In any case, why are we excusing 'billy club's' behavior (some pp's above seem to work strenuously to justify it) if an injunction was already sought and received? Seems clear-cut that a wrong was done by 'billy club' if an injunction was granted?