• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case

While I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and the republicans are trying to make a much bigger issue out of it than it merits, they probably shouldn't have dropped the charges. If there's not enough evidence, let a judge decide that.

But it's not something I'll lose a second of sleep over. It's not like they actually attacked anyone or actually prevented anyone from voting, or even tried to. The guy had a weapon where he shouldn't have had a weapon. It's like speeding or running a red light, which I don't condone, but it's not the worst crime in the world. When the police told him to leave, he left.
 
Puppycow said:
While I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and the republicans are trying to make a much bigger issue out of it than it merits, they probably shouldn't have dropped the charges. If there's not enough evidence, let a judge decide that.

But it's not something I'll lose a second of sleep over. It's not like they actually attacked anyone or actually prevented anyone from voting, or even tried to. The guy had a weapon where he shouldn't have had a weapon. It's like speeding or running a red light, which I don't condone, but it's not the worst crime in the world. When the police told him to leave, he left.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't minimize it like that, but then I think posing aggressively in public with a weapon is kind of a big deal. It probably doesn't rise to the level of voter intimidation, given that from what I can tell its not a commonly available charge, but I don't think it's comparable to a traffic violation.
 
Prosecutors make decisions on whether to bring charges based on evidence all the time. It's kinda their job. They don't just bring everything in front of a judge and ask "is this enough now?"
 
Oh, a sane discussion. Thank you.

Travis said:
Prosecutors make decisions on whether to bring charges based on evidence all the time.
Click to expand...
...based on evidence, time, and money.

I don't know which factors were at play here, but there is nothing inherently nefarious about not prosecuting a particular case.

Besides, it has to be hard to prove voter intimidation when the video evidence shows people freely walking in and out of the polling place.
 
BeAChooser said:
Then David should be more concerned about the "low standards" of the law than the "low standards" of the Politics forum.
Click to expand...
This is in no way a logical response to my statement.

Why is equivalent treatment under the law considered "payback"?
DO you believe Bush's DoJ were being racist by not seeking criminal action?
 
Um charges were not dismissed against Samir Shabazz, the case was not outright dismissed. And the other thread has much relevant discussion in and amongst the usual Politics forum nonsense.

Part of the issue is the actual statute has no interpretive values of what consititutes intimidation and historically a high bar has been set.

ETA
From
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf#page=17


At the outset, let me emphasize with respect to Section 11(b) decisions that these are hard cases. Very few such cases have been brought. In fact, we can find records of only three cases filed by the government under Section 11(b) since its inception.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Does it merit further investigation?
Click to expand...

I still don't know if they should have dropped charges. The claim is that past precedent makes the cases hard to prosecute. However, I do not know how true that is.

In either Case, The King guy is a little...off kilter.
Malik Zulu Shabazz: Beck has had me on before, I’ve been on Sean Hannity about 20 times, he’s under orders not to have me on, Bill O’Reilly’s under orders not to have me on. This is all a conspiracy. I would say a Zionist conspiracy, but you would say “He’s too conspiratorial.”

But it’s some kind of conspiracy going on, to keep the truth out, and to keep us off the airwaves, to keep talking about us, but not talk to us. So we’ll see Glenn Beck live in person. I don’t think his rally should be allowed to happen
Click to expand...
 
Of those witnesses identified whom I have been able to research at all, none of them strike me as entirely credible. As soon as i hear one of them slip in something to the effect of "ACORN! Squawk!" I am out of there and not looking back.

It is generally also futile to prosecute a schizo, and there are signs that Shabazz may be kind of unravelling at the edges.

He's known by how many self-selected names?:eye-poppi
 
BeAChooser said:
What can be the problem with the evidence in this case? There is a sworn affidavit by a highly regarded democrat who observed what happened, is knowledgeable about what constitutes voter intimidation, and who says this was a very serious case of intimidation.
Click to expand...

There is also a link in another thread to a video of him babbling about ACORN as though they were evil incarnate. Whether or not he was at one time a "highly respected Democrat," he has clearly gone over to the dark side now, or may be losing his marbles. That is the defect in the evidence.

And there is a video to prove that the men were there, were brandishing a night stick, were dressed in paramiltitary garb and were standing right in from of the polling place doors.
Click to expand...

Get your facts straight. ONE of them was and he is a known nut job.

Now why would they not contest the charges unless they felt they had another way of getting off? Which suggests we probe whether these defendants or anyone representing them had behind the scenes contacts with any members of the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Totally speculative and inadmissible.

How can you settle the debate on whether DOJ officials made a racist decision per Adam's claims, if you aren't willing to even investigate the matter or take sworn statements from the parties involved? What I see going on is a whitewash by the Obama administration and his supporters at JREF. So much for hope and change. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Given the fact that it is nearly impossible to get any action on more blatant attempts at voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, this case is only worth the expense from the point of view of the lunatic right.
 
I would prefer the administration be a bit tougher on these violations. That they have not been so in the past nor in the present won't really keep me up at night. Very isolated incidents, while regrettable, have no impact. If it became more systematic or widespread then I would have a bit more trouble sleeping and would start agitating for action.
 
Before a penny is thrownm down the rat hole trying to get a felony conviction agaisnt an obviously mentally ill person, there are voting irregularities of far greater consequence with which the government should deal.

Like how does a space case who nobody heard of beat a sitting government official in votes counted on an unreadable electronic voting system but get his butt handed to him on paper ballots? That warrants an investigation.

Shabazz is just a shiney thing that the rightwhackers are waving right now to deflect attention from real oddities like South Carolina.
 
One part of the job of a prosecutor is to only bring charges where he reasonably expects conviction. It is NOT to just bring charges everywhere and "let the courts sort it out". If they did that, our courts would teem with frivolous charges brought by prosecutors looking to cover their asses. After all, no one can get in trouble for just filing charges and letting the judge hear it out. That's awful public policy!

If the Bush DOJ declined to bring these charges, you can reasonably assume a conviction would have been unlikely. When you look at the precedent of the statute, this is borne out. So yes, charges should not have been filed in this case under this statute.
 
Upchurch said:
Welcome to futility.
Click to expand...

Says the poster who for all intents and purposes called Bartle Bull a liar.

And I asked you whether you'd find three Ku Klux Klan members in their uniforms, with nightsticks (or even without), standing in front of a polling place, menacing.

But you didn't respond.

Was that a futile query on my part, Upchurch? :D
 
NoScotsman said:
Watching that video I had two thoughts: 1. The Black Panthers still exist???
Click to expand...

They don't. The "New Black Panther Party" started as a split from the Nation of Islam by some of its crazier (!) members. They've been consistently denounced by the living ex-Panthers, and IIRC Bobby Seale even tried suing them a few years ago for their use of the name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom