The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Voter intimidation charges against Panthers dropped

  1. #41
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Lee View Post
    Question for you Jeff. do you think the outcome would have been the same if a KKK member would have done the same acions but slinging racial slurs at the black voters?
    Lets assume, to create a parallel, that you had a white man wearing republican buttons standing in front of a polling station in a white republican area carrying a nightstick and saying that his objective is to prevent any interference with voting. He is a member of the local Republican party and part of a group of people sent out to prevent interference with republican voters going to the polls. A group of three black men carrying cameras approaches him and demands to know what he is doing. They seek to enter the polling station. The man stands in front of the doors and slaps his nightstick in his hands announcing that he will not allow voters to be intimidated. While he is threatening in his demeanor, he allows the blacks into the polling station even though they are not residents of the area. One of the blacks entering the polling station calls the police and reports that he was harassed by the man at the door.

    I suspect that the man might or might not be arrested. I would be stunned if he became the subject of a Federal investigation seeking to prohibit him from carrying a weapon in front of a polling station again. I would be even more stunned if the local republican party organization, which denounced the man's activities and threw him out of the party, became the subject of further Federal action seeking to enjoin it from additional poll watching activities.

    Once again, by the way, this was the objective of the Federal action that the Obama administration decided not to pursue. I believe this is a pretty accurate parallel based on the videos taken at the time and the reporting at the time of the incident.

  2. #42
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eildydar View Post
    Just because nothing would have happened doesn't mean that it should have been dropped. As you say it wasn't a federal case so why did the " race coward" dismiss this.?
    Obama also comdemned Reverend White after he was "found out" to be an American hater. And then left his church.

    30 years in the pews regards~
    I'm not sure what you're talking about. If nothing was going to happen, why spend tax payer money pursuing it? The local disorderly conduct charge against the man in question was filed by the Philadelphia police. The Feds were not involved in any way and did not act to dismiss the charge.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Marty Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Cantonment,Florida
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Lets assume, to create a parallel, that you had a white man wearing republican buttons standing in front of a polling station in a white republican area carrying a nightstick and saying that his objective is to prevent any interference with voting. He is a member of the local Republican party and part of a group of people sent out to prevent interference with republican voters going to the polls. A group of three black men carrying cameras approaches him and demands to know what he is doing. They seek to enter the polling station. The man stands in front of the doors and slaps his nightstick in his hands announcing that he will not allow voters to be intimidated. While he is threatening in his demeanor, he allows the blacks into the polling station even though they are not residents of the area. One of the blacks entering the polling station calls the police and reports that he was harassed by the man at the door.

    I suspect that the man might or might not be arrested. I would be stunned if he became the subject of a Federal investigation seeking to prohibit him from carrying a weapon in front of a polling station again. I would be even more stunned if the local republican party organization, which denounced the man's activities and threw him out of the party, became the subject of further Federal action seeking to enjoin it from additional poll watching activities.

    Once again, by the way, this was the objective of the Federal action that the Obama administration decided not to pursue. I believe this is a pretty accurate parallel based on the videos taken at the time and the reporting at the time of the incident.
    Jeff,
    honestly i really can not see how this is a parallel. how would you explain the racial slur or do you not see it as such? just askin not stirring

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    if the feds didn't drop the charges who did. I could've sworn that it was Eric Holder who dropped the charges but if im mistaken then please enlighten me. And something would have happened. He would've been found guilty and on his record as such but as you stated no jail time. Still a guilty charge on his record which is at least something even though only a slap on the wrist.

  5. #45
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Lee View Post
    Jeff,
    honestly i really can not see how this is a parallel. how would you explain the racial slur or do you not see it as such? just askin not stirring
    So take my example and throw in that the white man says "We're not going to let you (throw in the racial epithet of your choice) stop us from electing a white man as President." That would not change my assessment of the outcome at all. Such statements are not illegal whether they come from blacks or whites or purples.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 06-03-2009 at 04:09 PM.

  6. #46
    Senior Member SMITTYSSGTUSMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    OCEANSIDE CA
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    So take my example and throw that the white man says "We're not going to let you (throw in the racial epithet of your choice) stop us from electing a white man as President." That would not change my assessment of the outcome at all. Such statements are not illegal whether they come from blacks or whites or purples.
    Jeff,

    to say the "N" word is illegal, it is a hate crime correct?
    WTF WAS WE THINKING I.E American Voters

  7. #47
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eildydar View Post
    if the feds didn't drop the charges who did. I could've sworn that it was Eric Holder who dropped the charges but if im mistaken then please enlighten me. And something would have happened. He would've been found guilty and on his record as such but as you stated no jail time. Still a guilty charge on his record which is at least something even though only a slap on the wrist.
    The problem with this entire discussion and the hysterical posts on conservative blogs is that no one seems to be addressing the facts of the situation at all. No "charges" were dropped because, as far as I know, no Federal charges were ever filed or expected to be filed regardless of who won the election. A civil complaint was filed (a very different process seeking to enjoin defendants from displaying weapons at a polling place to intimidate voters. Only one person ever displayed a weapon and he was arrested and charged by the Philadelphia police at the time as well as being disavowed and expelled by the NBPP. The Federal complaint only identified the single incident but sought an injunction against several defendants who were not part of the activity or present at the site in addition to an injunction against the individual who possessed the weapon. None of the defendants filed a response to the complaint allowing the DoJ to request a summary judgment. The DoJ did not request a judgment against the organizations not present. It is not clear to me from the stories but I believe an injunction was issued against the man who displayed the weapon and bizarre behavior as well as one or two other men who were present at the scene.

    If anyone has references evidecing a different set of facts, I would certainly reconsider my opinion. For now, however, I still can't see any rationale for Federal action beyond what was already done by the City of Philadelphia. There was no conspiracy. There was no pattern of intimidating behavior. The incident was isolated and short lived with no noticeable impact on voting. It was not supported by any organization. It appears to have been an isolated, minor criminal act classified as disorderly conduct at the scene.

  8. #48
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SMITTYSSGTUSMC View Post
    Jeff,

    to say the "N" word is illegal, it is a hate crime correct?
    Since when and under what statute? Many countries in the world, including some European countries (most notably Germany), have laws prohibiting "hate" speech. We have no such laws. Instead we have the First Amendment which says that we may not be punished for our speech unless it creates and real and immediate public danger. (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). In America, using the "N" word is simply bad manners.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Since when and under what statute? Many countries in the world, including some European countries (most notably Germany), have laws prohibiting "hate" speech. We have no such laws. Instead we have the First Amendment which says that we may not be punished for our speech unless it creates and real and immediate public danger. (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). In America, using the "N" word is simply bad manners.
    Using the N word is only bad manners if you're white; otherwise it's glorified in dance and song (if you can call cRap chants 'songs'). Likewise, intimidating voters is only taken seriously if it's a white person doing the bullying.

    You can try to be as disingenuous as you want about this Jeff, but let's face it: no matter how liberal you are, you know as well as anyone else that if this was about a white person at a Mississippi poll wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross, the case would NOT have been dropped and it would be prosecuted as a hate crime with headlines on papers and news stories coast to coast whipping the public into a frenzy. Do the names Jena 6 and Tawanna Brawley ring a bell?


    Personally I think both King Samir Shabazz and the NBPP are freak shows that no one takes seriously. But AG Holder should not have dropped this political hot potato so quickly in light of his recent statement about how cowardly we are about race; this is a shoe that should fit him perfectly. Regardless, it's still not right for the NBPP to send out thugs to man the polls and intimidate little old ladies.
    I'd also hazard a guess that one Minister King Samir Shabazz (that name alone makes me every time I read it in print) is still very active in the NBPP, the group just made a public statement he's no longer affiliated and they don't condone his actions so they could continue to get their massive recruitment/life support funds from our tax dollars via ACORN.

  10. #50
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    Using the N word is only bad manners if you're white; otherwise it's glorified in dance and song (if you can call cRap chants 'songs'). Likewise, intimidating voters is only taken seriously if it's a white person doing the bullying.

    You can try to be as disingenuous as you want about this Jeff, but let's face it: no matter how liberal you are, you know as well as anyone else that if this was about a white person at a Mississippi poll wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross, the case would NOT have been dropped and it would be prosecuted as a hate crime with headlines on papers and news stories coast to coast whipping the public into a frenzy. Do the names Jena 6 and Tawanna Brawley ring a bell?


    Personally I think both King Samir Shabazz and the NBPP are freak shows that no one takes seriously. But AG Holder should not have dropped this political hot potato so quickly in light of his recent statement about how cowardly we are about race; this is a shoe that should fit him perfectly. Regardless, it's still not right for the NBPP to send out thugs to man the polls and intimidate little old ladies.
    I'd also hazard a guess that one Minister King Samir Shabazz (that name alone makes me every time I read it in print) is still very active in the NBPP, the group just made a public statement he's no longer affiliated and they don't condone his actions so they could continue to get their massive recruitment/life support funds from our tax dollars via ACORN.
    An individual wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross would be about 100 times more outrageous than anything I'm seeing in the video tapes of this situation. A man dressed in black pants, a black jacket, a black beret, with military style boots is about on par with someone in hunting attire, and a nightstick is not a burning cross.

    I agree that Shabazz and the NBPP organization are "out there". but no more so than many other organizations including a number that may count members of this forum among their sympathizers.

    When did the NBPP get funding from ACORN, or is that simply another spurious charge beng thrown out as part of this overall dance of smoke and mirrors. I am still waiting to hear anything based on the actual facts of the situation.

    The issue of motive is even more interesting. The implication of most of the comments made is that these men were in some manner trying to prevent whites from voting. In fact, the area of the city being discussed is almost entirely black and democratic. Whether justified in their fears or not, the statements made by the individuals that they were trying to make sure no one tried to interfere with voting at the polling station makes a certain amount of sense.

    By the way, Shabazz has been around for a long time. He was previously expelled from the Nation of Islam.

Similar Threads

  1. Voter intimidation is ok now??
    By txbadger in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 06:15 PM
  2. McObamo Voter
    By Raymond Little in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 01:05 PM
  3. Shipping charges???
    By David Maddox in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 09:29 PM
  4. Credit card charges
    By badbullgator in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 07:36 PM
  5. Dropped dog wins open??????????????
    By Russ Lain in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 04:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •