Justice Department Drops New Black Panther Party Case, Accused of Racial Preference

Remove all ads!

I've been following this for a little while, and the two sides have been back and forth, but now that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has called for a federal investigation, I think it warrants full discussion.

For a little back history, read this one. The main player in the story is one J. Christian Adams, a career lawyer in the Justice Department who quit over the issue. He's also a conservative blogger, activist and, according to the liberals, he was a political appointee of the Bush Administration. Needless to say, that put some holes in his creadibility, but the Commission heard from him and decided to believe him. The Justice Department's refusal to comply with some supoenas from the Commission, and refusal to supply certain named individuals for testimony, may have had something to do with that.

The Washington Times also reports on two anonymous lawyers in the Justice Department familiar with the case. Of course, being anonymous, we have no idea how reliable they may be.

 

I'm usually one of the first to point out the outrageous double standards that come into play whenever racial issues come up, but it looks to me like they managed to get the behaviour stopped without the hassle and public outcry that would have followed if "Black Poll Observers Arrested for Observing Polls" headlines had bounced around the country. At least, that's a possibility I'm willing to consider.

 

Oh yeah, I've read a few rants on that case on one forum I frequent, though something about the "Obama only got elected because of the Black Panthers and ACLU!!1!" style made me rather sceptical. Well, it would probably be better all around if they pursue this case, to whatever end it leads. If some smartass decides to show off around election booths, and he happens to have broken the law and crossed the line into voter intimidation, he should face the consequences. If someone is more familiar with the law, what are the usual sentences?

Still, I can't help but note the below phrase "The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009." The Obama administration pursued, and then dropped, the case? I'd think it would be the courts of law, or at least the Justice Department (which was the phrase they used before that, for the Bush JD). Sounds to me Fox is trying to get the base riled up here, someone tell them they are supposed to be fair and balanced .

 

Well, because the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, it is part of the administration. I think that was just a variation of language.

 

This story hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention it should have. I question where the police were while this was going on. I live in a suburb and we have a police officer at every polling location all day. How two men in paramilitary uniforms holding batons and threatening voters were allowed to stand at a polling place is beyond me. On what grounds these guys and the guy who sent them there to do it shouldn't be prosecuted is beyond me.

 

Apparently the police were quite busy that day. They did stop by and tell one of the men (the one with the baton) that he couldn't be there, but the other guy actually lived in the building and had every right to be there (though not threatening people). They were warned, but not arrested. Probably because they weren't caught in the act, possibly to prevent a larger confrontation.

 

Two black men with batons standing outside a polling place? Were they brandishing the batons? Harassing people? Or did they just carry them? Were they dressed inappropriately? Were they breaking the law?

Weren't they just exercising their constitutional right to bear arms? As I was frequently reminded, it is entirely legal in the US to carry guns in public. If that is the case, then - a maiore ad minus - it must also be legal to carry a baton. Lack of criminal conduct could account for the lack of prosecution in this case.

As I also was frequently reminded, carrying a weapon, even in inappropriate circumstances or places, is in itself is not threatening. Well, not any more than carrying an automatic pistol and an automatic rifle at a town hall meeting.

~~ * ~~​

PS: These Black Panthers are just wusses. Just look at them. They look scary, too.

​

And they do it all wrong. Now here's how to do it the right way (pun!):

​

1. Get yourself a firearm. Better, two firearms.
2. Wear shirt and tie. Really.
3. And DO get a decent haircut.
4. Just stand there, innocent as a daisy on a meadow.
5. Say nothing, and when approached, state you exercise your constitutional rights.

 

One was carrying a baton, was video-taped brandishing it, and was reported to have been threatening people (though that wasn't caught on tape).

They were dressed in pseudo-military black uniforms with black berets bearing an insignia (I assume something related to the NBPP, not sure).

That's the question. Adams and some annonymous commenters have said yes, most definitely. A liberal civil rights lawyer and retired civil rights activist called it the most blatant case of voter intimidation he'd ever seen. The official word from the Justice Department is that the case was 'over-charged'.

There are strict laws on what can happen in and around polling places. Just loitering there without good reason is enough to justify the police telling you to leave. Carrying a weapon is a huge no-no.

The difference is location. If they had carried the pistols or rifles into the town hall meetings (or within a certain distance) then they would have been arrested (and those who did were). There's a similar perimeter around a polling place. These guys were well within it. Standing right in front of the door, in fact.

 

You obviously haven't seen the video.



As to the rest of your post (which I'm assuming was sarcastic), allow me to educate you. I can't speak for Philadelphia, but in every place I've ever been there are special rules for voting places. You will notice in the video that there isn't anybody in sight carrying political signs or chanting for candidates. That is because it isn't allowed. I have been in polling sites where police have turned people away for wearing campaign shirts and buttons. They are told they have to remove them or cover them as they are not allowed in the polling area. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume since we have a suspension of the 1st amendment at polling sites, they probably also suspend the 2nd amendment also.

I don't see how anyone can watch the above video and not believe that their purpose was voter intimidation. I would feel the same way if it was two guys standing there in klan robes or if they had been skinheads dressed the same way.

 

Yes, it was a very sarcastic post. And I completely agree that it probably was voter intimidation, at least as far as the letter of the law is concerned. Practically, not so much. These Keystone Cops of thuggery had very little impact - Obama, that they professed to oppose, overwhelmingly carried that precinct.

My point is that the issue is politically charged, and that I see a double standard at work here. On the one hand, arms are wonderful and people carrying them around to political protests are entitled. Intimidation? Never. On the other hand, there are these Black Panthers with their batons - scary looking and unruly - obviously intimidating ...

Read this: Bush appointee dismisses incident as right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'

Probably much ado about little.

To me there is very little difference between these two Black Panthers and that middle class looking guy in a white shirt with an automatic rifle at the town hall who was behaving just a tad smarter by not stating his intent to intimidate openly. They're goons all the same. America apparently is an unruly and rowdy place. I thought you knew that since you live there and all that.

I think in this case the conservatives in the media and blogosphere (handle with great care anything that Andrew Breitbart will put out) are race-baiting, or rather taking on the issue of 'reverse racism'. Coincidentally, that video of that 'racist' USDA official that hit the news recently appears taken out of context. Oh, too bad she resigned already. Over nothing. But perhaps an existence destroyed and a career tarred. Fine style.

'Reverse racism' appears to be the flavour of the summer. Expect more of it. And don't forget to be afraid of those radical blacks that Obama's reign of terror has empowered and emboldened. Booh!

 

And this is where your politics get in the way of the truth and the sarcasm kind of loses its "punch". There is a HUGE difference between being in a polling place and being somewhere else. As an analogy you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but if you want to yell "fire" in a parking lot that is O.K. True, you may get in trouble for disturbing the peace, but nowhere near as much trouble as you would get in for causing a riot that led to people getting hurt.

Mr. middle class guy wasn't committing any crimes, these two guys (and the person who sent them there) were.

Trying to smooth everything over by claiming this is just a bunch of white people crying "reverse racism" is weak. It doesn't matter how many people in that precint voted for Obama. I don't think anyone is claiming this swayed the election. However, to not prosecute sends a horrible message. When the people with white sheets start showing up in November 2012 to do the same thing, everyone will go ballistic (myself included).

 

It's not my politics getting in the way.

#1 You miss my point: I loathe the intimidation as a political tactic.

Because when the Black Panthers standing there with their truncheons were intimidating, the middle class guy with the automatic rifle in a crowd was intimidating as well. It doesn't matter that those Black Panthers were in front of the polling station and thus in violation of the letter of the law, whereas middle class guy was wasn't breaking any laws while being an a**hole. They're thugs all the same in both cases.

Yet - in case of the Black Panthers the intimidation is a scandal, whereas the case of middle class guy was cheered at on the right as an instance of a genuine patriot exercising his constitutional rights, with the intimidation as a by-product that was only perceivable on the paranoid, hysterical left. That is one issue.

#2 That the Black Panthers story is happening in a context of race baiting is a separate issue.

 

Ragusa - You point out the mistake: If the BP had carried a gun instead of a baton, the middle-class white guy would probably have joined him (thinking they were at a town hall meeting).

 

There's a good chance the white guy in your photo was acting in an intimidating fashion, however, is there any allegation that he was making ignorant comments to the voters walking in? I don't know, but I do know that the Black Panther guys were saying things to the white voters that were over the line. I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that they weren't. Either way, it's a low-down dirty intimidation tactic, and regardless of the race of those involved, it probably should be investigated. The issue at hand here, to me, is that the BP guys appear to have been given a free pass.

On the other hand, as I said before, if the problem was solved early in, then perhaps it was decided that Justice Department resources could be better spent than going after two guys who had already been dealt with. But the same standard should apply to everyone, black or white, and the "white's can't be discriminated against or harassed" line of BS needs to be eliminated from public discourse. Whites are no better or worse than any other identifiable group.

 

LKD,
my point is that any idiot who brings a weapon to a protest is acting in an intimidating manner, even when he just stands there 'innocent as a daisy on a meadow'.

 

I'm assuming you really don't believe that. If someone showed up at a polling place with a gun at a minimum an officer would shoo him away. Although in all likelyhood they would arrest the person. I don't think there is a single person who supports the second amendment who wouldn't approve of that decision.

 

Fair enough -- I have no problem with protestors being asked to stay a goodly distance away from their target and not being blatantly armed. But on a scale of "more intimidating" and "less intimidating", I'll classify the citizen who is not making inappropriate comments to passers-by as "less intimidating" and the citizen saying stuff like "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker" as "more intimidating."

That all changes if the first citizen was making similar comments to voters.

 

Snook - Of course I wasn't serious. But Ragusa's point about people bringing weapons to political events is a point well taken, at least by me. Actually, they allowed the BP to carry guns through the streets at some guy's execution at Huntsville when Bush was governor. But the police had their own shooters all over the place. That is thing about a gun versus a baton, if you just point a gun at someone at an event, you are probably "going down," one way or another.

 

Umm, Ragusa, from your quoted article:

This is either complete ignorance of the topic, or a flat out lie. There are numerous reports (including police reports) of the two yelling things like, 'You're about to know what it's like to be ruled by a black man, cracker!'* The agenda here was pretty clear.

*I'm not sure of the exact quote, but that was the jist of it.

 

Don't blame me for items in my quoted articles. I didn't write them. Much less do I lie when I quote them.