Breaking: Black Panthers Headed Back To Poll Stations to Monitor Them

[Sallow]

Media matters? Really. You guys bitch about fox then drop links from that Cease pool of Far left propaganda? Really?

I use links from all news sources. I check the validity of the information and sometimes question where it comes from.

You can do the research on your own..but in any case..I just don't think this witness would hold up well under cross examination.

 

[shintao]

Perhaps you are unaware but you do not have to actually intimidate anyone to be prosecuted under the law. You simply have to have the intent.

Really..

Do tell..under what case?

I would say you are correct when you are talking about violence. Like murder or terrorism. But even then, the standard is quite high in order to prosecute. I very much doubt you could find anything remotely close to what your suggesting. Although, like I have pointed out..I am not a lawyer..and I could be wrong.

Lets a say a guy sends an email to his internet lover, "I'm going to kill my wife so we can be together." That would be intent without using violence, or addressing the person you wish to harm. In other words, the victim doesn't even have to know. They catch them when they pay a hit man-cover cop.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Witness corroboration combined with the video doesn't count as evidence?

Corroboration of what? Two black men standing there? Video of what? Two black men standing there? You need to tell me, specifically, who was intimidated. If you can't, there's no case.

They crossed the line from simple poll watchers to intimidators when they allegedly spoke what they did as the witnesses reported.

What words were spoken at the polling place, to a voter, that constituted intimidation? Who were these words spoken to?

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it is known what words were spoken, then there is a witness to the incident. I do not know if that witness is this Bartie Bull, but it seems that it is.

I don't know how good a witness this guy would be..

Bull clearly has an ax to grind. In addition to being a McCain supporter, Bull seems to have a longstanding dislike of Obama. Consider this: On November 3, 2008, Bull reportedly "embraced Republican John McCain for president, hurled Barack Obama under the bus, and then backed it slowly over the Democratic nominee." He said, "Character in the White House should be more important than charisma on the campaign trail... Barack Obama does not want to 'change' America. Barack Obama wants a different country." Bull declared, "Obama's notion of economic fairness is pure Karl Marx plus a pocketful of Chicago-style 'community organization.'" Recently, on Fox's America Live, Bull said of Obama: "I didn't like Obama from the beginning, I thought he was a hustler and I think he still is."
Fox hypes Bartle's Bull | Media Matters for America

So? Someone's political views means that a sworn affidavit is a lie?

We can dismiss all witnesses based on their political views?

One doesn't invalidate the other.

 

[RadiomanATL]

If it is known what words were spoken, then there is a witness to the incident.

There isn't even evidence that there was such an incident. What you have is an unsourced statement and again, no actual voter who was supposedly intimidated. No evidence, that's what you've got.

I have a witness who made a sworn affidavit and a video.

Thats evidence.

 

[daveman]

There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

 

[LiberalNut]

Intent to break any law is a crime in this country.

This is simply not so. There has to be an act in furtherence of the intent. It doesn't have to be an actual attempt to commit, it simply has to be some act in furtherance.

More proof of my point that the Billy Club is all the evidence you need. The cops sent him away because they knew People Could be intimidated by it.

Wrong, they sent him away because, apparently, there's a statute that prohibits weapons within 100' of a polling place. The other black gentleman was allowed to stay.

 

[Sallow]

Perhaps you are unaware but you do not have to actually intimidate anyone to be prosecuted under the law. You simply have to have the intent.

Really..

Do tell..under what case?

I would say you are correct when you are talking about violence. Like murder or terrorism. But even then, the standard is quite high in order to prosecute. I very much doubt you could find anything remotely close to what your suggesting. Although, like I have pointed out..I am not a lawyer..and I could be wrong.

Lets a say a guy sends an email to his internet lover, "I'm going to kill my wife so we can be together." That would be intent without using violence, or addressing the person you wish to harm. In other words, the victim doesn't even have to know. They catch them when they pay a hit man-cover cop.

It's intent to commit violence..which was exactly what I was talking about. I can think of other cases like if you are in front of a store at night and the police catch you with tools used to commit burlgary or something like that. So no..it probably doesn't need to even be violence..but you do need the evidence.

 

[LiberalNut]

They catch them when they pay a hit man-cover cop.

That would be an act in furtherance. The email alone was not a crime.

 

[LiberalNut]

I have a witness who made a sworn affidavit and a video.

No you don't. The sworn affidavit isn't made by the supposed reporter of the vocalization that is claimed to be intimidating. And, of course, without putting forth a victim, someone who was actually intimidated, you have nothing, nada, the null set.

 

[Sallow]

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it is known what words were spoken, then there is a witness to the incident. I do not know if that witness is this Bartie Bull, but it seems that it is.

I don't know how good a witness this guy would be..

Bull clearly has an ax to grind. In addition to being a McCain supporter, Bull seems to have a longstanding dislike of Obama. Consider this: On November 3, 2008, Bull reportedly "embraced Republican John McCain for president, hurled Barack Obama under the bus, and then backed it slowly over the Democratic nominee." He said, "Character in the White House should be more important than charisma on the campaign trail... Barack Obama does not want to 'change' America. Barack Obama wants a different country." Bull declared, "Obama's notion of economic fairness is pure Karl Marx plus a pocketful of Chicago-style 'community organization.'" Recently, on Fox's America Live, Bull said of Obama: "I didn't like Obama from the beginning, I thought he was a hustler and I think he still is."
Fox hypes Bartle's Bull | Media Matters for America

So? Someone's political views means that a sworn affidavit is a lie?

We can dismiss all witnesses based on their political views?

One doesn't invalidate the other.

In a highly charged political case? Sure..it might not "invalidate" it..but it does put a huge burden on the prosecution.

Like I pointed out..it's not cheap to bring these cases to trial..so you test the quality of your evidence. There really doesn't seem to be much there. A fair defense lawyer would tear this apart..a really good one would laugh you out of court.

 

[Synthaholic]

There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

Would you like me to get you a tissue?

 

[syrenn]

I have a witness who made a sworn affidavit and a video.

No you don't. The sworn affidavit isn't made by the supposed reporter of the vocalization that is claimed to be intimidating. And, of course, without putting forth a victim, someone who was actually intimidated, you have nothing, nada, the null set.

Ah the beauty of intimation. The voter is the victim. What part of intimidation don't you understand?

 

[LiberalNut]

The voter is the victim.

What voter? What is his/her name?

 

[syrenn]

The voter is the victim.

What voter? What is his/her name?

try the rest of the quote and not cherry picking.


Again what part of intimidation don't you understand?

 

[LiberalNut]

There is no intimidation here. How do I know? Cause you can't produce someone, to the witness stand mind you, who was actually intimidated.

Case closed.

 

[shintao]

There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

Since we have no proof it does happen, that might be a clue for you. LMAO!!

 

[LiberalNut]

Brandishing it in what I feel can be interpreted to be menacing.

Sorry I missed this one. What you feel is and isn't menacing is immaterial. What matters is if a voter in Philly was intimidated from voting. You have zero evidence that this happened. Indeed, the officer who asked the gentleman with the stick to leave didn't think a crime had been committed. How do I know? He didn't make an arrest.

Case closed.

 

[syrenn]

There is no intimidation here. How do I know? Cause you can't produce someone, to the witness stand mind you, who was actually intimidated.

Case closed.

Good to know, i hope you feel the same when the kkk shows up with clubs slaping them in their hands.


Case VERY closed.

 

[LiberalNut]

i hope you feel the same when the kkk shows up

Guess what? If nobody complains AND a black cop lets the supposed kkk member walk, I'll assume there was no crime committed.

It's called the rule of law.

 

[syrenn]

i hope you feel the same when the kkk shows up

Guess what? If nobody complains AND a black cop lets the supposed kkk member walk, I'll assume there was no crime committed.

It's called the rule of law.

Try looking up the definition of intimation.