New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers

[Care4all]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

 

[Coyote]

*********************************************
(Quote function not working right now for some reason)


The issue as I see it is not whether the case was prosecuted. The issue is that IF DOJ personnel determined there was justification to prosecute it and . . .

IF it was dropped, as one of their own has testified, for political reasons unrelated to any issues of justice and. . .

IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .

THAT should be seen as a problem by all of us no matter how much we do or do not worship our fearless leaders or what our personal ideologies might be.

The quote function gets frustrating with nested quotes - I had to keep going back and editing mine

IF - and that is the crux - IF any of that is true, and all we have so far is hearsay from J. Christian Adams - someone who may well have his own ax to grind - then yes, I agree with you.

However, the Civil Righs Commission is investigating, and I'm content to see what they have to say.

 

[Ravi]

IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .

Where are you getting this from? IMO, it is total bullshit. That'd be like saying the Bush administration ordered no prosecuting of the KKK...it's just too far out there to be credible.

You people worry me sometimes.

 

[Ravi]

Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:

Bull's Affidavit

Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.

This evidence is way too flimsy to convict on, especially when the actual video of events shows no intimidation.

There is no leftie on this board who has credentials that can begin to stand up to his. Were you in Mississippi engaged in getting the blacks civil rights in the 1960s when people died (not just a few) for doing such things? Then STFU.

Seriously. You can make the second statement if you want to, but I'm not going to sit back and let you denigrate someone was there, who fought the fights in very tough and dangerous circumstances. It's a shame you feel that you can do that.

GMAFB. Confirmation bias strikes the best of us...I'm surprised that you being an attorney don't realize this truth.

 

[L.K.Eder]

IF, as it has been said, the DOJ is now under orders not to investigate or prosecute the New Black Panthers. . . .

Where are you getting this from? IMO, it is total bullshit. That'd be like saying the Bush administration ordered no prosecuting of the KKK...it's just too far out there to be credible.

You people worry me sometimes.

they have already turned the unhinged outrage to 11. what will they do after the midterms?

go waco? lol lol

 

[Ravi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.

 

[Coyote]

The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.

I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?



KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".

If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.

See my answer....

Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.

As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.

Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


SOunds pretty violent to me.

On the polling place video:

I am totally not seeing what others are apparently. I'm seeing a white guy walking towards two black guys, one with a night stick in his hand saying to the black guys that he is feeling intimidated by the night stick. The black guys are speaking in a normal tone of voice -hard to hear what they are saying and one points out that the white guy has a camera. The white guy says "but a camera is not a weapon"....ok...I see the black guy with a night stick moving it around while he walks (in the manner that anyone holding an object will fiddle with while talking). What I'm not seeing - at all - is brandishing, whacking, or making any kind of threatening moves with it. I am not even seeing threatening body language. Would I, as a white female, feel threatened by that short segment? No.

This is the first time I've watched that video and, it was cut off so I don't know what happened afterwards but - I expected to see militarestic movement, looming glaring staring men, heavy combat boots and forceful body language - especially with the baton.

Watching this makes me less and less convinced that there is merit.

On the NBP video - they are a new group, they have little history - in fact, before this case I had never heard of them (had you?) and I suspect many hadn't. While their hate-filled rhetoric is comparable to the KKK their history is not - yet - no one knows who they are, they have yet to do anything but mouth racist rhetoric, they are not the Black Panthers - have been forceably disowned by the BP (something the title of the tape does not distinquish).

Also, the actions of the polling place are not the actions of the other tape and shouldn't be confused - they are seperate. If a white person were to watch the one tape first, and then watch the polling tape with the forknowledge that these were the same people - then they might well feel intimidated. But that isn't the case here.

Were there any voters actually intimidated?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.

 

[Coyote]

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.

Is anyone actually defending them?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.

Is anyone actually defending them?

hehehe, good question.

but even, vids of black panthers denouncing the nbpp are ignored.


so, ollie just takes his ball and goes home, while setting of a stink bomb.

 

[Care4all]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.

I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such? though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.

Bartle Bull

But, as I noted and linked to earlier in response to Lonestar - Bartle is not exactly unbiased. He was campaigning for McCain, had strongly denounced Obama and was a McCain "poll watcher".

Did you read his bio at the beginning of his testimony? I understand your distrust due ot the behavior you describe but if you look into the man's history you will see he is highly qualified to make this type of judgement.

 

[Immanuel]

I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.

I highly doubt the coward would have hit him at least not with other witnesses around.

But, would you want to take that chance if you were alone?

Immie

I think you have to, don't you?

Sometimes you have to do physically unpleasant things to prove your point. Remember Ghandi's action of walking men one by one up to the police line to be beaten down by police while offering now resistance. For hours the police beat the men down, one by one. Similar circumstance here. If the camera guy was beaten down by the NBP guy, the violence and lack of moral standing would be made crystal clear.

Well, like I said, I don't think the coward would attack the camera man as their were hostile witnesses.

My question was, as a voter by yourself without any friendly (to you) witness would you take that chance and quite frankly no I would not.

Seeing as how that is a black precinct that everyone knew would go to Obama, my vote for Paul... or did I vote for Barr? I can't remember because I cast a protest vote and would have sooner voted "none of the above... really had no meaning. I would not have risked my safety for that vote. Not to mention the fact that I generally go to the polls with my wife and kids (who are now all voting age but still live with me) and I would not put them at risk.

No, I don't "have" to vote, but I feel it is my civic duty and right to do so.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.

I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such? though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?

I don't know...the penalty for voter intimidation could be a fine and/or one year in prison...but I don't know if that depends on if there are criminal or civil charges.

 

[Immanuel]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Not sure, but I believe you are right.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.

Is anyone actually defending them?

I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.

What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?



Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?



KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".



See my answer....

Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.

As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.

Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY"]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]


SOunds pretty violent to me.

On the polling place video:

I am totally not seeing what others are apparently. I'm seeing a white guy walking towards two black guys, one with a night stick in his hand saying to the black guys that he is feeling intimidated by the night stick. The black guys are speaking in a normal tone of voice -hard to hear what they are saying and one points out that the white guy has a camera. The white guy says "but a camera is not a weapon"....ok...I see the black guy with a night stick moving it around while he walks (in the manner that anyone holding an object will fiddle with while talking). What I'm not seeing - at all - is brandishing, whacking, or making any kind of threatening moves with it. I am not even seeing threatening body language. Would I, as a white female, feel threatened by that short segment? No.

This is the first time I've watched that video and, it was cut off so I don't know what happened afterwards but - I expected to see militarestic movement, looming glaring staring men, heavy combat boots and forceful body language - especially with the baton.

Watching this makes me less and less convinced that there is merit.

On the NBP video - they are a new group, they have little history - in fact, before this case I had never heard of them (had you?) and I suspect many hadn't. While their hate-filled rhetoric is comparable to the KKK their history is not - yet - no one knows who they are, they have yet to do anything but mouth racist rhetoric, they are not the Black Panthers - have been forceably disowned by the BP (something the title of the tape does not distinquish).

Also, the actions of the polling place are not the actions of the other tape and shouldn't be confused - they are seperate. If a white person were to watch the one tape first, and then watch the polling tape with the forknowledge that these were the same people - then they might well feel intimidated. But that isn't the case here.

Were there any voters actually intimidated?

I just watched it again, this time with the sound turned off so I'd pay more attention to what was going on than what was being said. It appeared to be nothing more than a conversation...and at the end two voters walked out of the polling station...not looking intimidated. The woman on the phone did not look intimidated. In fact the interviewer at the end turned his back on the two black men...not the action of someone that was intimidated.

 

[Care4all]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Not sure, but I believe you are right.

Immie

I'm really not certain...I am just guessing or speculating that there is not....

 

[Immanuel]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is NEVER jailtime associated with civil law suits, but only damages that would have to be paid, towards the person they harmed???? No???

Certainly that was the case for OJ Simpson.

I don't think you can get jail time for a civil offense, unless maybe if you failed to pay your judgment...but even then, I am not certain, because OJ has never paid a dime of his from what I have read and he was not jailed for such? though he had money and power from the money so maybe this is why he never went to jail for not paying up?

If I am not mistaken they took all of OJ's assets, what they could not take was his pension... which was quite hefty like $25k a month if I am not mistaken. So he would be living high on the hog they might say if he had not screwed up again.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I'm dropping this thread. All this defending of racist assholes is making me physically ill.

Is anyone actually defending them?

I must say that it seems to me as if both you and Ravi are defending them and doing a decent job of it too.

Immie

Defending the truth isn't quite the same as defending these jokers.