Meanwhile, because she's black in Texas prosecutors are still trying to throw Crystal Mason in prison for an actual innocent mistake all the way back in 2016 - https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/civil-rights-attorneys-urge-court-to-uphold-crystal-masons-acquittal-in-fraud-case/3684918/
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
282 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1896 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It wasn't even her mistake. She was told by someone in authority that she was allowed to vote.
Crimes dont apply to the whites, you silly goose.
What a shitty website that doesn't say a single fucking thing about what happened. It spirals into that jackass' spew of lying bullshit and nothing real to understand jack fucking shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Mason
She cast a provisional ballot, a mechanism specifically designed to check and count a vote only if the voter is determined to be eligible, on the advice of a poll worker, and was sentenced for voter fraud.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm going to go buy some crack to test the system. Let's see how that turns out for me.
Just wear a MAGA hat, and you might pull it off.
If the majority of your county are crackheads and you opt for a jury trial you might just pull it off.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Wow, that's a lot less than 5 years. And he even did it on purpose!!!
The "testing" excuse is totally irrelevant, but he is white and he is Republican...
White, republican, yet was still found not guilty by a jury?! :O
Wtf, meanwhile you can go to prison for a sting operation where a victim does not exist or the illegal item/items you are buying do not actually exist
Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but someone present has a heart attack? Murder.
Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but the guy behind the counter pulls out a loaded one and kills your accomplise? Also murder.
Buy some heroin for you and your partner to use, leading you both to overdose, but you survive? Believe it or not, also murder.
e; Whether or not you think these make sense is beside the point, it's an obvious double standard when the lack of intent doesn't matter for these crimes but it gets this guy a walk
The first one I can kind of agree with tbh.
The second one too. If you're committing a crime and someone dies as a direct result of that crime, it's on you.
The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.
Depends on the state. In mine it doesn't matter. If someone dies while you're committing a crime, you're responsible regardless.
I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there's a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.
But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:
If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I'd say not really.
If you're racing and your buddy hits a tree, it's not really murder either yet he wouldn't of been racing alone. It's a two player sport so I'd tend to say guilty.
Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren't there to help him, it's hard to say but I'd tend to go not guilty.
It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
But these make sense. If someone is harmed in the process of you committing a crime, you are at least partly responsible for that harm. I agree with these, but I can see how they can be weaponized as well
I'd be fine with a conviction for armed robbery in either of those first two scenarios (and would excuse the store clerk from any charges because they didn't know the weapon was unloaded so it's reasonable self defense), but not murder. If we make everything a murder charge it just increases the incentive for robbers not to leave any witnesses.
(On the other hand, if you rob someone with a loaded gun and just say you never intended to actually hurt anyone I could probably be persuaded to call it attempted murder).
Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.
Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn't mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to "test" if the prostitute would actually agree.
What's funny is, the system failed the test! If it worked, he would be in jail.
If the system worked, Trump would be rotting in solitary confinement, not running for president
Also that yeah
So he apparently didn't actually vote twice. He voted early. Then, on the day of the election he went to a polling place to attempt to vote again. When they looked up his name, they saw he had already voted and presumably didn't allow him to vote again. Because he didn't actually vote twice, there's no way they'd be able to find him guilty of voting twice. That'd be like charging someone with murder where the victim is still alive. They ended up charging him with attempted voter fraud. And if he told them something like "Had they allowed me in and given me a ballot I would not have filled it out and voted again. I was just testing the system." I could see people going easy on one of their own.
Just a little more context, because the article is really light on the details. After he had been turned away, the cops showed up at his house to interview him and he denied that it was him and it must have been someone else. This defense only came up later after his arreest.
It's BS and I suspect the only reason he was let off is because the town is overwhelmingly red and the jury was packed with Trump supporters. And of course they don't care about voter fraud when their side commits it, only when they imagine the other side is.
They think it's okay to do because they think they need to "balance out" the enormous amounts of voter fraud they're convinced is being committed by Democrats. The problem is, that's a complete lie, the Dems have done nothing. Every news story I've read about voter fraud in this election cycle (3 or 4?) where they actually mention the party, it's been a Republican.
We punish people for DUI's harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. "I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe."
But driving under the influence is literally the charge. There's also reckless endangerment and other tack on charges. You couldn't necessarily tack on attempted homicide, because intent is required.
In this case, attempted voter fraud is literally the charge. Sentencing guidelines are a state level decision.
That's just how the law works. If you want more punishment for failed voter fraud, pressure the state to increase the sentencing guidelines.
"was acquitted of attempted illegal voting"
Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.
Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.
Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.
Ahh, I guess I misread. I thought they got convicted for attempted voter fraud but acquitted of voter fraud.
Like I said, intent is a large part of the law. A lot of crimes don't get charged because intent is a high threshold to prove. Just because it seems the intent is obvious, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is a very different matter.
load more comments
(3 replies)
What happens if, and I use a strong IF, a democrat did this? Oh, yeah, honest mistakes aren't allowed, but blatant flouting of laws is? do I need to put the /s?
It was a jury trial and the county went 51% trump four years ago...
So depends on what the jury makeup is.
From the linked washingtonpost article though ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/29/gop-voter-virginia-vote-twice/ : https://archive.is/U7AoW#selection-755.0-755.327 ), it sounds like the defense had a very good argument.
Defense attorney Matthew L. Pack contended that Bell would not have gone through with voting more than once in the same election — a felony punishable by one to five years in prison — if poll workers had actually handed him a ballot.
But he never got the chance to demonstrate that because
As it happened, the workers quickly discovered that he had already voted and turned him away.
Speaking neutrally, it's good that we have a system in place that requires a high level of evidence - such as regarding intent - before finding someone guilty. I'd just hope that it equally protects folks regardless of if they are blue or red.
There's a reason conspiracy to commit charges exist.
Oh, agreed. Should have a way to punish someone for trying (e.g. attempted murder charges because the police stopped the murder and saved the intended victim). But even then, one still has to be able to prove it, and the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - is as high as it is for good reason.
Now, if the accused had encountered police detectives at that polling station instead of real election workers, I imagine it would have gone like this:
(Police detective posing as a poll worker prepares an otherwise blank but non-obviously spoiled ballot.)
"Ok sir, here's your ballot."
Choice A: "Thanks, here's the ballot, yay I just voted." "Sir, you're under arrest."
Choice B: "Um... actually I already voted." "Yes we know sir, I see it right here, but we were just testing you." "No, hey, wait, I was trying to test you." "..."
It's not a reasonable expectation to ask actual election workers - poll working volunteers - to do anything like the above, though.
Yup it's only illegal if your peers deem it. Which is why you should always stick to areas where you are a commoner and not an outsider. Which is why I avoid the south like it's radioactive.
Yep. Sounds like jury nullification for Trump supporters if you get tried in the right place.
republican voter attempts fully conscious and premeditated fraud attempt, immediately caught/failed, admits to willful fraud, found not guilty, voter and lawyer hold hands and yell, "it's rigged, stop the steal"
Seriously, go read full transcript of statements from this fucking goon throughout the process. Outrageously stupid.
Yeah! And I was just testing the banks security!
The fuck...?
If this were British Columbia, before you vote you must make a declaration that you are eligible and did not vote already.
If you voted earlier/somewhere else, you could choose to show up at any polling place later, as long as you do not make the false declaration to receive your second ballot, you will not have committed fraud. The election person can be like, oh the digital record shows you voted already, and you can walk out. In remote areas, the paper voter roll of local voters will show whether they know you voted or not but other paper locations will not (if your polling location was way out in the sticks and you went to another rural place to vote). Mail ins are much the same, your name and signature on the declaration is the same thing as the verbal affirmation.
I know Trump's supporters are bad at logic, but this should show that these processes stop enough voter fraud to the point that you it's not really they need to get all worked up about.
What the actual fuck
brb. gotta do a test of my local banks security systems.
Dripping with remorse, no malicious intent to commit butter fraud and so very deserving of acquittal...
"On Tuesday, the firm representing Bell, posted on Facebook: “Another NOT GUILTY on all charges!” Attached to the post was a photo of Bell wearing a red MAGA hat, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform."
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. He'll be a state senator by Xmas.
view more: next ›