A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

144 points

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/

permalink
report
reply
95 points
*

It wasn’t even her mistake. She was told by someone in authority that she was allowed to vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

So…basically…what I just said…again.

…but not the writer; rather Texas itself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Crimes dont apply to the whites, you silly goose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
104 points

I’m going to go buy some crack to test the system. Let’s see how that turns out for me.

permalink
report
reply
47 points

Just wear a MAGA hat, and you might pull it off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If the majority of your county are crackheads and you opt for a jury trial you might just pull it off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

Laws are written in such a way that they don’t allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.

Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession? Yes - jail.

Do you agree they had the drug on them?

Yes -jail.

The jury doesn’t get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person… And conviction of possession.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s what they want you to think. You can, in fact, decide you think the law is unjust and acquit. You can just feel bad for the defendant, or think the protection is being too harsh

The judge isn’t going to tell you that, they’re going to tell you to follow their guidance

You can’t be punished for a jury verdict, and you can’t be compelled to return a certain verdict

Jury nullification

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
71 points
*

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…

permalink
report
reply
2 points

White, republican, yet was still found not guilty by a jury?! :O

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

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

permalink
report
reply
21 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The first one I can kind of agree with tbh.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The second one too. If you’re committing a crime and someone dies as a direct result of that crime, it’s on you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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).

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 470K

    Comments