Hey White Boy, Homey Don’t Play Dat
by Big Dog on Oct 7, 2010 at 04:59 Political
A white man was arrested for fighting with police after a traffic stop. Jeffery McGowan had a plea deal with the prosecutor to plead to a lesser charge and serve three months probation. The police officer involved was not injured in the scuffle and had no problem with the agreement especialy since the defendant had no criminal record.
The one person who opposed the deal was the judge, Joseph Williams, who took exception to a deal that “only goes to white boys.” Then Williams let his racist views show:
In court, Williams told Assistant District Attorney Brian Catanzarite that he “for some reason comes up with I think ridiculous pleas whenever it’s a young white guy,” according to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “I’m just telling you what my observation is. If this had been a black kid who did the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about three months’ probation.” MSNBC
Yes, this is his observation but he is wrong. Our judicial system is based on the merits of the case. If a black man had been involved in this incident and had no criminal record, and that is the key, he would have been offered the same deal. The reality is that many of the black men who pass through the judicial system have criminal records and it hurts their chances of getting a better deal. However, the judge also seems to ignore the revolving door that the justice system has become. All too often young black men are out of jail on one or more charges when they commit another crime. Does this racist judge expect us to give that kind of person the same chance at redemption as a man, white OR black, who has no criminal record?
Judge Williams recused himself and the plea was accepted by a white judge who did not call anyone a boy and had no claims about one race getting a better deal than another. In other words, he did his job as a judge.
I can just imagine how the left would go bonkers if the defendant was black man and a white judge said the plea deal was something only black boys got. Imagine how much more deranged the left would be if a white judge made similar comments. There would be calls for his resignation or impeachment. There would be screams of racism and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be marching in the streets “No justice, no peace.”
This judge’s racist remarks will likely not be addressed. He is just speaking truth to power and trying to convince us that blacks are thrown in jail for being black instead of committing crime.
So can someone ask Judge Williams if he thinks the New Black Panthers who were let off the hook after intimidating white voters received a deal that only black boys get? Because we all know if white guys had done that Eric Holder would have screwed them to a wall.
Just like Homey the Clown, Williams don’t play dat…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: black judge, court, joseph williams, plea deal, racism, white defendant
“Our judicial system is based on the merits of the case.”
Except when it’s not, of course, right?
I’m not really understanding the outrage here. The judge was speaking in terms of the specific ADA and his own observation. Somehow the right has become the judicial experts all of the sudden and they can speak for what Williams has seen or heard in his time on the bench.
“…the New Black Panthers who were let off the hook after intimidating white voters…”
I can’t stop laughing at the image of militant panthers trying (and failing) to scare white people at a polling place by saying hilarious things like they “were about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
I’m still at a loss for what you want to have happened to these folks based on the lack of evidence that intimidation took place.
There is a video of the men at the polling place trying to intimidate. For some of you that seems to make it an open and shut case. The fact is though that no voter stepped forward to say they were actually intimidated.
The man who wielded a weapon was charged for doing so. The men who did not had their charges dropped. That is what should have happened. The outrage at this case is purely partisan.
You shill. Those NBPPs were carrying nightsticks, brandishing them at white voters, and hurling racial slurs at them. There’s video tape of it!
BD says you’re a “nice young man.” I hereby officially proclaim my disbelief.
Only one man carried a stick and he was charged and sentenced for that crime. No one came forward with sufficient evidence that could be used to charge the men with voter intimidation. The video is only evidence that they were there and attempting to intimidate.
As for racial slurs don’t make me laugh. Whites just like to pretend that slurs against them hold any weight or historical significance. They don’t. Get over it, cracker.
A racial slur needs no historical significance to be a racial slur. It is either a slur or it is not.
The fact that they were there attempting to intimidate people (having a weapon is intimidation) is enough to charge them. The Holder Justice Dept will not prosecute minorities involved in intimidation. It has stated those laws were only meant to protect minorities.
I find it funny that the same people who think a parked police car at polling places in Florida constituted intimidation while wielding a weapon did not.
Those guys would have been beaten to death if they tried it at my polling place.
“A racial slur needs no historical significance to be a racial slur.”
Are you kidding? That denies why for instance the “n-word” is so offensive. It’s not offensive because it’s a slur. It’s offensive because of how it was used historically and is still being used today.
I know that some white people (especially some white christian males) like to pretend they are discriminated against and an oppressed people (if you don’t believe me google “white genocide”), but pretending being called “cracker” is an offensive slur doesn’t make much sense but it does make me laugh to hear white people called that.
“The fact that they were there attempting to intimidate people (having a weapon is intimidation) is enough to charge them.”
Once again I must point out the man who wielded a weapon at a polling place was charged for doing so. There was insufficient evidence to charge anybody with anything else. It can’t get any simpler than that. If you have a video of voters being scared away or the testimony of a voter that was scared away then present it.
“It has stated those laws were only meant to protect minorities.”
Oh please. I find the phony concern for voting rights so unbelievable. This was just another attempt to smear the Obama administration as connected to radical elements like the NBPP. Conservatives in the justice department smeared Holder and others in order to smear Obama at the same time. It’s politics.
“Those guys would have been beaten to death if they tried it at my polling place.”
Funny. You’d go to jail for A&B because you actual attacked men were trying and failing to scare voters. You’ve said this several times before and each time it just strikes me as completely ridiculous.
Adam- Why do you even attempt to defend these pieces of excrement? We are not talking Dem or Rep here, just real, common sense, and having a polite, civilized society here-the rules of which these guys were not even coming CLOSE to observing.
And you defend them? Come on, tell me you wouldn’t feel some intimidation, here- deep in your heart of hearts, tell the truth-
Except when it is not.
Like OJ Simpson…
As for your link, look at the items. Why are blacks and Hispanics frisked more? They commit more crimes with guns. Why are they stopped more? They commit a larger portion of the crimes.
The claim that they make up 50% of the population in an area but account for 80% of the stops is misleading. Blacks account for about 15% of the entire population but commit a much. much higher percentage of the crimes compared to their percentage of the population.
If a group commits more crimes then the odds are its members will be arrested more.
Of course, the guys were intimidating voters. That is what they intended to do.
The historical reference is stupid. The word is offensive just as any other racial slur but once again, liberals have predetermined victim groups.
As for A&B, not a chance. A guy walking toward you smacking his hand with a baton is making a threatening gesture. Once he was told to go pound sand he would become violent (remember, the guys you defend want to kill crackers and their babies) and he would be beaten to death.
He was charged? They intimidated voters and were not charged with that. Didn’t the guy filming say he found it intimidating. What more do you need?
This is liberalism at its best. Excuse this wrong doing but cry foul when a police car is there. Oh my, the police are here to intimidate the voters. This is the claim YOU made in reference to the 2000 election. The police were there and it scared black voters off. When I told you there was no evidence that they were there to intimidate you said their mere presence was intimidation. People might feel threatened by the police and stay away.
How many people stayed away or turned around because of the two goons in Philly?
“Adam- Why do you even attempt to defend these pieces of excrement?”
I’d like to think I can defend the truth against the fiction of what these men did and not the men themselves or their actions. But of course I don’t live in a black and white world like you and your kind do, Blake, so I’m not surprised that you can’t see the difference.
If you said, “Adolf Hitler called for the genocide of box turtles,” and I said “No, Hitler did not,” you would still reply, “Why do you even attempt to defend that man?” It’s dishonest and you know it.
“How many people stayed away or turned around because of the two goons in Philly?”
You don’t know and neither did the justice department. Do you want them to go by evidence they cannot quantify or verify?
“They intimidated voters and were not charged with that. Didn’t the guy filming say he found it intimidating. What more do you need?”
Let me just quote from the National Review on this one:
You, as usual, evade the issue. You and others like Michael Moore made the claim that people were scared into not voting in 2000. You claimed that the presence of police cars intimidated some who did not vote.
No evidence for this but you clung to that BS. Now you want to say that there is no evidence that these people intimidated voters so it is OK. If I pull a gun on you and say noting but you back away, is that intimidation? People were intimidated by the presence of the weapon.
But we can take it from someone who has some experience in this:
It is not intimidation in your eyes unless of course some kid hangs a noose. Then, no matter why he did it, you say it is racist intimidation.
So tell me, if the KKK stands outside polling places in November will you be OK with it? Will you tell black folks that they were not intimidated?
“You claimed that the presence of police cars intimidated some who did not vote. … No evidence for this but you clung to that BS.”
I’d love for you to find where I said anything about it so I can jog my memory. You seem very sure of my opinion on the subject but if I ever wrote about it I have long since forgotten.
“People were intimidated by the presence of the weapon.”
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this before it makes sense to you. There was no evidence even one voter was intimidated into not voting.
The case would be the same if you waved your gun at me but there was no evidence you prevented me from doing what I had intended to do that day. You would have been charged with having a weapon at a polling place and nothing more unless I testified against you that you had attempted to and succeeded in intimidating me into not voting.
“So tell me, if the KKK stands outside polling places in November will you be OK with it?”
No, and I’m not alright with Panthers either. I fail to see your point.
“Will you tell black folks that they were not intimidated?”
If an incident of voter intimidation takes place against blacks in the near future I would hope any prosecutions for it would be based on evidence and not the faulty partisan reasoning your side continues to employ in the Philly incident.
I think it is in the comments at your old site.
But this is the current argument and the one you all made in 2000.
The mere presence of cops is intimidation but the presence of a man with a baton is not?
You all can’t have it both ways.