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.

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.”

  • korny@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    9 hours ago

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

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

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

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            From said page:

            In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]


            Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    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…

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            No, because it isn’t proportional.

            A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

            Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            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.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.

  • notsure@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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?

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago
    Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Associated Press:

    Wiki: reliable - The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://apnews.com/article/voters-virginia-election-trial-fraud-f622efe3df029186ca527f9a254c2ebe

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support