April 30, 2006

Panthers To Harrass, Intimidate Duke Lacrosse Players

Could you imagine what would happen if a white supremacist group with a history of armed violence announced its intention to come to a private university and march to protest the alleged rape of a white woman by a black athlete? There would be utter chaos, as multiple law enforcement agencies vied to arrest the thugs and protect the accused from the racists.

Why, then, is Duke welcoming this group and permitting them to be active on campus? And why is the prosecutor apparently going to meet with these thugs?

The national chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense says his group intends to march at Duke University on Monday to "deal directly" with lacrosse players about charges of rape of an escort service dancer at a team party.

Duke's campus police are coordinating with the Durham Police Department to prepare for the black-separatist group, which has a reputation for coming to its protests armed.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Washington lawyer who is the leader of the New Panthers, said he will be in Durham to rally with local black leaders and monitor progress of the criminal case against Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the two students charged with raping and kidnapping the dancer.

"We are conducting an independent investigation, and we intend to enter the campus and interview lacrosse players," Shabazz said Thursday. "We seek to ensure an adequate, strong and vigorous prosecution."

Duke is a private institution, and its campus is private property. Shabazz said he has not sought permission to enter but that his group has "received no word that we are not welcome."

John Burness, Duke's vice president for public affairs and community relations, said Thursday that the university will allow a controlled march on campus, as long as the New Black Panthers follow specific rules.

"As an institution we support free speech, and we will treat them like any other group," Burness said. "But we do not permit weapons. We will take necessary steps to keep the campus safe."

One of the key tenets of the New Black Panthers is owning firearms and knowing how to use them, according to the Anti-Defamation League, a national Jewish group that has monitored Shabazz and his followers for years.

In other words, the violent racists are allowed on campus to harrass students not charged with any crime, provided they leave tehir guns at home. What a double standard -- though one that has operated throughout the development of this case. Could you imagine the smae courseof action being followed by the university or the prosecutor if this case involved the alleged rape of a white stripper by the Duke basketball team?

Could you imagine the Klan being allowed to march on the Duke campus and freely "conduct an independent investigation" and "interview players" at that private school? Certainly not! But the Panthers are welcome, out of a typical academic desire to be "sensitive" and "politically correct".

I don't know if any of these boys are guilty. If they are, I hope they get the maximum available penalty --I've had too many girls and women in my life face the trauma of sexual assault (heck, "one" is "too many" -- and ther have been more than that) to want to see anything less than every ounce of justice received. But in this circus-like kangaroo court atmosphere, the introduction of a violent racist group to the mix is prejudicial to both the safety of the students at Duke and the right of the accused to a fair trial under the laws and constitutions of both the United States and the State of North Carolina.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 5 kb.

1 actually the klan marched in nearby raleigh last year. Free speech, as ridiculous as it might be (and the Klan and this lot are just as ridiculous as each other), is protected in this country...

Posted by: me at Sun Apr 30 14:59:44 2006 (QpNBU)

2 actually the klan marched in nearby raleigh last year. Free speech, as ridiculous as it might be (and the Klan and this lot are just as ridiculous as each other), is protected in this country...

Posted by: me at Sun Apr 30 15:00:31 2006 (QpNBU)

3 Seems you missed my point -- I fully support the free speech rights of those espousing reprehensible viewpoints, be they Nazis, Klansmen, Communists, or even Democrats.

My point was a bit different -- and apparently is was too subtle for you to catch. Let me put it to you in a clearer manner.

Would Duke, a private school whish is not covered by the First Amendment, open its campus to the Klan? If not, why do so for these racists?

WOuld the prosecutor meet with neo-Nazi leaders out to make sure that alleged black perps were properly prosecuted for violating a white woman? If not, why meet with these racists?

In short, why is this gang of racists and anti-Semites being treated with kid-gloves and tolerance by those who would -- and have -- fortrightly denounced real and perceived racism in the past and in this case?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Apr 30 15:35:18 2006 (jwhgU)

4 Eh...I think it's better to allow them to talk and sound like idiots (which they do, like the klan), than to shut them up and let them create a huge media fuss.

I'm actually curious whether the klan would be allowed. I'm guessing it would be, actually. I'm at duke, btw.

Posted by: me at Sun Apr 30 15:39:08 2006 (QpNBU)

5 I checked your IP, and find your location plausible.

On the other hand, I sincerely doubt that Duke or any private school like it would permit the Klan to rally on its campus. Heck, I think most public colleges would try to find a provision in their policies to keep the Klan off campus and, if possible, confined to the front steps of the county courthouse.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Apr 30 15:59:52 2006 (jwhgU)

6 Victimization, except it's white guilt being used & pushed to the edge. Beside, prosecuter is up for re-election and this is all free press.

Posted by: JimBD at Tue May 2 11:54:07 2006 (GoE0N)

7 I agree with your comment 100%. I hope when all is said and done that these three boys sue this female and the D.A. for everything they can. This is a "hate crime" and is totally directed at white people. That is what the case is about in my opinion. Racial discrimination from an African American. Yes, people this is happening every day in America. Wake up. We as Whites are not allowed to say or do the things the African Americans are doing and getting away with. I am sick to death of the discrimintion I received on my job over the last four years.
This girl should be put on public display and charged with every crime we have on the books for her lies.

check out - THE ACCUSER - Crystal Gail Mangum - THE LIAR - pics on this website.

http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/05/duke-lacrosse-case-nifong-rope-dope.html

Facts about Crystal Gail Mangum:

She is 27-years-old, her birthday is July 16, 1978.

She is the youngest of three children raised in a working-class Durham neighborhood.

Ms. Mangum graduated from Hillside High School, Durham, N.C. in 1996.

Her parents are Mary and Travis Mangum. Travis Mangum is a retired truck driver.

Information regarding her identity soon began circulating on the internet after questions arose about whether she was lying.

Internet sources revealing her identity: dilby.com, freerepublic.com, tdaxp, brain-terminal.com, and standyourground.com.


Radio personality, Tom Leykis, identified Ms. Mangum on his nationally syndicated radio show, Friday afternoon, April 21st.

Her identity was also easily deduced from information provided in news reports. Matt Drudge said Ms. Mangum's name on his Sunday, April 23rd, radio show.

She joined the Navy in the fall of 1996 - signing up for an eight-year enlistment -- two years of active duty followed by six years in the reserves.

Ms. Mangum began active duty in the summer of 1997 and was sent to school in Dam Neck, Va., near Virginia Beach. She trained for a job operating radios and navigation equipment.

She married a man 14 years her senior in the fall of 1997. His name is Kenneth Nathanial McNeill. They were married for 17 months. She taught him how to read and write. He said:

"She wanted to see the world. The only thing I knew to tell her was to join the Navy."

"Our honeymoon was driving out to California"
She and her husband moved Concord, Calif., where Mangum was assigned to the USS Mount Hood, an ammunition ship. Reportedly:

She was often away at sea for days or weeks, and tensions flared in the marriage, her former husband said.

"She was young," he said.

Along the way, the woman became interested in another sailor, a man who would later father her children, the former husband said. The two separated as the new relationship began, he said. Six months later, she was discharged from the service (in 199 .

A U.S. Navy spokesman would not release the reason for the discharge, though records indicate it came less than nine months before she had her first child, a boy, named after his father.
Ms. Mangum is divorced with two children. She went to court to force the children's father to pay child support.

In 2003, the children's father was ordered by a Durham court to have a portion of his paycheck, about $400 a month, withheld for child support, court records show. He was also ordered to pay more than $2,700 in public assistance to the children.


She had worked at a nursing facility and on an assembly line making catalytic reducers at $10.50 per hour.

Ms. Mangum was arrested in June 2002 after she got drunk, stole a car at a strip club, and lead police on a reckless high-speed chase. This incident resulted in the following charges:



Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon on Police Officer, O2-CRS-49961

Felonious Larceny and Felonious Possession of Stolen Vehicle charges, 02-CRS-49955

Felonious Speeding to Elude Arrest, Driving while Impaired (.19 Blood Alcohol Content) and Driving while License Revoked, 02-CRS-49956

Driving Left of Center, 02-CR-49958

Failure to Heed Blue Light and Siren and Reckless Driving in Wanton Disregard to Rights or Safety of Others, 02-CR-49959

Driving the Wrong Way on Dual Lane Highway and Open Container After Consuming Alcohol, 02-CR-49960

two counts of Injury to Personal Property, 02-CR-49962-63

Resisting a Public Officer, 02-CR-49964


She plead guilty to four misdemeanors in May 2003: Speeding to elude arrest, assault against a government official, DWI level 3, and larceny. She was put on parole and served no jail time.

Ms. Mangum paid her legal bills and $4,200 in restitution and court fees from the May 2003 convictions.

She went to Durham Technical Community College and graduated in 2004 with an associate degree.

Ms. Mangum is a registered Democratic voter.

She was a full-time, second-year student at North Carolina Central University (NCCU) this semester. Ms. Mangum is a police psychology student with a 3.0 grade average.

Ms. Mangum was working for a local escort service, Bunny Hole Entertainment, when she went to the Duke Lacrosse party. Ms. Mangum told The News & Observer she had worked for the escort service for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week.

"It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule.
Ms. Mangum also told The News & Observer that the Duke party was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group.

Ms. Mangum went to the Duke Lacrosse party without a chaperone or security and was dressed only in her revealing dance outfit - a negligee and shiny white strappy high heels. Professional "exotic dance" performers say both actions are considered unprofessional.

Travis Mangum went to Duke University Medical Center the morning following the incident, but was unable to see his daughter

Posted by: Connie at Mon Jun 12 08:47:42 2006 (ajrIV)

8 Well, folks, what do you think -- delete teh above comment or not?

I don't particularly agree with rape shield laws, and don't feel the accuser has any more of a moral right to privacy than the accusers -- but I wonder if the above goes a bit too far in exposing her life to the world.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 12 09:01:20 2006 (yiZ7/)

9 The above information was all located on the internet at http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/05/duke-lacrosse-case-nifong-rope-dope.html

Information regarding her identity soon began circulating on the internet after questions arose about whether she was lying.

Internet sources revealing her identity: dilby.com, freerepublic.com, tdaxp, brain-terminal.com, and standyourground.com.


Radio personality, Tom Leykis, identified Ms. Mangum on his nationally syndicated radio show, Friday afternoon, April 21st.

Her identity was also easily deduced from information provided in news reports. Matt Drudge said Ms. Mangum's name on his Sunday, April 23rd, radio show.

Do what you need, but I for one feel that she (I am a female too) does not deserve protection under the law. I feel the boys are the victims here and their names have been out for months. Do the boys deserve this because she lied?

Posted by: Connie at Mon Jun 12 09:22:06 2006 (ajrIV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
20kb generated in CPU 0.0068, elapsed 0.0166 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0114 seconds, 38 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]