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
    link
    247 minutes 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      219 minutes 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.”

  • @Feathercrown
    link
    English
    294 hours ago

    What’s funny is, the system failed the test! If it worked, he would be in jail.

    • Tiefling IRL
      link
      fedilink
      52 hours ago

      If the system worked, Trump would be rotting in solitary confinement, not running for president

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    815 hours ago

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

    • @Buffalox
      link
      385 hours ago

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

    • TunaCowboy
      link
      32 hours ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 minutes 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 admissable 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.

  • @Buffalox
    link
    61
    edit-2
    5 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
    link
    English
    405 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 minutes 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
      link
      165 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.

      • @Grimy
        link
        94 hours ago

        The first one I can kind of agree with tbh.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          74 hours ago

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

          • @Grimy
            link
            1
            edit-2
            40 minutes 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
            link
            English
            44 hours ago

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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 hours ago

              Depends on the state. In mine it doesn’t matter. If someone dies while you’re committing a crime, you’re responsible regardless.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 hours ago

        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

  • notsure
    link
    fedilink
    265 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?

    • @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      135 hours ago

      It was a jury trial and the county went 51% trump four years ago…

      So depends on what the jury makeup is.

      • abff08f4813c
        link
        fedilink
        74 hours ago

        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.

          • abff08f4813c
            link
            fedilink
            34 hours ago

            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.

      • The Pantser
        link
        44 hours ago

        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.

      • @Boddhisatva
        link
        34 hours ago

        Yep. Sounds like jury nullification for Trump supporters if you get tried in the right place.

  • Media Bias Fact CheckerB
    link
    -15 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