Pro-Trump group sent armed members door-to-door in Colorado to “intimidate” voters: Lawsuit

[Rightguide]

If you're black and a gang of armed whites come to your house to ask how you voted, that's a lot more than a dirty look.

So a "gang" of armed whites came to the doors of black people to intimidate them into voting for a given candidate? Was the FBI and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ notified?

 

[pecksniff]

So a "gang" of armed whites came to the doors of black people to intimidate them into voting for a given candidate? Was the FBI and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ notified?

I suspect, rather, to discourage them from voting at all.

 

[YDB95]

Were any arrests made? Was anyone charged with armed voter intimidation or was this another highly biased narrative by Salon? Walking around armed in an open carry state is not intimidation.

Says the white guy whose side the gun-toting thugs are on.
It's not your place to decide whether other people felt intimidated, anyway.

 

[LittleDixie]

How about being armed and black?

Are you saying that an armed black person meets the legal definition of intimidation? Is that your position?

 

[phrodeau]

Are you saying that an armed black person meets the legal definition of intimidation? Is that your position?

It has been for some.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

 

[pecksniff]

Are you saying that an armed black person meets the legal definition of intimidation? Is that your position?

You know as well as I do that if the people in the J6 crowd had been black, a lot of them would have died that day.

 

[LittleDixie]

you read the article? you didn't see this as a form of intimidation?

I do not see it as intimidation, no.

 

[pecksniff]

I do not see it as intimidation, no.

You're lying.

 

[LittleDixie]

It has been for some.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

And what was the outcome of that case? The government dropped all charges against all but one and that one had an injunction against him carrying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling station.

Not much of a verdict.

 

[LittleDixie]

You're lying.

Believe what you want to believe. Being armed is not intimidation, and it should not be considered intimidation. If you can press charges for someone legally carrying a gun, then you can press charges on someone legally carrying a knife or being a bodybuilder or being a known martial arts person. The precedent set would be anyone who can conceivably do bodily harm - even if they do not overtly threaten someone - is a potential criminal intimidator.

All police officers would fall under this rule.

 

[pecksniff]

Believe what you want to believe. Being armed is not intimidation, and it should not be considered intimidation. If you can press charges for someone legally carrying a gun, then you can press charges on someone legally carrying a knife or being a bodybuilder or being a known martial arts person. The precedent set would be anyone who can conceivably do bodily harm - even if they do not overtly threaten someone - is a potential criminal intimidator.

All police officers would fall under this rule.

You know that's false equivalence.

 

[phrodeau]

And what was the outcome of that case? The government dropped all charges against all but one and that one had an injunction against him carrying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling station.

Not much of a verdict.

Here’s a source you can trust.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/no-3-at-justice-okd-panther-reversal/

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, R-VA: “If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable?”

 

[Rockymtnman]

Were any arrests made? Was anyone charged with armed voter intimidation or was this another highly biased narrative by Salon? Walking around armed in an open carry state is not intimidation.

I see armed people walking up to my door that clearly aren’t law
enforcement they will be meeting the business end of my 12 gauge.

 

[LittleDixie]

You know that's false equivalence.

How so? We are talking about intimidation, and what is being threatened is physical harm.

You don't need a gun to hurt someone. Once you say that the possession of the means to do harm (a gun), is inherently intimidating, then you set the stage for the next step.

He possessed the means to do harm (muscles and martial arts training), so he is charged with intimidation.
She possessed the means to do harm (car), so she is charged with intimidation.
They posessed the means to do harm (boots), to they were all charged with intimidation.

Functionally, what is the difference between a gun and any other means of doing damage?

 

[LittleDixie]

I see armed people walking up to my door that clearly aren’t law
enforcement they will be meeting the business end of my 12 gauge.

I would advise against that. You'd be the one going to jail in that case.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I see armed people walking up to my door that clearly aren’t law
enforcement they will be meeting the business end of my 12 gauge.

Exactly.

But this thread isn't about intimidation; it's about Butters and Pecker using their deeply seeded racism as a virtue signal. They are "old school" racists that believe all people of color are weak and need the protection of some enlightened and intellectual whites, like themselves.

 

[Chobham]

Of course there IS an alternate view of the actions. Who in their right mind would go into a predominately black neighborhood to do door to door canvasing unarmed?

 

[pecksniff]

How so? We are talking about intimidation, and what is being threatened is physical harm.

You don't need a gun to hurt someone. Once you say that the possession of the means to do harm (a gun), is inherently intimidating, then you set the stage for the next step.

He possessed the means to do harm (muscles and martial arts training), so he is charged with intimidation.
She possessed the means to do harm (car), so she is charged with intimidation.
They posessed the means to do harm (boots), to they were all charged with intimidation.

Functionally, what is the difference between a gun and any other means of doing damage?

A knife in your pocket, or even visibly strapped to your side, is not intimidating in the same way as a gun strapped to your side.

 

[butters]

Exactly.

But this thread isn't about intimidation; it's about Butters and Pecker using their deeply seeded racism as a virtue signal. They are "old school" racists that believe all people of color are weak and need the protection of some enlightened and intellectual whites, like themselves.

ok, you've fucking slipped your leash ; i'm sure you know someone who'll pat you on the head and tell you you're right, no matter my entire --what--14 years' worth of posts here that entirely refute that, and that spouting that shit makes you a good boy... hell, they might even tickle your belly for you if you roll over and kiss arse.

you deserve nothing better than ignore. kool aide's clearly your drug of choice.

 

[LittleDixie]

A knife in your pocket, or even visibly strapped to your side, is not intimidating in the same way as a gun strapped to your side.

In the same way? What does that mean, legally? Knives are a much more common method of homicide than rifles. Does that mean that showing up to your house with an AR-15 is less intimidating?

What do you mean by the same way?

 

[Rockymtnman]

I would advise against that. You'd be the one going to jail in that case.

Not really. They’re on my property, with weapons that could kill me and my family, they are trespassing as they have not been invited and have no rights to be there. Stand your ground laws save my ass 100% of the time. people, I don’t know, on my property with guns.. they’re dead.

 

[pecksniff]

In the same way? What does that mean, legally? Knives are a much more common method of homicide than rifles. Does that mean that showing up to your house with an AR-15 is less intimidating?

What do you mean by the same way?

Just imagine it happening to you. You would be more intimidated if they were strapped with pistols than knives (which you might not even notice), still more if they were carrying rifles. These people chose to wear guns for sound psychological reasons.

Also, see post #25. These are not mentally stable people themselves.

 

[KeithD]

These are not mentally stable people themselves.

Which is probably a good reason not to try to talk sense to Little Dixie on any of this.

 

[LittleDixie]

Not really. They’re on my property, with weapons that could kill me and my family, they are trespassing as they have not been invited and have no rights to be there. Stand your ground laws save my ass 100% of the time. people, I don’t know, on my property with guns.. they’re dead.

That's not how self defense works. You're not allowed to shoot people who aren't threatening you. Possessing a firearm or a knife is not a direct threat. You coming out of your home with a shotgun to engage with people who are simply armed is likely to get you killed or sent to prison. Stand your ground laws have legal requirements you have to fulfill to have the legal protection.

Just imagine it happening to you. You would be more intimidated if they were strapped with pistols than knives (which you might not even notice), still more if they were carrying rifles. These people chose to wear guns for sound psychological reasons.

Also, see post #25. These are not mentally stable people themselves.

Legal possession of a gun is a Constitutionally protected right. You will not find any court that will find that simply legally possessing a gun is a criminal act. I don't see anyone claiming that they threatened them with violence, or threatened to shoot them. Did anyone claim that these people threatened to use their firearm?

 

[Rockymtnman]

That's not how self defense works. You're not allowed to shoot people who aren't threatening you. Possessing a firearm or a knife is not a direct threat. You coming out of your home with a shotgun to engage with people who are simply armed is likely to get you killed or sent to prison. Stand your ground laws have legal requirements you have to fulfill to have the legal protection.


Legal possession of a gun is a Constitutionally protected right. You will not find any court that will find that simply legally possessing a gun is a criminal act. I don't see anyone claiming that they threatened them with violence, or threatened to shoot them. Did anyone claim that these people threatened to use their firearm?

Do you understand the law at all? If you come on my land, uninvited, carrying deadly weapon, and I don’t know you. Well, I assume you mean me harm and therefore I have the right to defend myself. People get off all the time around this country. And believe me, it won’t be me that dies.

quit being so fucking obtuse. You know godamn well if you saw a bunch of armed people walking up to your house you’d feel threatened, especially if you had no idea who they were. And if you didn’t come loaded for bear, well then you’re an idiot.