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

[HisArpy]

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.

Well, you know, to some one grain of sand is an entire beach.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

Lol, tell that to the cops and see how far it gets you.

 

[pecksniff]

Legal possession of a gun is a Constitutionally protected right.

Voter intimidation is not. It's a crime. And being armed can be an element. Being armed can be an element in a lot of things -- armed robbery is a more serious crime than strongarm robbery.

 

[butters]

people in london tend to keep their voting a private matter. sure, some stick up signs in their windows or gardens, but most understand that getting along with their neighbours depends on not talking too much about politics. As i understand it from here, it's similar. Country neighbours are more dependent on eachother than townies, but townies are packed in tighter and so the opportunity for things to go pear-shaped quickly are greater.

so:

two scenarios... let's see if russian puppetbot can determine any difference between a and b, or if one would be considered (by the genuine) as intimidation while the other not at all

a) one or two regular-looking people with a clipboard come to your door, asking if you'd mind answering a couple of survey questions about who you voted for and why. If you agree, they smile politely, read a few questions, tick a couple of boxes, thank you for your time and leave. If you don't want to partake, they thank you and apologise for bothering you and leave.

b) one or three trucks pull up and discharge a bunch of people, clearly armed, a few even wearing camouflage pants/jackets. They are wearing "official-looking" badges and identify themselves as "from the county". They tell you they are looking into voter fraud allegations and demand to know how you voted, how many people live in your household and their ages & names (to confirm that information they already have been given from voter-lists). You might give that information freely, not considering their behaviour so far as threatening. You may decline and get harassed as if they have the authority to question you and that to refuse to answer is indicative of wrongdoing. Some even accuse you of voting fraudulently, and speak of 'citizen arrests/fines/litigation'. They then start taking photographs of your property without your permission, ignoring your demands for them to leave or your silent fear/anger.

anyone see a difference?

 

[LittleDixie]

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.

I gave you my advice. If you're so sure that you're right and that you need to go kill people, then have at it. I don't think that the law works how you think it does, but you don't have to listen to me or anyone but the Judge during sentencing. I'd hope you would not actually kill people you don't know because of some indistinct fear.

Voter intimidation is not. It's a crime. And being armed can be an element. Being armed can be an element in a lot of things -- armed robbery is a more serious crime than strongarm robbery.

Yes, you're right. But, my argument is that having a gun is not intimidation. Having multiple guns is not intimidation. Having multiple big guns is not intimidation. If you commit a crime with a deadly weapon, then they will come after you, but legally having a firearm is not a crime.

one or three trucks pull up and discharge a bunch of people, clearly armed, a few even wearing camouflage pants/jackets. They are wearing "official-looking" badges and identify themselves as "from the county". They tell you they are looking into voter fraud allegations and demand to know how you voted, how many people live in your household and their ages & names (to confirm that information they already have been given from voter-lists). You might give that information freely, not considering their behaviour so far as threatening. You may decline and get harassed as if they have the authority to question you and that to refuse to answer is indicative of wrongdoing. Some even accuse you of voting fraudulently, and speak of 'citizen arrests/fines/litigation'. They then start taking photographs of your property without your permission, ignoring your demands for them to leave or your silent fear/anger.

You're clearly embellishing for effect.

 

[butters]

I gave you my advice. If you're so sure that you're right and that you need to go kill people, then have at it. I don't think that the law works how you think it does, but you don't have to listen to me or anyone but the Judge during sentencing. I'd hope you would not actually kill people you don't know because of some indistinct fear.

Yes, you're right. But, my argument is that having a gun is not intimidation. Having multiple guns is not intimidation. Having multiple big guns is not intimidation. If you commit a crime with a deadly weapon, then they will come after you, but legally having a firearm is not a crime.


You're clearly embellishing for effect.

i wasn't. there've been reports of exactly this happening. you choose not to read or listen to those, or simply deny them. not a single person here is surprised you fail to reply to the question because it would mean contradicting your earlier position. go dance some more, puppet.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, you're right. But, my argument is that having a gun is not intimidation. Having multiple guns is not intimidation. Having multiple big guns is not intimidation.

Only if you keep them out of sight.

 

[Rockymtnman]

I gave you my advice. If you're so sure that you're right and that you need to go kill people, then have at it. I don't think that the law works how you think it does, but you don't have to listen to me or anyone but the Judge during sentencing. I'd hope you would not actually kill people you don't know because of some indistinct fear.

Yes, you're right. But, my argument is that having a gun is not intimidation. Having multiple guns is not intimidation. Having multiple big guns is not intimidation. If you commit a crime with a deadly weapon, then they will come after you, but legally having a firearm is not a crime.


You're clearly embellishing for effect.

It’s not fear. 99% of people couldn’t hit me from 10 feet away. What it is, is my right to not have people on my property that are not supposed to be there. You come to my house uninvited, carrying weapons, then I must assume it’s for nefarious purposes and I then as the homeowner get to act accordingly as is guaranteed by the laws in this state.

 

[LittleDixie]

Butters, here are the claims you made. I marked in red the fabrications and distortions.

• People drove one or three trucks to these neighborhoods. The word "truck" does not appear in the article.
• A "bunch of people" went to each residence. The article does not support this claim.
• This "bunch of people" were clearly armed. The article says that some of the group are armed.
• A few in the "bunch of people" were wearing camouflage pants/jackets. The word "camouflage" does not appear in the article.
• They were wearing "official-looking" badges. The article says that SOME members wore "badges", but it does not elaborate on what this means. I don't see anywhere in the article where it claims the badges were official looking.
• They identified themselves as "from the county". This is a claim made in the article.
• They said that they are looking into voter fraud allegations. This is their stated goal and is a claim made in the article.
• They demanded to know how people voted. The word "demand" does not appear in the article. The article says that "USEIP agents interrogate[d] voters about their addresses, whether they participated in the 2020 election, and — if so — how they cast their vote". I think interrogate is being used colorfully in place of the word "ask", and it is not clear if how they cast their vote refers to the method of voting or the actual choice of candidate. That's not clear.
• They demanded to know how many people live the households they visited. This claim is not made in the article.
• They demanded to know the ages of the people. This claim is not made in the article.
• They demanded to know their names (to confirm that information they already have been given from voter-lists). This claim is not made in the article.
• They harassed people as if they had the authority to question them. They were not accused of harassment. This claim is not made in the article.
• They said that to refusal to answer is indicative of wrongdoing. This claim is not made in the article.
• Some of the "bunch" accused people of voting fraudulently. This claim is not made in the article.
• Some of the "bunch" spoke of 'citizen arrests/fines/litigation'. This claim is not made in the article.
• They then start taking photographs of your property without your permission. The article says that photographs were taken of homes. The context and circumstance of these is in question. Was it with or without permission? Was it from a sidewalk or public access (ie totally legal)? Details matter.
• People demanded that the "bunch" leave. This claim is not made in the article.
• Those requests to leave were ignored. This claim is not made in the article.

It's clear that you are inventing a fantasy in your brain and pretending that it is real. Most of the claims that you made were creations of your biases, and were not alleged to have happened. Here is a revealing quote from the article.

The lawsuit does not offer specific examples of voters being intimidated or harassed by armed canvassers...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ters-lawsuit/ar-AAVjway?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

[LittleDixie]

It’s not fear. 99% of people couldn’t hit me from 10 feet away. What it is, is my right to not have people on my property that are not supposed to be there. You come to my house uninvited, carrying weapons, then I must assume it’s for nefarious purposes and I then as the homeowner get to act accordingly as is guaranteed by the laws in this state.

I'd advise others not to take legal advice from you. If you shoot someone, the police will put you in a room and do everything in their power to put you in a cage. There are justifiable uses of lethal force, but there is a high bar, and you have got to prove that the situation was serious and that you did not have another option. People have gone to prison for murder that thought that they were on legally safe ground.

You charging out of your house with a shotgun, shooting at people you don't know who happen to be armed is likely to get everything you love taken away from you for decades (or forever).

 

[HisArpy]

people in london tend to keep their voting a private matter. sure, some stick up signs in their windows or gardens, but most understand that getting along with their neighbours depends on not talking too much about politics. As i understand it from here, it's similar. Country neighbours are more dependent on eachother than townies, but townies are packed in tighter and so the opportunity for things to go pear-shaped quickly are greater.

so:

two scenarios... let's see if russian puppetbot can determine any difference between a and b, or if one would be considered (by the genuine) as intimidation while the other not at all

a) one or two regular-looking people with a clipboard come to your door, asking if you'd mind answering a couple of survey questions about who you voted for and why. If you agree, they smile politely, read a few questions, tick a couple of boxes, thank you for your time and leave. If you don't want to partake, they thank you and apologise for bothering you and leave.

b) one or three trucks pull up and discharge a bunch of people, clearly armed, a few even wearing camouflage pants/jackets. They are wearing "official-looking" badges and identify themselves as "from the county". They tell you they are looking into voter fraud allegations and demand to know how you voted, how many people live in your household and their ages & names (to confirm that information they already have been given from voter-lists). You might give that information freely, not considering their behaviour so far as threatening. You may decline and get harassed as if they have the authority to question you and that to refuse to answer is indicative of wrongdoing. Some even accuse you of voting fraudulently, and speak of 'citizen arrests/fines/litigation'. They then start taking photographs of your property without your permission, ignoring your demands for them to leave or your silent fear/anger.

anyone see a difference?

Sweety, this ain't London. You want London go back there and enjoy the rest of your miserable life in the company of others who believe the same things you do.

 

[HisArpy]

I'd advise others not to take legal advice from you. If you shoot someone, the police will put you in a room and do everything in their power to put you in a cage. There are justifiable uses of lethal force, but there is a high bar, and you have got to prove that the situation was serious and that you did not have another option. People have gone to prison for murder that thought that they were on legally safe ground.

You charging out of your house with a shotgun, shooting at people you don't know who happen to be armed is likely to get everything you love taken away from you for decades (or forever).

The guy's a complete basket case of bullshit and a danger to himself and others. Maybe Butterz can get off her fat ass and report him to the FBI because he has gunz and stuff.

 

[Rockymtnman]

The guy's a complete basket case of bullshit and a danger to himself and others. Maybe Butterz can get off her fat ass and report him to the FBI because he has gunz and stuff.

Hardly, Im quite reasonable. I’m no danger to anyone unless they get through my gate or over my fence, walk the 200 yards to my front door, through the signs that say no trespassing or hunting. again, I would face absolutely ZERO prosecution for shooting someone on my property. the fence and gate aren’t even for protection from people really. Keeps the fucking coyotes away from my dogs and the few livestock I have but it is well posted to keep out. In the end it would be RMM 1 - trespassers - 0

oh and by the way, even though I’m left of center, the county I live in is right as hell. The sherif would shake my hand.

 

[HisArpy]

Hardly, Im quite reasonable. I’m no danger to anyone unless they get through my gate or over my fence, walk the 200 yards to my front door, through the signs that say no trespassing or hunting. again, I would face absolutely ZERO prosecution for shooting someone on my property. the fence and gate aren’t even for protection from people really. Keeps the fucking coyotes away from my dogs and the few livestock I have but it is well posted to keep out. In the end it would be RMM 1 - trespassers - 0

oh and by the way, even though I’m left of center, the county I live in is right as hell. The sherif would shake my hand.

Sure chief.

Tell you what, why don't you make a call to your local sheriff and ask him his opinion on what you propose to do. I mean, if you're going to make statements about what the sheriff would do in any given situation, it might be best to be sure that's what he IS going to do. So, go ahead and call him up and ask. I'm sure he'll listen and take notes of what you say during the call.

 

[Rockymtnman]

Sure chief.

Tell you what, why don't you make a call to your local sheriff and ask him his opinion on what you propose to do. I mean, if you're going to make statements about what the sheriff would do in any given situation, it might be best to be sure that's what he IS going to do. So, go ahead and call him up and ask. I'm sure he'll listen and take notes of what you say during the call.

How about I ask him sunday when we head into town to play some golf? I mean, in between the beer and cigars I’ll bring it up. Oh did I forget to mention he’s been a friend for over 40 years? I must do it fast though he’s not running for re-election. Supposed to be 75 Sunday, slight breeze too. should be fun.

 

[phrodeau]

“Ho there! Mind if we play through?”

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

 

[Dribble]

I felt scared for my life...these armed men showed up and threatened me...so I shot them

 

[Rockymtnman]

“Ho there! Mind if we play through?”

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

we take our golf quit seriously.

 

[HisArpy]

How about I ask him sunday when we head into town to play some golf? I mean, in between the beer and cigars I’ll bring it up. Oh did I forget to mention he’s been a friend for over 40 years? I must do it fast though he’s not running for re-election. Supposed to be 75 Sunday, slight breeze too. should be fun.

We'll wait breathlessly for you to post about your courage in asking a sheriff if it's ok to just shoot people who appear on your doorstep to sell you cookies.

 

[Rockymtnman]

We'll wait breathlessly for you to post about your courage in asking a sheriff if it's ok to just shoot people who appear on your doorstep to sell you cookies.

That’s not we are talking about and you know it.

The discussion is about ARMED individuals, coming up to your door demanding information they have no right to ask for nor have they asked for permission to enter on to your property. Girls scouts, ups guys, friends, family and even people I don’t know are welcome to knock on my door. the ONLY people in danger of getting shot on my property are people I do not know that are carrying guns.

Then that’s on them for two reasons, they know it’s trespassing as they don’t know the owner and clearly do not have permission to be there and two THERE ARE BIG FUCKING signs posted along my fence line that specifically states if they are trespassing, getting shot is a real possibility.

 

[Comshaw]

I'd advise others not to take legal advice from you. If you shoot someone, the police will put you in a room and do everything in their power to put you in a cage. There are justifiable uses of lethal force, but there is a high bar, and you have got to prove that the situation was serious and that you did not have another option. People have gone to prison for murder that thought that they were on legally safe ground.

You charging out of your house with a shotgun, shooting at people you don't know who happen to be armed is likely to get everything you love taken away from you for decades (or forever).

Bejesus! Do you know ANYTHING about logical arguments? He never said he was going to shoot someone if they come onto his property visibly armed. He said they would be met with the business end of a 12 ga, IE: he would be carrying it and have it ready (muzzle pointed in their general direction) to use. You twisted that to what you wanted it to be, that he would come out shooting.

As far as knowing the law, many do not take the time to find out what the local laws are. As a person with a CCP and a lifetime of being around firearms, I do know them, in case I'm ever in a situation where I will need to use a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. I can tell you that I am with RMM, someone comes to my door visibly armed and I don't know them, they will be met with an autoloading 12 ga. full of 00 buck. And to be clear, I'd never fire on any one UNLESS I saw a muzzle being swing up to point at me. I don't have to wait for them to fire for it to be self-defense. By law I only have to be threatened with bodily harm by lethal force, especially on my property. I would advise anyone who has a firearm to be familiar with the laws that govern its use.

But let's get back to these guys and them showing up at people's door armed. I am not familiar with the laws in that state, but if they are open carrying, it must be legal there. BUT it is only legal in a public place. As soon as they set foot on private property, they are subject to that person's rules. To be clear, it is not incumbent on the property owner to tell them of the rules, it is the responsibility of the ones coming onto the owner's property to ask the rules.

As far as open carry, there is only one reason to do so, intimidation. The ol' "Look at me, I'm a badass! Don't fuck with me! I'm armed and I'm
showing it off!" attitude. To do so while calling on people to question them about their voting habits is a perfect example. There is no other reason to carry a firearm in that situation, other than to intimidate those you are going to interview. They don't feel safe without one? Fine, leave it with their buddy on the public sidewalk. If they still don't feel safe, then the ones they are calling on, the people that are in fear when they see an armed person at their front door, aren't the snowflakes.


Comshaw

 

[butters]

Bejesus! Do you know ANYTHING about logical arguments? He never said he was going to shoot someone if they come onto his property visibly armed. He said they would be met with the business end of a 12 ga, IE: he would be carrying it and have it ready (muzzle pointed in their general direction) to use. You twisted that to what you wanted it to be, that he would come out shooting.

As far as knowing the law, many do not take the time to find out what the local laws are. As a person with a CCP and a lifetime of being around firearms, I do know them, in case I'm ever in a situation where I will need to use a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. I can tell you that I am with RMM, someone comes to my door visibly armed and I don't know them, they will be met with an autoloading 12 ga. full of 00 buck. And to be clear, I'd never fire on any one UNLESS I saw a muzzle being swing up to point at me. I don't have to wait for them to fire for it to be self-defense. By law I only have to be threatened with bodily harm by lethal force, especially on my property. I would advise anyone who has a firearm to be familiar with the laws that govern its use.

But let's get back to these guys and them showing up at people's door armed. I am not familiar with the laws in that state, but if they are open carrying, it must be legal there. BUT it is only legal in a public place. As soon as they set foot on private property, they are subject to that person's rules. To be clear, it is not incumbent on the property owner to tell them of the rules, it is the responsibility of the ones coming onto the owner's property to ask the rules.

As far as open carry, there is only one reason to do so, intimidation. The ol' "Look at me, I'm a badass! Don't fuck with me! I'm armed and I'm
showing it off!" attitude. To do so while calling on people to question them about their voting habits is a perfect example. There is no other reason to carry a firearm in that situation, other than to intimidate those you are going to interview. They don't feel safe without one? Fine, leave it with their buddy on the public sidewalk. If they still don't feel safe, then the ones they are calling on, the people that are in fear when they see an armed person at their front door, aren't the snowflakes.


Comshaw

^^ this

 

[pecksniff]

The important question here is why we are even debating this. That is, how did we get to a point where the events described in the OP could happen at all?!

 

[YDB95]

Bejesus! Do you know ANYTHING about logical arguments?

No, "she" does not. We've been knowing this for quite some time.

 

[LittleDixie]

Okay, tough guys, settle down. I don't think any of you actually has the balls to do what you're talking about, but go ahead and puff yourself up for the internet.

It is NEVER legal to threaten another person with a gun. If you or another person are in danger AT THAT MOMENT, you could draw and, if necessary, use the gun; but to issue a threat to someone with a gun would potentially make you criminally liable.

https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/is-it-illegal-to-shoot-so-70135/