New Black Panther case

[Anonymous]

Are you still in college by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you still in college by any chance?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

I wouldn't. Voter intimidation, in any form, is disgusting. Unfortunately our AG seems to pick and choose his umbrage (and reading material...)

I am truly amazed that anyone can see the video, with audio, and claim there was no intent to intimidate voters? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

I wouldn't. Voter intimidation, in any form, is disgusting. Unfortunately our AG seems to pick and choose his umbrage (and reading material...)

I am truly amazed that anyone can see the video, with audio, and claim there was no intent to intimidate voters? Really?

Thanks for misrepresenting what I said. What I said was I wouldn't be okay with voter intimidation of any kind. And that I think the actions of the individual with the billy club were inappropriate, bordering on illegal. I do think that the video isn't the best representation of what happened that day because the person in question was A) not a voter and B) deliberately provocative.

But go ahead. Misrepresent what I said to the point of completely misquoting me and taking what I said out of context. Well played, sir. You've demonstrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I am truly amazed that anyone can see the video, with audio, and claim there was no intent to intimidate voters? Really?

I don't believe "intent" is discernable at all from the video. Certainly, no intimidation is demonstrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

I wouldn't. Voter intimidation, in any form, is disgusting. Unfortunately our AG seems to pick and choose his umbrage (and reading material...)

I am truly amazed that anyone can see the video, with audio, and claim there was no intent to intimidate voters? Really?

Thanks for misrepresenting what I said. What I said was I wouldn't be okay with voter intimidation of any kind. And that I think the actions of the individual with the billy club were inappropriate, bordering on illegal. I do think that the video isn't the best representation of what happened that day because the person in question was A) not a voter and B) deliberately provocative.

But go ahead. Misrepresent what I said to the point of completely misquoting me and taking what I said out of context. Well played, sir. You've demonstrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

Provocative? "I'm a college student"?? How provoking. Citizen Journalists can get anyone alarmed, but he seemed fairly mild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

I wouldn't. Voter intimidation, in any form, is disgusting. Unfortunately our AG seems to pick and choose his umbrage (and reading material...)

I am truly amazed that anyone can see the video, with audio, and claim there was no intent to intimidate voters? Really?

Thanks for misrepresenting what I said. What I said was I wouldn't be okay with voter intimidation of any kind. And that I think the actions of the individual with the billy club were inappropriate, bordering on illegal. I do think that the video isn't the best representation of what happened that day because the person in question was A) not a voter and B) deliberately provocative.

But go ahead. Misrepresent what I said to the point of completely misquoting me and taking what I said out of context. Well played, sir. You've demonstrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

Provocative? "I'm a college student"?? How provoking. Citizen Journalists can get anyone alarmed, but he seemed fairly mild.

So we can assume the intent of the Black Panthers but not the videographer? That seems fair. Oh, wait, a double standard that benefits white folks... OF COURSE!

[Anonymous]

I'm the person who said the Black Panthers seemed pretty innocuous as well -- except for the billy club which seems innappopriate (to me) outside a polling station. Calm down and stop looking for a race war where there is none. What is being questioned is voter intimidation--whether whites outside a polling booth, or blacks, or space aliens. Should not occur.

[Anonymous]

As Jeff said, intent is difficult to prove. I might genuinely intend to intimidate voters by standing out front and glowering at everyone who looks like they might vote against my party. But given what I look like, I am sure nobody would be intimidated, or even know that I intended for them to be.

The guy with the nightstick seems more likely to be intimidating, but the one guy I saw interviewed on Fox News said that he walked between the two guys, so he was obviously not intimidated, and, in a clear show of "fair and balanced", the Fox reporter repeated several times that they had no evidence that anyone's voting had actually been interfered with.

So my bottom line is that it's just as likely the guy (who looked kind of small) may simply need a nightstick to make himself feel macho -- silly, but probably not a crime in most places, and not nearly as intimidating as the Second Amendment worshippers who wear their guns in coffee shops and bars.

[Anonymous]

"As Jeff said, intent is difficult to prove. I might genuinely intend to intimidate voters by standing out front and glowering at everyone who looks like they might vote against my party. But given what I look like, I am sure nobody would be intimidated, or even know that I intended for them to be."

I agree with your position but you bring up an important point... if we allow intimidation to be in the eye of the beholder, then we encourage perceptual biases and stereotypes. As you said, "given what [you] look like... nobody would be intimidated." Well, what exactly do you look like? And is it fair that your appearance apparently gives you more latitude with intimidating behavior than someone who might look inherently more intimidating? That doesn't seem right at all.

Without an explicit definition of what constitutes intimidation, we run the risk of creating different standards for different folks. What if it had been an old white lady out front with a billy club? Would we be having the same discussion? Probably not, even though the situations wouldn't really be different in terms of 'intent'.

Note: I'm not attributing this mindset to the PP. I'm just springboarding off his/her comment about how appearance/perception plays into intimidation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As Jeff said, intent is difficult to prove. I might genuinely intend to intimidate voters by standing out front and glowering at everyone who looks like they might vote against my party. But given what I look like, I am sure nobody would be intimidated, or even know that I intended for them to be.

The guy with the nightstick seems more likely to be intimidating, but the one guy I saw interviewed on Fox News said that he walked between the two guys, so he was obviously not intimidated, and, in a clear show of "fair and balanced", the Fox reporter repeated several times that they had no evidence that anyone's voting had actually been interfered with.

So my bottom line is that it's just as likely the guy (who looked kind of small) may simply need a nightstick to make himself feel macho -- silly, but probably not a crime in most places, and not nearly as intimidating as the Second Amendment worshippers who wear their guns in coffee shops and bars.

I'm not sure that you have to accept someone's intimidation in order for them to be intimidating though. The guy who walked between them may have felt uncomfortable, but have been wanting to stand up to intimidation. Just saying.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Without an explicit definition of what constitutes intimidation, we run the risk of creating different standards for different folks. What if it had been an old white lady out front with a billy club? Would we be having the same discussion? Probably not, even though the situations wouldn't really be different in terms of 'intent'.

I believe that you misunderstood the earlier poster's point and that the two of you are actually in agreement. That poster is also arguing that charges of intimidation must be based on actual actions, not peoples' feelings about another's appearance.

[Anonymous]

I would find an old white lady with a billy club outside a voter registration polling place intimidating. I find just walking the gauntlet of last minute politickers a bit much, and I am glad they are not allowed inside. I would basically like my voting experience to be a neutral, painless one. My views should be private and respected and no pressure should be exerted on me as I exercise my right to vote. I am not a big fan of the billy club at the entrance. The guy does not seem particularly threatening, but the presence of a billy club would freak me out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Note: I'm not attributing this mindset to the PP. I'm just springboarding off his/her comment about how appearance/perception plays into intimidation.

Ah, your point about perception hits home! I used to be a teacher, and at final exam time I often had to ask myself whether it was correct to call myself a teacher when it seemed that nothing had actually been taught.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Without an explicit definition of what constitutes intimidation, we run the risk of creating different standards for different folks. What if it had been an old white lady out front with a billy club? Would we be having the same discussion? Probably not, even though the situations wouldn't really be different in terms of 'intent'.

I believe that you misunderstood the earlier poster's point and that the two of you are actually in agreement. That poster is also arguing that charges of intimidation must be based on actual actions, not peoples' feelings about another's appearance.

Jeff-

I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster. I tried to make that apparent but must not have done so. I was simply building off his comment.