Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
Brandishing a weapon while wearing paramilitary gear outside a polling place is an attempt to intimidate. There is no credible way to deny it.The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
Horseshit gay boy. Conservatives jumped up and down saying it was ok for tea baggers to go to protest strapped with automatic rifles. Faux outrage is gay
I said "no CREDIBLE way".No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
Brandishing a weapon while wearing paramilitary gear outside a polling place is an attempt to intimidate. There is no credible way to deny it.The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
Sure there is, call everyone else a racist and move on. Democrat strat 101.
The * was appropriate for your post.What we have is two black men standing in front of a polling place and one of them is carrying a club. The video does not show them approach or harass anyone. The guy with the club is holding it down. If you have more evidence....please provide it
When asked questions they reply politely. The guy with the club was issued a citation and ordered to stay away from polling places for two years. The other guy broke no law.
Now.....why is FoxNews still highlighting this story 18 months after it happened?
because a crime was commited and is now in the process of being covered up like cat shit in a litter box. I just lost all sympathy for the "civil rights movement" it's either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. You can't be a hypocrite about it any longer.
*Truth*
funny how they see a black man with a stick as threatening but think its just great to see white men with guns and unthreatening
You do realize Federal election laws don't cover protests, right?Horseshit gay boy. Conservatives jumped up and down saying it was ok for tea baggers to go to protest strapped with automatic rifles. Faux outrage is gay
No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
Brandishing a weapon while wearing paramilitary gear outside a polling place is an attempt to intimidate. There is no credible way to deny it.The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
That's different. Somehow. It just is.So everyone is on board with the KKK at the polling booth? Are we?
"Vague"?No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
Brandishing a weapon while wearing paramilitary gear outside a polling place is an attempt to intimidate. There is no credible way to deny it.The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
And that is what he was charged with. The vague "attempt to intimidate". Given the circumstances, he was banned from polling places for two years and no other charges were pursued.
Do you have similar case law at polling places where a defendent received a harsher penalty?
No one has to be intimidated. The attempt is illegal.Intimidation?
Do you have evidence anyone was intimidated? You can't see it on your clip. These two gentlemen were politely asked to leave and did so.
Brandishing a weapon while wearing paramilitary gear outside a polling place is an attempt to intimidate. There is no credible way to deny it.The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person [ ] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote."
And that is what he was charged with. The vague "attempt to intimidate". Given the circumstances, he was banned from polling places for two years and no other charges were pursued.
Do you have similar case law at polling places where a defendent received a harsher penalty?
All I know is what is presented..
Two gentlemen standing outside the polling place. The one with the club is violating polling regulations and is told to leave. He does so peacefully
In the annals of civil rights violations.....a minor blip
So you are not aware of the testimonies of eye witnesses including a registered democrat who was a CIVIL RIGHTS attorney working under RFK back in the 60's?
Read his reply, he said "what is presented". All that was presented was a video clip. If the guy who started this thread wanted to prove a point, he should have contributed something more substantiual.
So everyone is on board with the KKK at the polling booth? Are we?
They behave themselves and follow the rules...why not?
So everyone is on board with the KKK at the polling booth? Are we?
So everyone is on board with the KKK at the polling booth? Are we?
They behave themselves and follow the rules...why not?