Well, she was outraged that he asked her to leash her dog in a place where dogs legally need to be leashed. He wasn’t just Black, he was a Black man asserting his rights under the law. Can’t have THAT.
So, 15 years ago, the NBPP was charged with voter intimidation, but the charges were dropped. What does that have to do with the so called “Republican War on Voting”?
Not an answer to the question asked but, thanks for playing!
What did your question, such as it is, have to do with an alleged Republican War on Voting? No one claimed, and I quote, “behavior by white folks is just fine but by black folks is intimidation”. Your statement was not a question, it’s a smear.
It’s a fact unless you’ve been living under a rock.
Yes, Black guys with sticks get arrested for intimidation and White guys with, fucking, guns . . . DON’T.
That certain Republicans are defending the “right” of armed hooligans to intimidate voters at polling places.
The judge found that there was no evidence of intimidation:
"Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any evidence that Defendants’ conduct constitutes a true threat,” the judge wrote. “On this record, Defendants have not made any statements threatening to commit acts of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
Not the first (or second or even third) time you’ve repeated the judge’s ruling.
Yes, because the judge is the trier of fact, not this, or any, message board.
Yes, and that didn’t stop conservatives from claiming that the Obama administration pulled strings at Justice to protect their clever plan to keep White people from voting for more than four years after the initial incident.
He does not have the right to determine my opinion of his ruling.
Of course not. Likewise, you do not have the right to determine what the law is.
I didn’t know this thread was in the Factual Questions forum.
No, but one is allowed to opine as to whether the law was applied correctly or consistently.
Excusing race as an issue, the question boils down to “in your opinion, was the law applied consistently when people were arrested for voter intimidation in 2008, and not arrested for essentially the same thing in 2022?”
If i understand the details correctly, this case was much more egregious than the 2008 case.
He is. He is nonetheless capable of being racist and of making a bad ruling. And the claim here isn’t that his ruling has no weight of law. It’s that his ruling was wrong.
And the evidence given has been to point out that any normal person would, in fact, feel intimidated by these men. (the “reasonable man” standard) That’s why you’ve been asked if you would feel intimidated if you were treated the way those voters were treated.
Jim Crow laws used to be legal too.
And after all, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask voters to demonstrate literacy before allowing them to vote. I don’t know why people got so upset about this. /s
The word “menacing” also comes to mind.
Quote lifted from an AZ lawyer’s web site:
“Under Section 13-202 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, if you threaten to cause physical injury to someone or serious damage to their property, or uses threats or intimidation to cause public inconvenience or evacuation, you are guilty of a class one misdemeanor.”
It’s certainly possible that wielding a firearm and accosting voters about being “mules” can definitely be described as “indimidation.”
The Birdwatching incident does not prove your point. The black dude was not detained, questioned or arrested, since they were both gone.