A stick? A STICK? “As in, here, Fido, go fetch.”? Listen to yourself. The guy is in para-military gear holding a police baton of sorts, outside A POLLING STATION!
You have no problem with that?
Can you not see the significant differences between two situations? Even in your hypothetical you have the Klan members actively verbally assaulting and trying to intimidate voters. In the real life case, where there reports of the Black Panthers verbally assaulting anyone or acting in a menacing manner? Is there any reason to believe anyone was intimidated?
Heh heh “paramilitary.” What do you call cammies and and assault rifle?
It was a stick, dude. A baton is a stick.
Oh, “police baton”, my ass! Look closely at the picture, do you see an A321/F Splash Suppressor? Or a CHH Sure-Grip handle? Of course not, for this is a standard civilian-type stick, legally purchased at stick shows all around the country by patriotic, law-abiding stick owners, for legitimate purposes like gutter-snipe bashing and target smacking!
Such ignorance clearly demonstrates that you cannot have a legitimate opinion on the subject…
Yeah, and a gun is a metal apparatus. (Plus, please point to the specific instance you’re talking about and I’ll comment on it.)
Now look, do you or do you not have a problem with those Black Panthers doing what they did at a voting place? Cannot you not opine on that without resorting to a tu quoque?
It is disingenuous to describe the situation as “holding a stick.” Read the account from someone who was there.
The entire affidavit is here. The stick was either a billy club or a nightstick. Either way, it was a weapon and not just a stick. The fact that teabaggers are wrong too is no justification for this behavior.
U.S. Code, TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 20 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1971
§ 1971. Voting rights
…(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.
© Preventive relief; injunction; rebuttable literacy presumption; liability of United States for costs; State as party defendant
Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order. If in any such proceeding literacy is a relevant fact there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election. In any proceeding hereunder the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person. Whenever, in a proceeding instituted under this subsection any official of a State or subdivision thereof is alleged to have committed any act or practice constituting a deprivation of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) of this section, the act or practice shall also be deemed that of the State and the State may be joined as a party defendant and, if, prior to the institution of such proceeding, such official has resigned or has been relieved of his office and no successor has assumed such office, the proceeding may be instituted against the State.
So? That…that’s…that’s just law stuff. Plus there’s nothing in there about a “stick”. So there!!! 
The guy with the nightstick (and tapping it) is still charged and will be prosecuted. The guy standing next to him and the leadership of the New Black Panther Party had the charges dismissed. PDF cite.
This thread is straying farther and farther away from Harry Reid, but I wonder how often prosecutors dismiss charges when the defendants or their attorneys never file motions.
Oh, and for those lefties who don’t want to don their conservatism-blocking goggles to hunt down any facts present in the blogosphere can check out this link. It has some interesting info, including cites.
There was no “intimidation” or “threats.” It was a fucking guy with a stick. No matter hjow much righties want to try to trick it out and draw Dracula fangs on it, at the end of the day, it was a guy with a stick who threatened nobody. The Panthers were just a little worried that rednecks would try to fuck with Obama voters.
Meanwhile, there are teabaggers with guns skulking around outside areas where the President is speaking, and holding up signs calling for assassination and violent revolt, but that’s not intimidating or threatening at all.
If that were true, the DOJ would have dropped the charges against all of the defendants.
You’re unbelievable. You keep calling it a stick. It was a nightstick, a billy club. The fact that you continue to try to reframe what happened with such games reveals you to be beyond biased. YOU weren’t there. Bartle Bull was there. A liberal civil right’s attorney who worked for Robert Kennedy. Face reality, wouldya.
A night stick is still just a stick. It’s nothing. It’s really weird that you guys are terrified of guys with sticks, but not guys with guns.
That’s why you see so many riot policemen carrying hickory switches. Believe it or not, it’s possible to be afraid of both.
But why be afraid of ONLY the sticks, and not the guns? That’s what’s preposterous.
I’ve scoured the thread and I haven’t found any support for bringing guns to polling places.
I didn’t say I was terrified of anything. And I didn’t say protesters with guns outside of the President’s speech isn’t an issue. But let’s be clear - those protesters might be in violation of various state and federal laws, but they aren’t violating any election laws as there is no current election.
The individual with the nightstick was charged with a violation of the Voting Rights Act - I have linked the section likely in question. And while it probably isn’t wise to proclaim that a crime was committed (since the case is pending) the reverse is also true - proclaiming that there was no crime when a criminal charge is working its way through the courts is just stupid.
Why can’t you simply focus on this incident. Really, you’re looking beyond desperate, here. But I think you might be having one of your impenetrable Dio-Will-Not-Face Facts episodes. And I’m going to get off that train now as opposed to 6 more pages in. Just listen to yourself. “A nightstick is just a stick.” If it were, we wouldn’t have the term “nightstick”. I suppose since a flame thrower and a cigarette lighter both emit flame, they’re both just “lighters”, right? :rolleyes: