• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think these Black Panthers should be prosecuted for voter intimidation?

Should these Black Panthers be prosecuted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 86.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 8.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Those who said no.....would you be okay during the election of 2012 if a Tea Partier was standing outside the door of your polling place with a rifle?
 
This isn't about Tea Parties or Rand Paul, Gabriel. Stop trying to derail the thread.

My thoughts EGZAKLY.

Currently, there are federal laws that make voter intimidation illegal, but their lenient penalties have spurred lawmakers to introduce legislation with more teeth. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibit persons from intimidating or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce another person for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote freely in federal elections. However, the maximum penalty for conviction on a charge of voter intimidation under federal guidelines is a fine and/or no more than one year in prison, which has hardly deterred voter intimidation schemes in the past.

http://www.projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html

If that isn't voter intimidation, I don't know what is. Another poster is correct. This should have been handled at the time. I don't know who was taping it. Maybe they should've turned the tape off and dialed 911.

Project Vote.Org recommends states enact much more stringent penalties for voter intimidation. It happened on BOTH sides during the 2008 election and shouldn't be allowed.
 
Last edited:
yeah so, testimony of feelings? really?
sorry testimony of feelings and that video are not enough

again like i said im not condoning just using reality and law

ill go to the police station tomorrow and testify that i feel harassed by you should they just lock you up or should there be a thing called due process and should they look for evidence that proves WITHOUT doubt to move forward, that is my point

it can easily be argued that theres not enough there to convict LMAO like I said the law is the same for me you and them, it may suck sometimes but you cant convict on assumptions, this isnt rocket science

I presume you voted in the minority?
 
Those who said no.....would you be okay during the election of 2012 if a Tea Partier was standing outside the door of your polling place with a rifle?

They probably will be. Look, I've already said that if the KKK turned up and didn't intimidate anyone I wouldn't like it but couldn't object. Funny how so many people were perfectly prepared for the Westboro nuts to picket and shout abuse at military funerals, because it's their 'right' to do so, but want the guys in the video, who were intimidating no one that I could see, to be arrested.
 
I presume you voted in the minority?

well you would presume wrong, I voted yes because Im fine with looking into it and im fine with TRYING to prosecute which only means to begin legal proceedings. My point is unless theres more evidence its going to be a very fast beginning and ending because theres not enough evidence of anything. To prosecute and convict are different things and with this video alone there would definitely be no conviction
 
They probably will be. Look, I've already said that if the KKK turned up and didn't intimidate anyone I wouldn't like it but couldn't object. Funny how so many people were perfectly prepared for the Westboro nuts to picket and shout abuse at military funerals, because it's their 'right' to do so, but want the guys in the video, who were intimidating no one that I could see, to be arrested.

Who was okay with the crazy "Baptists" protesting funerals?

What do you consider "intimidating"?
 
If people felt intimidated or threatened, don't you think they would have called police?
 
They probably will be. Look, I've already said that if the KKK turned up and didn't intimidate anyone I wouldn't like it but couldn't object. Funny how so many people were perfectly prepared for the Westboro nuts to picket and shout abuse at military funerals, because it's their 'right' to do so, but want the guys in the video, who were intimidating no one that I could see, to be arrested.

1. They were at a polling place. There are U.S. laws against voter intimidation
2. At least one of them had a weapon and both were wearing military garb with jackboots
3. Several voters WERE reported to have felt intimidated, as was the student taking the video who had a certificate to monitor polls
4. If KKK members in hoods showed up with nightsticks, I would be JUST AS CONCERNED and it would be just as illegal...

We are not talking about Europe. Perhaps you condone voter intimidation, but U.S. laws don't allow it, even if the left in the U.S. seem to accept it from their own... This also would not be allowed in Taiwan (the country where I currently reside) either...
 
Who was okay with the crazy "Baptists" protesting funerals?

What do you consider "intimidating"?

Check out the thread. Most people said they didn't like it, but that it was their constitutional right to free speech.

Intimidate (verb)
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants: "the forts are designed to intimidate the nationalist population" (Source: OED)

So, the fact that certain people may have felt uncomfortable or even frightened by the individuals present, there must be some attempt to make voters do what they wanted. As we saw on the video, the BPP guys were making no attempt to advertise what it was they wanted people to do, nor made any attempt to coerce anyone into anything, not even to intimidate the camerman into stopping filming.
 
1. They were at a polling place. There are U.S. laws against voter intimidation
2. At least one of them had a weapon and both were wearing military garb with jackboots
3. Several voters WERE reported to have felt intimidated, as was the student taking the video who had a certificate to monitor polls
4. If KKK members in hoods showed up with nightsticks, I would be JUST AS CONCERNED and it would be just as illegal...

We are not talking about Europe. Perhaps you condone voter intimidation, but U.S. laws don't allow it, even if the left in the U.S. seem to accept it from their own... This also would not be allowed in Taiwan (the country where I currently reside) either...

If there are laws against doing what they were doing, why was there no Police presence to enforce those rules? Feeling intimidated and actively intimidating are two different matters.

I'm not sure what your cheap shot at Europe was meant to display. Perhaps just attacking Europe because I'm European and you don't like my argument. Meh.

There are tight controls on voter intimidation in most European countries. But then again, in the two countries where I have a vote, UK and Spain, there are police officers stationed at every voting station throughout the voting process. It's a serious matter maintain free elections. I have no idea why this wasn't the case in Philly.

Lastly, I was not aware that the BPP is a left-wing organisation. I thought they were a black power movement with specific racial politics. Certainly no race-based movement can maintain an argument for being socialist or communist as that is the antithesis of those two political philosophies.
 
If there are laws against doing what they were doing, why was there no Police presence to enforce those rules? Feeling intimidated and actively intimidating are two different matters.

Police DID show up when they were called and one of the men was escorted away. I believe that wearing that clothing and carring nightsticks is actively intimidating.

I'm not sure what your cheap shot at Europe was meant to display. Perhaps just attacking Europe because I'm European and you don't like my argument. Meh.

Not attacking Europe. Just noting that Europe has a different situation and different laws.

There are tight controls on voter intimidation in most European countries. But then again, in the two countries where I have a vote, UK and Spain, there are police officers stationed at every voting station throughout the voting process. It's a serious matter maintain free elections. I have no idea why this wasn't the case in Philly.

In the U.S., it is a local decision as to whether or not to station police officers at a polling station. I would like to think that the U.S. is not a police state where police are not needed, but that is a matter of opinion. Some people might find the police themselves to be intimidating and thus some areas may not like to include them. I never had a problem with police presense at a polling station, but apparently not everyone agrees with me on that. Where I live right now, typically one police officer is stationed at the polling station and he is outside the room where voting is going on, often smiling, welcoming people and even talking to them. I have chatted with police officers outside polling stations before and I think the only thing they regretted was not being able to vote themselves because they were on duty.

Lastly, I was not aware that the BPP is a left-wing organisation. I thought they were a black power movement with specific racial politics. Certainly no race-based movement can maintain an argument for being socialist or communist as that is the antithesis of those two political philosophies.

I don't think too many BP members are voting Republican or Libertarian, do you?
 
Police DID show up when they were called and one of the men was escorted away. I believe that wearing that clothing and carring nightsticks is actively intimidating.

Not attacking Europe. Just noting that Europe has a different situation and different laws.

In the U.S., it is a local decision as to whether or not to station police officers at a polling station. I would like to think that the U.S. is not a police state where police are not needed, but that is a matter of opinion. Some people might find the police themselves to be intimidating and thus some areas may not like to include them. I never had a problem with police presense at a polling station, but apparently not everyone agrees with me on that. Where I live right now, typically one police officer is stationed at the polling station and he is outside the room where voting is going on, often smiling, welcoming people and even talking to them. I have chatted with police officers outside polling stations before and I think the only thing they regretted was not being able to vote themselves because they were on duty.

I don't think too many BP members are voting Republican or Libertarian, do you?

Interesting post. Thanks for that. No I doubt they do vote Rep, but they may well vote for a Libertarian, depending on what kind of Libertarian was standing. In any case, not that long ago the KKK all used to vote Democrat. I don't think that made them socialists either. I have a feeling that this deep racial politics doesn't easily fall into the left-right political spectrum. I have a feeling BPP's positions on women's rights and gay rights might not be what you'd describe as socially progressive. Anti-semitism, of which they are certainly guilty, plays no part in any aspect of democratic socialism. They appear to be, more than anything else, racial nationalists, aka Nasty.
 
Interesting post. Thanks for that. No I doubt they do vote Rep, but they may well vote for a Libertarian, depending on what kind of Libertarian was standing. In any case, not that long ago the KKK all used to vote Democrat. I don't think that made them socialists either. I have a feeling that this deep racial politics doesn't easily fall into the left-right political spectrum. I have a feeling BPP's positions on women's rights and gay rights might not be what you'd describe as socially progressive. Anti-semitism, of which they are certainly guilty, plays no part in any aspect of democratic socialism. They appear to be, more than anything else, racial nationalists, aka Nasty.

Reason for that was they blamed the Republicans for the end of slavery and the end of the Southern lifestyle as they knew it...
 
A quick note, I've seen quite a few stories on news channels insinuating that the Obama Administration declined to prosecute. In fact, it was the Bush DoJ that declined to prosecute.

Source: Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case | Cynthia Tucker

Actually, according to the Tucker piece (not the most reliable source BTW--- I lived in the Atlanta area too long to have any respect for Cynthia Tucker), but according to this, the Bush administration declined to press criminal charges, but went ahead with civil charges...
 
If people felt intimidated or threatened, don't you think they would have called police?

This is what I keep thinking. He must have been behaving a little bit. I also keep thinking: intimidating black man + night stick = Fudge Sickle®.
 
Back
Top Bottom