Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,245
29%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 29% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by KrisKrinkle

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 7:41:23 PM PDT · 44 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    I dealt above board with the issues I suggested

    In your post 37 you made the following statements:

    "...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."

    "...there is no previous information to that effect..."

    "...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."

    In my post 40 I wrote: "So, can you prove your statements:" followed by the list of your statements recorded directly above this paragraph. I was not asking about the "epileptic" or the "wife" parts. I was asking about your statements.

    You responded with your post 41 which I found accurate enough, but evasive because it did not respond to what I was asking about in my post 40.

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 5:07:50 PM PDT · 42 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins

    Accurate enough, but evasive.

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 5:02:02 PM PDT · 22 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to William Tell

    What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.

    As they say: “No Thanks.”

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 1:23:12 PM PDT · 20 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to William Tell
    How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?

    I was responding to the question "Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office ...?" by pointing out that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an undefined series of words, trying to show that the thing in regard to which they are accused of breaching their oath is undefined and needs better definition before we can accuse anyone of a breach in regard to it.

    You wrote "virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey" but I thought the case at hand was about self defense carry outside the home in New Jersey, which is not quite the same thing.

    What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

    As I recall, they were thinking the government was coming to take the ordnance, munitions etc. held in their armory. I don't recall that they were thinking the government was coming to take anything from their homes, their houses.

    Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.

    I didn't know the case at hand was about confiscation beyond any confiscation that took place when the defendant was arrested.

    My turn for questions: What is the scope-extent-definition of the words "the right of the people to bear arms"? Does one of the people who happens to be standing on the gallows awaiting execution have the right to keep and bear arms? Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner? Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?

    Regarding whatever your answers are, how do we know so just from the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 12:37:44 PM PDT · 40 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    Disagree.

    If you're disagreeing with "Inconclusive", okay we can disagree.

    If you're disagreeing with the rest of it, I used the word "could" to indicate possibility and therefore you seem to be disagreeing that what I posited is even possible. I suppose we can disagree on what is possible.

    I was going to just let your post go, but you wrote:

    My writing down the statement “Jesus was an epileptic” on this message board should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic.

    And:

    Additionally, since there is no previous information to that effect, then it should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case, and especially if it includes my claim written in the year 2014, many years after His having been on earth.

    So, can you prove your statements:

    "...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."

    "...there is no previous information to that effect..."

    "...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 10:03:28 AM PDT · 13 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to afsnco

    “Residents of NJ need to vote with their feet, as soon as possible.”

    They need to vote with their ballots.

  • SCOTUS: Drake v. Jerejian denied (2A self-defense carry outside the home)

    05/05/2014 10:02:24 AM PDT · 12 of 25
    KrisKrinkle to WhiskeyX
    Can anyone now think of a reason why a number of Supreme Court Justices are not now liable for impeachment for a breach of their oath of office with regard to the Constitution and its Second Amendment mandate a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms?

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a series of words whose meaning, scope, extent, is pretty much undefined. Pro 2A folks continually emphasize "shall not be infringed" when they should put more emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed.

  • How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

    05/05/2014 9:52:30 AM PDT · 36 of 49
    KrisKrinkle to xzins
    1. Someone in the 500’s AD found a way to write on paper that wasn’t made until the 700’s AD.

    3. That scholars appeared to declare “authentic” words about Jesus not written down until 500 or so years after He walked on earth.

    Inconclusive. What was written in 700 AD or in 500 AD could have been a copy of something written earlier, the original of which we don't have. I could hand copy Genesis on modern paper with modern ink and that wouldn't mean the content was wrong.

    And no, I don't believe Jesus had a wife.

  • MAN STUFF: 100 Things A Real Man Doesn’t Do

    05/03/2014 4:40:07 PM PDT · 9 of 92
    KrisKrinkle to kingattax

    A real man does what ever it pleases him to do. The measure of his manhood is in why it pleases him to do so.

  • Gun Carrying Group May Not Be Only Ones Affected By Arlington Bans

    04/25/2014 7:51:10 AM PDT · 15 of 23
    KrisKrinkle to 2ndDivisionVet

    This is Texas? The fountain of conservatism and freedom to which so many want to flee?

  • Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

    04/23/2014 7:20:20 AM PDT · 16 of 27
    KrisKrinkle to greeneyes

    “The land rightfully belongs to the people”

    By what right? Did the people buy it or inherit it? Did they conquer it? Of course if by “the people” you mean the people of the United States, not the people of an individual state, the answer to my last two questions is “yes”.

    “not to the government (state or federal).”

    We agree there.

  • Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

    04/23/2014 7:10:46 AM PDT · 13 of 27
    KrisKrinkle to ReaganÃœberAlles

    “Why does the federal government need to possess all this land that rightfully belongs to the individual states?”

    I see no good reason to agree with your premises.

    As far as I can tell, the federal government does not “possess all this land”. The United States possess all this land. The federal government is an agent of the States. Admittedly it’s out of control, but it’s still an agent. The federal government is not the United States.

    Why should this land rightfully belong to the individual states? The land was acquired and therefore owned by the United States as a group, so by what process did ownership change when a new state was created? Do we not believe in property rights or do they not apply in this situation for some reason?

  • This is easily the most reasonable definition of "social justice" I've ever seen...

    04/21/2014 11:47:59 AM PDT · 9 of 26
    KrisKrinkle to The Looking Spoon

    “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.”

  • Western states seeking ways to reclaim federal land

    04/19/2014 5:10:10 PM PDT · 43 of 50
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind
    "So, was this in violation of the intent of the constitution or not? THAT is what I want to know."

    The clear words of the Constitution are:

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    From those words I gather that the intent of the Constitution is that Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. (I'm ignoring the words after the semicolon. They seem at second glance to be a wash anyway.)

    To me, those clear words are not clear on whether or not Congress must turn over all land which in the boundaries of a newly created state to that state at the time of the state's creation, or ever. To clarify that, we'd probably have to turn to the penumbra and in order to do that we'd have to come to a common understanding of the penumbra to include whether or not penumbra even exist, since not everyone believes in them.

    We'd also have to come to a common understanding of property and property rights. Those are discussed on this forum, but I don't remember seeing them defined very well.

    And when I say "common understanding", I mean a common understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.

    Without a reason to think otherwise, I'd have to say the answer to your question is "No", because the Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose, but doesn't say anything else about the disposition. It doesn't say all the territory within in boundary of a new state must, must not, can or can not be transferred to said state.

    As to how this squares with the Tenth Amendment, the Tenth says:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Therefore, I have to ask in what way is all this not square with the Tenth Amendment? I also have to point out that most of the new states entered the Union prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, at a time when senators where appointed by the State legislatures, so the States did have a say in the proceedings.

    I have to go for the rest of the night.

  • Western states seeking ways to reclaim federal land

    04/19/2014 11:30:46 AM PDT · 20 of 50
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind

    “Was their intent in this clause for the Federal Government to own...”

    I haven’t seen evidence that the Federal Government is the owner. The owner is, or owners are, the United States. Each of the sovereign states has an ownership interest as far as I can tell. The Federal Government is just an (out of control) agent for the States.

    Article III, Section 3, second clause says: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

    At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory won from England as a result of the Revolutionary War, but later on other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.

    When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

    Now here are some things to think about:

    How can a state or group of States take as their own territory within their state boundaries with out permission of the fifty United States if said territory is owned by the United States?

    How do property rights play in this?

    What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?

  • Wherein Black People Have To Go To School With Confederates

    04/18/2014 8:11:08 AM PDT · 42 of 48
    KrisKrinkle to Altura Ct.
    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates Liberals/Socialists wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    The Founding Fathers wanted representation. The Confederates Conservatives wanted to get their way, regardless of what "voters" wanted in new territories.

    Hmmm.

  • Wherein Black People Have To Go To School With Confederates

    04/18/2014 7:57:05 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    KrisKrinkle to Altura Ct.

    “...Washington who was our first federal president under our constitution — would probably roll over in his marble grave to know that a REBEL flag was displayed so prominently at a university that bears his name.”

    On the other hand, Washington was a Virginian and a rebel himself, so maybe not.

  • A Frankenstein Constitution

    04/16/2014 8:11:17 PM PDT · 39 of 75
    KrisKrinkle to Jacquerie

    Thank you for a responsive reply.

  • A Frankenstein Constitution

    04/16/2014 3:23:27 PM PDT · 14 of 75
    KrisKrinkle to Jacquerie

    Why do you think we would fair any better in preventing a convention of the states from proposing constitutional amendments that will result in an oppressive constitution than we have in preventing the rise of the anti-constitution, the unwritten Frankenstein constitution?

    Why do you think we would prevail in a convention of the states so as to correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that we have already failed to prevent and thus allowed to happen?

    When you write “government”, do you mean the structure/organization of the government? I ask because so many people seem to mean the people who occupy positions therein rather than the structure/organization of the government and they are not the same thing.

    What do you mean by “structural amendments”?

  • Nevada follows Utah in exploring transfer of public lands

    04/14/2014 9:07:08 PM PDT · 42 of 47
    KrisKrinkle to GAFreedom
    All of that was done via treaty.

    Very good. That's the one thin thread it on which it can be hung.

    The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make treaties...

    Not quite.

    He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

    That's not the federal government, only part of it. It's not even all of Congress since the House of Representatives is excluded.

    And

    The Congress shall have Power...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

    "Congress" includes both Houses of course. So the President with the connivance consent of the Senate could make a treaty, but if the treaty incurred a debt the House of Representatives would also have to agree...and they might not which would mean the treaty would fall apart. In other words, even though the Constitution doesn't say so, the President would need the consent of both Houses to make a treaty, a successful one anyway.

    Unless of course the Founders intended to empower the President to make, with Senate consent, a treaty incurring a debt which the House of Representatives have no choice but to agree must be paid.

    All this could be explained differently, but so far I see "done via treaty" as a thin thread to hang by.

  • Nevada follows Utah in exploring transfer of public lands

    04/14/2014 3:22:57 PM PDT · 28 of 47
    KrisKrinkle to dirtymac

    “Where in the constitution does the Feds have the right to own 40% of CA, 90% of Nevada, in the form of BLM, Nation Parks, National Reserves, Military bases. the land should be owned, managed, governed by the state.”

    Article III, Section 3, second clause says: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    I’m not sure how the second half plays, but the first half certainly shows that the United States (not the Federal Government) retains “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.

    At the time that was mostly the Northwest Territory, but later on, other territory came to belong to the United States through the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of territory from Mexico after the Mexican-American War, and the Alaska purchase.

    When States were created from all that territory, Congress just didn’t dispose of all the land to the newly created States.

    Now here’s a question: What Constitutional authority authorizes the purchases of the Louisiana Territory, the Southwest land from Mexico, and Alaska?

  • The “Assault Weapon” Rebellion

    04/14/2014 8:13:55 AM PDT · 9 of 21
    KrisKrinkle to LucianOfSamasota

    “What else can they do?”

    They can wait.

    People aren’t going to take banned items to the range so they will lose competency and be less able to pass their knowledge and interest on to the next generation.

    They can cause extra trouble for those involved in “difficult” divorces, when an aggrieved spouse “rats them out” and wants their weapons confiscated because they feel endangered.

    They may have an extra charge to levy if banned items are uncovered in pursuit of another violation.

  • Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    04/12/2014 4:39:20 PM PDT · 37 of 51
    KrisKrinkle to AEMILIUS PAULUS

    Are we in “violent agreement” as Jerry B. Harvey might say?

  • Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    04/12/2014 4:16:40 PM PDT · 35 of 51
    KrisKrinkle to Kaslin

    “Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument”

    I decline to accept the premise of this argument.

  • ACLU calls Sheriff to let Muslim inmates exercise their constitutional right to religious expression

    04/05/2014 8:35:42 AM PDT · 12 of 22
    KrisKrinkle to LSUfan
    “Other inmates are allowed to attend congregational prayer. Refusing to allow Muslims to pray in a group, while allowing other inmates to engage in group prayer, is offensive and discriminatory.”

    Muslims continue to be denied access to Jumu’ah services, a weekly congregational prayer which takes place every Friday.

    I was against this till I read the above. Without a reason to do differently, all the inmates should be treated pretty much the same.

  • Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage

    04/04/2014 10:43:50 PM PDT · 14 of 19
    KrisKrinkle to SeekAndFind

    “...but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve “marriage” for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays.”

    So far as I know, no one has tried to ‘reserve “marriage” for straights’. A gay man and a gay woman have been just as able to marry as a straight and a straight woman. Straight people of the same sex have been just as unable to marry as gay people of the same sex.

    If what’s quoted is “the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws”, then the equal protection argument is pointless. They aren’t asking for equal rights, they are asking for a new right.

  • The Root of Liberalism

    04/04/2014 10:01:12 AM PDT · 17 of 36
    KrisKrinkle to Crucial
    What really drives a liberal is a feeling and a reaction to that feeling. Liberals feel inadequate to deal with the world around them.

    So could you say:

    What really drives a conservative is a feeling and a reaction to that feeling. Conservatives feel adequate to deal with the world around them.
  • FreeRepublic founder Jim Anderson found living in most liberal city in America.

    04/01/2014 10:05:57 AM PDT · 25 of 29
    KrisKrinkle to GraceG

    Jim Anderson?? Father Knows Best???

    Jim Anderson and Ward Cleaver were my models for being a father. I’d figure out what they’d do and then I’d do something different.

  • Jamelle Bouie: Why whites support capital punishment

    04/01/2014 8:32:17 AM PDT · 38 of 43
    KrisKrinkle to IrishBrigade
    ...fine, but the instrument of that penalty should be the family of the victim, not a dispassionate entity with little or no skin in the game...

    Shall we go back to blood feud?

    Why let "a dispassionate entity with little or no skin in the game" determine a penalty is necessary and what penalty should be imposed?

    What if the family of the victim is of a forgiving nature and does not want to be the instrument of the penalty?

  • Jamelle Bouie: Why whites support capital punishment

    04/01/2014 8:19:44 AM PDT · 37 of 43
    KrisKrinkle to muir_redwoods; ilovesarah2012
    By that argument taxes, affirmative action and alien amnesty are actions if the people.

    Well, yeah, kind of. You can pretty much trace all of that back to the people who did or didn't cast votes one way or the other. One faction carried the vote, and others didn't. On the matter of taxes, in my community we get to vote directly on a lot of them. Sometimes my side carries the vote, sometimes not.

    Life is a gift and I’m not sure the very fallible state should be empowered to take it away from anyone.

    Should fallible people have that power? Should fallible people have the right to chose cellmates?

  • No, 30,000 Alaskans Did Not Sign a Petition to Join Russia

    03/31/2014 11:18:32 AM PDT · 24 of 34
    KrisKrinkle to blueunicorn6
    The number one agricultural product of Massachusetts is flowers BS.
  • Feminist “Comedian:” I’d Personally Like to Castrate Every Male Conservative Christian

    03/27/2014 9:59:13 AM PDT · 62 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to Morgana
    “I would personally like to castrate every Male Conservative Christian so that they have NO reproductive rights,” she wrote on Twitter, using the hashtag “#HobbyLobby.”

    At least she seems willing to do it herself instead of having the government force someone else do it unwillingly.

  • Bullies Rule

    03/26/2014 8:16:14 AM PDT · 6 of 10
    KrisKrinkle to Kaslin
    However, since biology is unpredictable, some implants fail. In 2011, the FDA abruptly demanded "more studies."

    The bullies' mandate unleashed a hornets' nest of tort lawyers. They advertised, "Did your device fail? Call, and we will get you money!" They soon piled up so many suits that device manufacturers' insurers canceled liability coverage. Device companies then withdrew devices from the market.

    Here, it seems like he's blaming the FDA regulators when he should be blaming the tort lawyers and the power to bully that tort law gives them.

    It's a weak part of this article.

  • RI STATE SENATOR TO GUN RIGHTS SUPPORTER: 'GO [edit] YOURSELF'

    03/25/2014 11:21:06 AM PDT · 15 of 73
    KrisKrinkle to bkopto

    Ought to make a good campaign poster/commercial...for his opponent.

  • Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?

    03/24/2014 11:38:28 AM PDT · 85 of 85
    KrisKrinkle to Noamie
    Thank you for the “You didn’t build that” summary.

    There's no need to think me for something I didn't do.

    I create a Corporation. The Secretary of State will review and then agree that my Articles of Incorporation are lawful and in order and will then publish my corporation as a recognized organization.

    If the Secretary of State does not do all that, is whatever you created a corporation or is it something else?

    If the Secretary of State does not do all that, can whatever you created be a corporation?

    The State does not “create” a corporation.

    In your example, the Secretary of State and the other State Departments act for the State, and as far as I can tell, breaking the State out into separate parts doesn't change much, if anything.

    The State creates nothing. The State only recognizes what has been created by the citizen.

    If the State does not recognize what has been created by the citizen, is whatever the citizen created a corporation or is it something else?

    If the State does not recognize what has been created by the citizen, can whatever the citizen created be a corporation?

    At its root, your argument is that the Citizen exists because of the State. You are in error.

    That's an argument you falsely attributed to me so you could disagree with it and me. I might say that people establish a state (meant generically, not just as one of the fifty States you apparently refer to) after which they might exist as Citizens of the state due to their establishment of it, and that subsequently other people can become Citizens of the state if they meet the particular requirements of the state.

    Note that in my original post I used scare quotes or apologetic quotes around the word creates because I didn't have a better word to use at the time and it was close. I know that among the fifty States, the State doesn't make a corporation from nothing any more than you do (You don't "...create a Corporation." You compose Articles of Incorporation; you propose the formation and establishment of a corporation in accordance with State law). What other states (meaning more than the fifty composing the USA) may do, or what they may have done or will do in other times may be different.

  • Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents

    03/22/2014 11:39:16 AM PDT · 58 of 95
    KrisKrinkle to rktman

    Maybe they should just secede from the HOA.

  • Liam Neeson saves dog from a group of teenagers

    03/21/2014 3:24:39 PM PDT · 7 of 44
    KrisKrinkle to Drew68

    “At age nine, Neeson began boxing lessons at the All Saints Youth Club and later became Ulster’s amateur senior boxing champion.” (Wikipedia drawing from another source.)

  • Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?

    03/21/2014 11:58:08 AM PDT · 54 of 85
    KrisKrinkle to Noamie

    “So the opposition’s argument is that if I create a Corporation I surrender all of my Constitutional rights in the act of running it?”

    I won’t speak to the opposition’s argument, but as far as I know you don’t create a Corporation.

    The “state” (meant generically) “creates” a corporation. Whatever you propose as a corporation to the state is not a corporation until the state says so and the state might attach some hooks and strings before saying so.

  • Reacting to sanctions, Russians ban Reid, Boehner and four other lawmakers (LOL!!!!!)

    03/20/2014 3:17:03 PM PDT · 21 of 29
    KrisKrinkle to Vince Ferrer

    “Not if they come with strings attached.”

    What if they have pads?

  • Where are the Christian leaders in education?

    03/20/2014 2:23:53 PM PDT · 5 of 18
    KrisKrinkle to knarf

    “they’re home with their kids ... EDUCATING them”

    If you are writing about home schooling, perhaps that’s part of the problem. Maybe they should be uniting, along with the dissatisfied parents who can’t home school, to change the Education Establishment.

  • Where are the Christian leaders in education?

    03/20/2014 2:21:20 PM PDT · 4 of 18
    KrisKrinkle to BruceDeitrickPrice

    He seems to have forgotten the part about taking over the Education Establishment, not just telling it what we want.

  • Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse

    03/19/2014 1:15:11 PM PDT · 71 of 74
    KrisKrinkle to SoFloFreeper

    As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/17/2014 9:12:27 AM PDT · 78 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to Darksheare
    "What we are saying is that the response chosen was improper, unwieldy, unlikely to find the sought for bad guys who may not have even existed, and unduly disruptive."

    I don't think I've argued directly against any of that but in regard to "unlikely to find the sought for bad guys who may not have even existed" I do note that as a result of this search they caught and charged the perpetrators according to the following links from within the original post:

    http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/03/i-270-shut-down-as-msp-search-for-bank-robbers-101018.html

    http://www.wtop.com/41/3579525/After-I-270-closure-a-question-over-tactics

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-halt-montgomery-county-commuters-pick-out-bank-robbery-suspects/2014/03/11/a2fb7b70-a94b-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html

    "How about: description of suspects and suspect vehicle?"

    According to this link ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-halt-montgomery-county-commuters-pick-out-bank-robbery-suspects/2014/03/11/a2fb7b70-a94b-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html ) from within the original post:

    "They got into a silver Kia, where a third man was waiting, and drove off."

    "A short time later, the Kia was spotted on southbound I-270."

    I know the "news" didn't provide a description of the suspects, but that seems to be standard for PC reasons lately, and it doesn't mean the police didn't have such a description.

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/17/2014 8:19:34 AM PDT · 76 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to rollo tomasi

    “No, the promotion of totalitarianism and lazy police work is nuts.”

    Agreed.

    But that doesn’t mean that the assertion of an “...illusory argument designed to make criminals out of every citizen that operates a vehicle...” isn’t also nuts.

    I’m not referring to the “illusory argument” part, nor the “make criminals ...” part, but the unsubstantiated use of the word “designed” seems a little extreme.

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/16/2014 10:27:44 PM PDT · 59 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to Darksheare; rollo tomasi; lightman

    “Are you seriously defending treating everyone on a roadway as a criminal based on the exceedingly thin possibility that there might maybesorta be bad guys there somewhere?”

    No. lightman commented in post 6 that “Everyone should carry a copy of the Constitution AND commit to memory the Bill of Rights.”

    I responded by quoting the Fourth Amendment in the BOR emphasizing the word “unreasonable”. After that I mostly asked questions concerning reasonableness.

    As far as “treating everyone on a roadway as a criminal”, that’s a different aspect of the matter that I have not addressed. “Everyone on the road” should not be treated as a criminal even if the search is conducted with a proper warrant. Of course, you might say that the act of searching is treating like a criminal, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be true.

    “How does that differ from the behavior of treating every gun owner as a criminal?”

    I don’t know that it does.

    Now, are all of you seriously stating that the police should not have made the effort to search for the criminals they believed to be in the area, that they should have casually let them go to rob again? You do understand that we are discussing bank robbers, people who took the property of others, people who show contempt for the rights of others, people who undermine our society? (Yeah, I know...the last two points apply to too many LEOs.) Aren’t we supposed to help with the apprehension of such people when we can? Isn’t it in our interest to do so?

    And something else: these were bank robbers, but what if they weren’t? What if they were kidnappers who had abducted your child or spouse? Would you still object to the search as conducted? If not, why not? What’s the principle involved?

    “Please explain.”

    I want people to think more and (optimistically) better.

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/16/2014 9:26:04 PM PDT · 51 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to rollo tomasi

    “An articulable fact that led to specific suspicions and possible arrest.”

    Like what? That the robbers escaped in a car onto I270?

    “...designed to make criminals out of every citizen that operates a vehicle...”

    Nuts.

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/16/2014 8:50:07 PM PDT · 46 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to lightman

    “A warrant based on probable cause.”

    And “particularly describing the place to be searched,” when that involved “miles of cars”, probably hundreds?

    How long would it take to get such a warrant? Should the vehicles and people be detained for however long it takes? Would the fleeing criminals have more time to find a way to sneak away?

  • Manhunt leads to massive roadblock, warrantless car-to-car searches

    03/16/2014 8:07:44 PM PDT · 29 of 87
    KrisKrinkle to lightman
    "Everyone should carry a copy of the Constitution AND commit to memory the Bill of Rights."

    Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Emphasis added.)

    First question to think about: Was the search unreasonable?

    Second question to think about: If the answer to the first question was "yes", what would have been reasonable?

  • Texas court rules that police may introduce illegally gathered evidence at trial

    03/15/2014 12:29:16 PM PDT · 99 of 187
    KrisKrinkle to OneWingedShark

    “Should those be allowed as evidence in the trial against you?”

    Another “good question” for which I don’t have an answer right now.

    Now for an example and question for you:

    Imagine a wrong-house, no-knock raid where they drop a bag of marijuana as “justification” but also unexpectedly find your kid-napped child and a draft ransom note.

    Should those be allowed as evidence in the trial against the kid-napper?

  • Texas court rules that police may introduce illegally gathered evidence at trial

    03/15/2014 10:32:52 AM PDT · 71 of 187
    KrisKrinkle to freedomfiter2

    “What would an appropriate punishment for government employees who violate the Constitutional rights of citizens?”

    Good question. (And of course one definition of a “good question” is: A question for which one does not have a good answer.)

    I think it would have to depend on the circumstances, not just of the crime but of the violation. It could range from monetary penalties to time off without pay to forced retirement to firing to jail time. But again: “Yeah, I know...like that’s going to happen.”