Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Real Issue of 2012

Nobody here even remotely likened Rubio to Thomas Jefferson in the way that they would Govern, as you suggest they did. The only similarity that anybody proposed was in the manner the two men were born.

My lucidity is not the one in question here.

Just trying to make an excuse for that irrational leap ya made back there. Figured that you just had to be on something!

I can't see how a sober man could make such a silly leap.

Run with it...

Were you born with this kind of intellectual blindness or is this mental disease the result of your inability to see facts and form a coherent view?

You need to learn to improve your comprehension skills there ace. There was NO comparison to Jefferson's policies or talents etc. The ONLY comparison is that both individuals had parents that were not born here or US citizens. PERIOD>

HJA: As to my second post, I did not suggest ignoring the present law. My point was the law should be changed.

Ah! Ok, I see where you are coming from.

Maybe it doesn't need to be changed. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution. Maybe all that has to happen is to have them clarify "natural born". I think that with the precedent that Jefferson sets, it should be easy to do.

achadwick,

Somehow or another you seemed to have become disconnected from the facts of this case. Guns kill. Cops are trained to respond to man with gun calls with utmost caution. There is no reasonable nexus to resolving a man with a gun call and someone walking down a sidewalk absent information linking that person (sidewalk person) to criminality.

It seems you're resorting to any basis of justification in order to support your conclusion that cops routinely violate citizens' rights. This is not the case. Remember that the cop, who was under good control and had actually deescalated the situation in the onslaught of an antagonizing kid, was asked to respond to a high-risk call. And as far as I know the info given to the officer was sketchy at best, which would have caused him to be more alert. Throw into the mix the unreasonable behavior of the guy the with gun, and I'm on the cop's side all day long.

As one of the posters here explicated about his dealings with hunters, he knows what is normal and abnormal behavior. To the untrained eye, a guy with a gun might appear to be a hunter. To the trained law enforcement professional, that same guy's activity might justify a stop.

Here's an irony for you. When I was a cop those who attracted my attention were those who had gone out of their ways to avoid being stopped. You see, most motorists do many things while driving. During morning hours motorists are often eating breakfast and drinking coffee. Some women will put on makeup and put bottles in babies' mouths while they're en route to day care. Kids are usually blaring music and yacking with one another. The suspicious drivers are the ones, usually males, who ought to be at work, who wear long-sleeve jackets during summer months in order to hide track marks and keep warm after using, and who attempt to avoid my attention. Nine times out of ten these are the guys to stop, not the mom who swerves while trying to place a bottle in her baby's mouth.

Most of this knowledge is acquired from experience.

In the case of the call of a man with a gun, the budding actor was the one who was the agitator. He had an agenda. In California, it's illegal to carry a gun in public in any manner unless one has a CCW, is a cop and covered by CPC 830, a retired cop in good standing with retirement credentials, or in the US military. Keeping in mind that guns kill, keeping in mind that courts will bend over backwards to side with cops when demonstrable evidence of their safety required reasonable actions, even if this kid was right, he could have very easily been dead right. And had that been the case, the kid would have been at fault. It would have been ruled an accidental homicide. The kid would have put in motion the chain of events that led to his death.

The cop should have been commended for being intentionally set up in a no win situation and resolving it peaceably. I could easily see how this stupid kid could have put in motion a set of circumstances that could have led to a very tragic ending.

To bootstrap the professional manner in which the cop resolved his call to cops asking for papers of people walking down the street is unreasonable, illogical, and lacking any semblance of reality. The key variable that distinguishes the cop's professional resolution of his call to people walking down the street is the gun. And guns kill.


R

Rubio is eligible under jus soli, right of the soil.

http://www.americanlaw.com/citborn.html

Raisuli, your entire world view seems to turn upside-down when it comes to police conduct. Odd in the extreme.

The_Real_Hawkeye,

Please explain your assertion.

We assuredly have different basis of knowledge when it comes to law enforcement. What you might view as normal behavior, cops might not. Since 99% of people would have responded in a normal manner and this kid did not -the kid was the agitator- any cop would have taken the kid's gun, unloaded it, and investigate. Had he not and the kid was a whack job and had gone on to murder innocent people, you would have blamed the cop.

As far as I know this guy committed the largest mass murder in the history of Orange County: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/salon-321796-beach-police.html

He did it with a handgun. Supposing he had been able to legally carry in CA, supposing a cop saw him and determined his behavior to be suspicious, wouldn't you have wanted the cop to act on his suspicions, which are products of his education, training, expertise, and experience that he can articulate?

What you might consider benign, a professional law enforcement officer might consider potentially life threatening.


Take care,

R

Interesting! Thanks for that!

It's interesting though, because I can see a loophole there that people could use to question Rubio's legitimacy.

Jus soli and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, seem to indicate what a 'citizen' is, but it does not clarify what the phrase "natural born" means.

The argument could be made that you need to meet both criteria for eligibility. You need to be both a citizen, and naturally born within the United States.

Like I said, I think Jorge is on to something with Jefferson. I like Rubio a LOT, though I'd admit that he wouldn't be my first choice for VP. That is, until this discussion. I think a Rubio VP would allow for a case to arise where the SCOTUS could then clarify what "natural born" is.

Maybe this election is not the time for that. Right now, we just need to focus on sending the Obama Administration to the retirement home. I'm afraid that this issue could take away from the bigger picture.

Except the cop himself said that he had no suspicions...

Regardless of VP, it is far more important to reverse socialism. Socialism has many serious flaws not the least of which is elimination of freedom.

Since politicians lie, since it's obvious Romney will say anything to become president, it's risky to assume that he will act on any of his promises. I have learned the hard way to look for a candidate's weasel clauses that will allow him a way out of his promises.

If you understand the catastrophe that is Medicare and prescription drug benefits, you'll know why I believe that even Republicans would have proposed some type of socialized medicine as opposed to curing the disease. And the only way to cure the disease is to get rid of Medicare and prescription drug benefits. It's a classic example of why socialism is so horrendous. Turn the whole shebang over to private carriers. Those on it now or so close to retirement that it would be unconscionable to deny them, will be funded. The rest will have their contributions refunded and told to become a rugged individualists and buy their own health insurance because the USA is no longer a nanny state.

I can understand HugAJackass & Steve_No feigning appearance of blind loyalty to Romney. They have an agenda to fulfill. But nearly all the rest of us here know most candidates lie. In fact, there's no lie they won't tell. What the hell does it mean to support overturning Obamacare? Tell me how you propose to overturn Obamacare, what will be required to overturn it, and that you won't replace Obabacare with your own version of Obamacare.

I have an inherent distrust of nearly every political candidate and politician. Regardless of who's running things, we seem to become more enslaved. And sadly posters here deceive themselves by denying that government controls them 24/7. Hell, I can't even take a leak without the government controlling the sewer system.

We need to cut every bureaucracy except police fire, and the military. Then start anew. All that can be local will be local. Citizens have more control over local politicians. That that can be privatized will be privatized, and that includes prosecuting attorneys and public defenders. Private property rights will mean just that: right to private property. Judicial and prosecutor immunity will be gone. Hell, they have luxury of deliberating before deciding. If they can't get it right, they must be held liable just like everyone else.

Does anyone know how many federal law enforcement agencies operate in our country? I sure as hell haven't a clue. I do know I'd get rid of every single one. County sheriffs should be responsible for all crime within their jurisdictions. With advanced technology, all county sheriffs will be instantly linked with one another to assist with solving crimes across jurisdictions. The CIA will become part of the US Army and handle international crime where the USA is victimized. We'll keep the Coast Guard as the primary law enforcement agency charged with interdicting drugs and other illegal crap coming into our country.

HugAJAckass,

If what you posted was true, when did he say it? Before of after he was able to control his call? There was no way he could have said it before he controlled his call unless he was able to read the student's mind. Before he controlled his call, he would have had no idea what he had.

If you think the student's behavior was reasonable, I can see how you believe Romney will cure all that ails our country. With black magic!!!

Even if the cop had no suspicions, under the circumstances of his call, that being a suspicious person with a gun, do you think it's reasonable for a cop to allow such a person to retain possession of a loaded gun while he investigated his call? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Well, you actually believe Romney will overturn Obamacare, so I can see how you think it would be reasonable for a cop to unconscionably compromise his safety in order to placate you.


R

I didn't hear the call. Neither did you.

The student flat out asked the officer if he was suspicious of him, and the officer answered, "No."

This happened several times in the video.


There is no question that the student was a douche. I think this was a good learning opportunity for the young officer.

Next time, he can make it consensual, by greeting the civilian politely, and striking up a conversation. Note the gun, compliment the civilian on it, and ask if he can see it.

Tact goes both ways.


Does the rule of law mean so little to you?

Apparently so. Officer safety is paramount.

achadwick,

Your logical fallacy is assuming officer safety and rule of law are mutually exclusive. Laws such as "Terry" are designed to assure officer safety.

Now I haven't a clue how it's rolled where you hang, but law in CA is designed to protect cops' lives to every reasonable extent. That's how CA rolls.


R

HugAJackass,

You are so clueless that you're wholly unable to compete unless you resort to the logical fallacy of extremism.

You have no concept of the rule of law. If you had you would refrain from touching your keyboard.

We all know that neocons live by their own laws.

R

HugAJackass,

Your: "I didn't hear the call. Neither did you." is so indicative of your arguments. You post assumptions under the guise of fact.

If you don't have a clue of what happened, how in God's name are you able to pronounce impropriety?

But for you and voters like you, Romney would get no votes!


R

Hit a nerve this morning there Raisuli?

Romney getting no votes means Obama gets them all. You're ok with that, and then try to lecture me about my respect for the rule of law!?

Adorable!