Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused -- and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer." In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities.

[eno_]

You could try answering the questions: Do you find it credible that the witness could not be located?

Not by notes taken by the dispatcher that took the call (if there ever was a call)?

Not by the logs of the PD's phone system (if such logs show the call ever happened)?

Not by means of calling the witness back on the number they were calling from (if any such number exists)?

Not by means of reqiesting telco biling records (that would conclusively show if a call was made)?

[cinFLA]

Ok. Then why did he say it never happened in this thread. Was he baiting me?

[cinFLA]

Ok. Then why did he say it never happened in this thread. Was he baiting me?

[cinFLA]

FYI, that means Hiibel lost his case.

Prove that the above actions you cite were never done.

[eno_]

Too bad, but there is a point:

The cop's flip remark about "investigating an investigation" indicated the cop had no such "investigation" under way, and was blustering his way past a citizen inquiring about the basis for being questioned. This, in itself is deeply wrong.

The fact the "witness" could not be "located" is closely related to the above comment, and shows the whole "investigation" may be made up or backfilled.

[cinFLA]

The fact the "witness" could not be "located"

Source required.

[cinFLA]

Mr. H's ranting about being legally parked and answering that he had no idea about any fight indicate that he was just a baffoon. After all, you have to admit that it was his wish to be arrested.

[Sandy]

The Ninth already ruled in favor of Mr. H.
He is a Ninth Circuit Court Socialist pawn.
They cannot let the Ninth ruling stand favoring Mr. H.

Your statements. Yet the fact remains, Hiibel was never in the Ninth Circuit, and he most certainly didn't win.

[cinFLA]

They totally ignore all request to back up their false allegations with sources.

[cinFLA]

Your statements. Yet the fact remains, Hiibel was never in the Ninth Circuit, and he most certainly didn't win.

The 9th had already ruled in another case in favor of Mr. H's position. The Utah court had previously ruled contrary to the 9th. The NSC punted to the USSC due to the conflict. Now it is time for the USSC to overrule the 9th.

[_Jim]

You could try answering the questions:

In light of other substantial material - I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of grasping for straws at my expense. Nonsensical argument for the sake of finding some crevice for the sake of 'opening' an argument is indeed a sign of weakness in one's 'case' ...

[_Jim]

They totally ignore all request to back up their false allegations with sources.

That isn't their 'job'.

Their 'job' is endlessly searching for the holy grail of nirvana A/K/A 'freedom', freedom from all responsibility, duty and certainly *any* notion of honor or respect for the truth or law.

You have met 'the libertarian element among us'.

[cinFLA]

You have met 'the libertarian element among us'.

Maybe Anarchist is closer.

[cinFLA]

First of all, you have to provide some substantiation for the scenario you propose before others can judge the credibility.

[whd23]

Anyone know a way to make a FR threads show up minus posts by one specific individual?

I had the same reaction as you on a different thread. Being able to ignore a list of posters would be nice. Some posters use 20 postings to make 1/2 a point, or to think they're making the same point over and over again: not interested.

[Sandy]

Then why did he say it never happened in this thread.

He didn't. What he said was, "American States have NEVER been granted the power to violate our right to keep and bear arms." You then made the incorrect inference that his statement was a denial of Barron.

[cinFLA]

Here is his post.

cinFLA wrote:
Laugh! But remember, at one time the Bill of Rights only controlled the US government; it had no affect on states.

______________________________________


American States have NEVER been granted the power to violate our right to keep and bear arms.

Simply put, you are a gun grabbing kook.

[mrsmith]

"You then made the incorrect inference that his statement was a denial of Barron. "

Barron said the BOR- in the dicta all of the BOR- did not and was not meant to apply to the states.

Other than perhaps that the states never gave up their power to "violate" the right to keep and bear arms...
I don't see your contention.

[cinFLA]

I see. He baited me into posting proof that of the 1833 decision. Then when I posted the actual decision, he went on to accuse me of posting propaganda and calling me a gun-grabbing kook. I see it all so clearly now.

[_Jim]

Maybe Anarchist is closer.

I think, at some point, that that is the next evolutionary step for 'libertarianism' ...