| diver.net |
| John gets intellectually spanked.... |
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]
| diver.net |
| John gets intellectually spanked.... |
|
Posted by Dave on November 01, 2005 at 15:46:38: In Reply to: Thanks for a summary posted by Elaine on November 01, 2005 at 12:02:42: I noticed that when photos are posted of DFG game wardens violating peoples Constitutional referenced Civil Rights, hypocrites come unglued at the drysuit seams claiming I should "take it elsewhere" and it is "off topic"...but just when the unsubstantive hyperbole, ad homineums and unresponsive venomous hate posts die down, some ignorant person like John makes a post chocked full of straw argumetns and non-sequitturs, and in lock step the previous people who came unhinged fawn over him with nary a demand to stay on topic. You gotta love that! One particular person guilty of such a double standard, well, I shouldn't say her name, but her initials are Elaine Jobin. John, you must have slept through the Constitutional law portion of whatever instruction you were unconcious during. Now I have previously stated that when one is detained and not free to go, one is technically "under arrest." Now rather than actually defeating my argument by claiming to the contrary, than actually bothering to support his position with any information or citations at all, John just says I don't know the difference, infering that when one is not free to go during a stop that it is a detention and not an arrrest. Why no support for your opinions, John?! This is a typical tactic of one whose argument is unsupportable, that is why they never give citations, they just engage in ad homineums, contrarian generic denials and hit and run tactics. In debate class this was always this was always a red flag equivalent of throwing in the intellectual towel. John and the rest, once again, you utterly have no idea what you are talking about. But unlike you, I CAN backup my claim by showing you the binding appellate court holding that was published where the courts holdings where when one is stopped and not free to go at the moment, one IS under "arrest". You ready John? People v. Superior Court, 1972 7 Cal 3d 186, 200. You might want to Shepardize that cite, if you even know what that means. The main body of your post goes on to use straw arguments and non-sequiturs. Allow me to expose your incapacitation. You go on to talk about the "Public Trust Doctrine" authorizing the States to protect wildlife, then you plaster a bunch of citations to make it look important. Here's your problem, John: I never said that Sates don't have the power to enforce wildlife protection. Why not bother actually opposing something I said rather then setting up a straw argument house, attributing it to me, then blowing it down? Your next paragraph is a hoot; You claim that the States have a much different search authority when it comes to protecting public resources. Now an intelligent person would immediately back that up with some argument that the Constitution is usurped and superceeded by some State law, and you would attempt to give a binding court citation to back it up. Of course you didn't, precisely because none exists. Even if it did, such laws are unenforceable. Again, try actualyl reading the Constitution. Interestingly enough, you immediately followed up with your claim that states have a different search authority with two citations that have absolutely nothing to do with a different search authority! All they are is citations empowering suits and fines...another red herring non-sequitur. As to Penal Code Section 148, I have news for you, try actually reading the Constitutions Supremacy Cause and the concepts of Federal Preemption. For the same reason why citizens may interfere with police by refusing to consent to a search, remaining silent during interrogation, refusing to testify against a spouse, etc one may lawfully interfere with a police officer where the police demands conflict with a citizens Constitutional Rights. If you had the vaguest understanding of Constitutional Law, you would realize that when some laws like search and seizures interferes with the Constitionally guaranteed civil rights of the 4th and 5th Amendments, that the Constitutional preempts all: Article. VI.
|
Follow Ups:
|
| Name: | |
|---|---|
| E-Mail: | |
| Subject: | |
| Message: | |
| Optional Link URL: | |
| Optional Link Title: | |
| Optional Image URL: | |
| Post Background Color: | White Black |
| Post Area Page Width: | Normal Full |
| You must type in the scrambled text key to the right. This is required to help prevent spam bots from flooding this BBS. |
|
| Text Key: |