User Profile: LonestarFree

LonestarFree

Member Since: September 02, 2010

Comments

123
  • May 10, 2015 at 2:31pm

    She was in New York and had not crossed any borders.

  • May 10, 2015 at 2:29pm

    If you want to give your rights away politely and be obedient to your masters it’s your choice to make.

  • May 10, 2015 at 2:23pm

    This happened in New York not even a border state and if they act with the authority they actually have it is not a problem.

  • May 10, 2015 at 2:06pm

    And last time I checked being an ass standing up for your own constitutionally guaranteed rights was still legal.

  • [1] May 10, 2015 at 1:45pm

    Not detained is being free to go with all your personal property.
    The act of taking and keeping so much as your drivers license constitutes legal detention so not letting her leave with her car was legally detaining her.

  • [1] May 10, 2015 at 1:40pm

    Just be a good little sheep and obey, right?

  • [1] May 10, 2015 at 1:38pm

    They were not at the border as far as I can tell but the story doesn’t make it clear where exactly they were. The government granting itself permission to violate constitutional rights at locations other than the border does not mean it’s right or constitutionally legal.

  • [7] May 10, 2015 at 1:32pm

    They had no right to taser her she will likely win her lawsuit. Looking nervous is not probable cause nor is it legally definable. She is legally detained at the point the officer tells her she is free to go, but her car is staying there or he would spike her tires. Everything beyond this is the officers attempting to bully and abuse her she was not interfering with their activities she was already legally detained by their actions they should have simply asked to cuff her, not use a taser. This was a completely inappropriate escalation of force and another fine example of the kind of abuse of authority that has become a deep seated mistrust of authority across the nation.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 10, 2015 at 12:46pm

    No its not apples to oranges. I’m talking about any doctor who has the necessary skills and training to do an abortion yet they don’t offer or perform that service unless the life of their patient is st risk. A lot of doctors don’t offer this service because they are morally opposed to it, shouldn’t they be forced to do abortions using your logic.

  • [4] April 15, 2015 at 3:18pm

    The Republican establishment is the reason Obama is president. The press pumps out propaganda and makes up issues. They would ask a democrat candidate “How many died on the titanic” They answer 1517 and oh wow they’re obviously genius material. Then they ask the republican to “please name them its alright you can stop after 20 or 30″ Well they are to stupid to live if they can’t do it, and the game goes on.

  • [8] April 15, 2015 at 2:37pm

    Resistance is futile they should just prepare to be assimilated

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 11:50am

    I have read several of your post and really only have one question for you. Why should the Federal Government have a role in any of this. Every bit of it is outside the scope of its role according to the constitution. The government and its courts giving itself permission to expand its role as the States and people sit idol allowing it to happen is what has divided us as a people. Do you even know what freedom should look like? Marriage was not defined by mankind or any court it was defined by God, if the States must have a role in it, it should be for the legal purpose of domestic unions where gender is irrelevant. Government should have no authority to force me to pay for someones birth control or abortion. Government bailouts are illegal and should never have happened it is not the place for the public treasury to be used in this fashion. If you don’t think net neutrality is the first step in control over the internet you should look at the history of gun rights. Why should I need a permit to carry a gun and some states have laws with prison time for just having a gun in your car without their permission. The second amendment was supposed to be a right does that sound like a right to you. The internet is dangerous to the people in power how do you think they will use their authority over it?

  • March 18, 2015 at 5:01pm

    Why exactly was this an issue fox? The cases of potential abuse had been settled and were no longer an issue. The internet worked fine without government involvement so why do you think the government exercising regulatory authority over the internet is a good thing? How is it this story stayed alive and got the air time it did? Propaganda is an insidious thing telling people what to think and who to trust. When you point at conservatives and say you don’t think you might look in a mirror and ask yourself “have I been manipulated into the opinion I now have?”

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] February 19, 2015 at 12:10pm

    For all those who think anyone should be forced to provide a service against their will. Based on religious convictions should doctors with the necessary skills be forced to perform abortions? Isn’t it discrimination against women if a doctor won’t perform abortions? If I provide a service to the public that involves my personal skill, or artistic abilities, these things belong to me individually, and although used in business I retain my rights to them as a sovereign individual person. Government through legislation, or regulation, encroaching on my liberty, forcing me to provide my unique skills or artistic abilities under any circumstance by threat of fine or incarceration is a violation of my human rights, and the very liberty our constitution sought to insure was protected for every citizen.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 3, 2015 at 11:08am

    I added to my original post which was identical to yours with these questions it answers some of them.

  • [19] February 3, 2015 at 10:49am

    This was taken from the original story and it sounds like they didn’t want to take his money because he had made it inconvenient for them, and were asking him to leave with his money, taxes unpaid, I think. The real kicker is the police officer AND the tax assessor assaulted him when he pulled away from being handcuffed for breaking some imaginary made up stuff that was apparently an arrest worthy crime.
    According to the affidavit:
    The deputy was at the Annex, 600 Scott Street, just after 2 p.m. when Wichita County Tax Assessor Collector Tommy Smyth asked Timothy Andrew Norris, 27, to leave the tax office. Smyth accused Norris of disrupting the operation and efficiency of the tax office by attempting to pay $600-worth of property taxes with $1 bills. The bills were said to be folded so tightly it “required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill.”

    When Norris refused, he was arrested and charged with criminal trespass. As the deputy grabbed Norris’ arm to place him in handcuffs, Norris pulled away. He pulled away again when the deputy went to grab his arm a second time, causing the deputy and Smyth to wrestle Norris to the ground to detain him — bringing an additional charge of resisting arrest.
    Norris’ bail totaled $500 for both charges. He was not in the Wichita County Jail Monday.

    Responses (1) +
  • [52] February 3, 2015 at 10:32am

    He was accused of trying to disrupt the tax offices functioning, and he was charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.
    Anytime the government doesn’t like something you have done, or are doing, they arrest you and make up a reason for your arrest. I want to know how you can criminal trespass in a public (owned by the tax payers) government building, during business hours, when that building is open to the public in this case for the business of collecting taxes, and you are there paying your taxes. I would like to see the law or ordinance that defines his actions as criminal trespass. I would like more detail on why he wouldn’t leave did they give him a receipt for his $600? There are usually cameras everywhere I would be very interested in seeing what they defined as resisting arrest, and shouldn’t it be appropriate to resist arrest if they don’t have a legal basis for your detention. (I’m not saying they did or didn’t) We have the story, but we only seem to have one side of it. We have no relevant detail to form an opinion of law enforcement or the citizen being justified in their actions. Rules of journalism: Who, what, when, where, why, and how. This story is very light on the why.

    Responses (4) +
  • [10] January 29, 2015 at 11:10am

    The 2A is about a God given right to self defense of lives and property against anyone who would be a threat to to them. A right is God given the constitution acknowledges this right and by the wisdom of the founders seeks to protect it. The States ratified the constitution including the first 10 amendments and now seek to imply they should have authority to violate a right of the people and disarm them at their discretion. I personally am “licensed” to conceal carry because I obey the law as it exist, but my interpretation of the constitution is that I do not need a license to carry a gun concealed or otherwise and no distinction should be made between a rifle and a handgun.

  • [9] January 19, 2015 at 8:29am

    I’m still convinced the game between Dallas and Green Bay was fixed who does the NFL punish for that?

  • [19] December 12, 2014 at 10:45am

    I don’t know about California, but in Texas it is a crime trying to stop or erase someones personal video. It is considered evidence tampering and is a very serious (felony) crime.

123
Restoring Love