User Profile: RabidPatriot


Member Since: December 17, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [4] September 22, 2014 at 2:20pm

    I know several people that have quit smoking cigarettes by using the e-cigarettes. They emit vapor and they are beneficial by eliminating the smoke. It helps people and it hurts nobody. I think the real problem is, it effects cigarette sales and all that government sin tax. You have big cig and politicians enlisting the same bought and paid for scientists that promote climate change to de-legitimize the e-cigs. There is a big push to harm the sales of these things and if that doesn’t work, to super tax them.

  • [9] September 22, 2014 at 2:07pm

    I’m a huge fan of Insta-Karma. If it happened all of the time, it would be easy to ID all of the jackholes in society. They would be the ones with all of the casts and stitches.

  • [10] September 19, 2014 at 2:12pm

    It’s because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to treat everyone equally and not just serve the traditional majority. I have no problems with outcomes that are Constitutionally correct. I can pray whenever I want.

  • [4] September 19, 2014 at 2:00pm

    These sort of stupid rules are actually brought on by litigious parents. Their child has some kind of severe food allergy and want the entire school to change their food and rules to protect their child. When their child dies or gets sick, the first thing they do is sue. It’s easy to say, “screw that one kid and that dumb parent… go home school if they are that sick.” Here in the real world, public schools are required to educate and can’t discriminate based on disease or disability. It’s more efficient to have rules like this, instead of being sued.

  • [1] September 19, 2014 at 12:04am

    They ask the questions to get the non-answer on the record. With video interviews, an obvious dodge is just as bad as answering the question.

  • [13] September 18, 2014 at 2:30am

    I just read an article that suggested that the recent warm weather (straw weather) is making spiders bigger. It will only be a matter of time until some idiot climate scientist writes an award winning study that says climate change will create giant man eating spiders. I’m sure they are going through the Rolodex of phobias to scare the crap out of people with irrational fears. They will do anything to win new recruits to their cult.

  • [4] September 17, 2014 at 6:37pm

    D.C is on the radar of the NRA and gun rights legal organizations. I’m sure as soon as someone gets rejected, they will sue to get it overturned. The NRA is pushing D.C. to restrict gun rights so they can challenge them and start the process to the Supreme Court. You only need one to be overturned by the high court to get all of the faulty concealed carry laws in the U.S. changed.

  • [27] September 17, 2014 at 12:32am

    You are thinking like a civilized person. That would be bad for you and your family, but for these people it would be a reward and they would love it. Of course they would still insist on all the other government assistance, just not the rules and justice part.

  • [5] September 16, 2014 at 7:37pm

    That sort thinking is almost childish. These people are seasoned warriors and killers. They march across the desert, fight their enemy to the death and keep on going. They are wilingl to do things that our people don’t even want to watch on TV. If you think that they are afraid of pigs blood like a vampire burns with holy water… you watch too much TV. These guys would eat a BLT while putting your head on a pike. These people are like progressives, they follow their laws until they become inconvenient and then they do as they please to accomplish their goals.

  • September 16, 2014 at 12:18pm

    @ TexasKnight – The police use Tasers and not stun guns, it’s not just semantics, they are completely different weapons. The police use a Use of Force Matrix. If you have a deadly weapon (sword, knife, pipe, rock…) they use their gun.

    @ kirralin23 – Once the bad guy commits to using deadly force towards the police (or anyone else), and the police use deadly force to stop them, they fire their weapons until the bad guy ceases to be a threat to everybody. If the bad guy turns to run away, he is now a threat to the general public if he still has that sword, and the police are legally justified to continue shooting him until he no longer poses a threat. Once a deadly force incident starts, the bad guy doesn’t get to call time out because the bullets hurt. Drop the sword, get on the ground and the police stop filling you with holes. The police are legally able to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect that has a weapon and poses a danger to the public if he gets away. Crazy man with sword qualifies.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 12:02pm

    I guess before you make a comment like, “he makes millions”, you should probably know that this is college football. They are student athletes and they don’t get paid, but do earn scholarships to attend school. Most student athletes don’t go to the pros and earn millions.

  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 3:45pm

    @ bluduc

    You’re confusing different issues. The police have never had the right to I.D. people for no reason. Being a passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop in which the stopped activity that only involves the driver does not open you to addition scrutiny. If that police officer smells marijuana during that stop, every passenger better get their ID because a different standard has just changed the rule. Reasonable suspicion guides ID and not probable cause. By the time probable cause has been established, you’re going to jail and corrections officers have all the time in the world to ID you.

    During questioning in a reasonable suspicion detention, you are not compelled to answer any questions, but under the reasonableness standard they can extend your detention to question other people if they believe you’re involved. That would not normally be allowed if you cooperated. If they then establish probable cause, they will stick more charges on you for interfering with their investigation or obstructing.

    So many people confuse the standards of reasonable suspicion vs probable cause. If they have already established probable cause, you are going to jail and IDing and cooperating is immaterial. At that point, they will cuff you, completely search you and take you to jail to be processed.

    Cop ~ “Did you do that? He says you did. Let me see some ID.” = reasonable suspicion

    Cop ~ “You did that! Get on the ground you’re under arrest.” = probable cause

  • September 15, 2014 at 3:20pm

    @HaulingAsh @johnbarlycorn

    The both of you are confusing “arrest” with “detention” and “reasonable suspicion” with “probable cause.”

    If the police believe criminal activity is afoot, they are guided by rules of temporary detention and reasonable suspicion that a crime may have occurred. If the police are making arrests for crimes, they are guided by rules of probable cause. They are completely different standards. One is for the purpose of investigation and the other is for arrest. Reasonable suspicion has a lower standard for the officer to articulate and the reading of Miranda at that point is not required. Both of these standards have went before the Supreme Court and have been established as Constitutional. Furthermore, Terry vs. Ohio not only allows detention for reasonable suspicion, but also search of person for weapons if the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed. That would normally not be allowed under the 4th Amendment but under “reasonable suspicion” it has been deemed Constitutional.

    You amateur lawyers should leave the legal guidance to actual legal professionals like myself. Use Google, compare what I have written with legal periodicals and established case law and stop polluting comment boards with nonsense.

  • [15] September 15, 2014 at 3:02am


    You are legally incorrect. If the police believe criminal activity is afoot, they have the Constitutional authority to detain for a reasonable amount of time for the purpose of investigating if a crime is actually being committed. During this time, you are not free to go, if the police feel that you pose a possible danger to them or you are a flight risk, they may use reasonable restraints (physical holding, handcuffs, detention within a police car), it is a crime to resist and you can be charged with resisting even if you have been cleared of the original suspected crime. If you interfere with their investigation, you can be charged with interfering with their sworn duties even if you are cleared of the original suspected crime. If you take that interference to the level that they believe you are covering up a crime, they will charge you with obstruction. If the reasons for the initial stop seems even minutely reasonable, most judges will find you guilty of the resisting, interference and obstruction charges in less time than it took you to get to court. Innocent people with a great deal of emotional intelligence are usually let go very rapidly without incident. Those that lack emotional intelligence or general intellect, usually find themselves, detained, handcuffed and in jail for lack of self control.

  • [255] September 14, 2014 at 8:12pm

    “West added that he would be able to spot anyone who “ain’t standing up, believe me, I’m very good at that.”

    He’s very good at that. English, math and manners, not so much.

    Responses (1) +
  • [177] September 14, 2014 at 1:57am

    She is not just depressed, she is a complete lunatic. I have handled those unsharpened display swords and you could still very easily kill somebody with it. It’s still metal and pointed on the end and you could run someone through or open someone’s head. If you’re lunging at cops with it, I’m sure they are not pausing to evaluate the sharpness of the blade or the color of his skin.

    I’m sure if a White person killed her son with that sword, it would suddenly cease being a toy and still be a racist act.

    I find it extraordinarily offensive when people use their grief to make vicious accusations against other people and then use the death of their loved ones as a shield when people try to defend themselves.

    Responses (7) +
  • [68] September 14, 2014 at 1:03am

    The author, and every other intelligent legal and political mind, has been shouting for millenniums that every man that judges man is both biased and fallible. Secular progressives do not believe in a higher power that will judge their sins. This allows them a belief that they can do whatever they want with no care as to the consequences. A human with no fear of consequences for doing evil deeds is dangerous.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] September 13, 2014 at 10:18pm

    I’m glad he got a new show. To bad it’s on CNN and only a handful of people will ever see it. If CNN’s past shows us anything, his show will not be dependent on ratings to stay on long-term.

  • [67] September 13, 2014 at 6:57pm

    I would never have a conversation with a home invader prior to shooting them. The only conversation I would have is, “Move and I’ll shoot you again.”

    How sad it will be for the idiots that follow NBC’s advice. I can here the police already, cop 1 ~”What’s with the bug spray next to the dead bodies?” cop 2 ~ I’m not sure but this is the third dead home owner with bug spray in his hand this week.”

  • [4] September 13, 2014 at 2:23pm

    …and of course, this President would never call it terrorism or a hate crime.

123 To page: Go