‘Responsible’ Minnesota Gun Owner Shoots Teen Girl For Asking Him Not to Ride Mower in Her Yard (Video)

A former Northwestern Minnesota Juvenile Center corrections officer is behind bars after Standing His Ground™ against…

You have to get your news from the source and not bloggers; Minnesota is a "Duty to Retreat States". People who get their "news" from from Fox type reporters have a closed minded agenda IMHO.

---

You have to get your news from the source and not bloggers; Minnesota is a "Duty to Retreat States". People who get their "news" from from Fox type reporters have a closed minded agenda IMHO.

It sounds like he went hunting.

---

You have to get your news from the source and not bloggers; Minnesota is a "Duty to Retreat States". People who get their "news" from from Fox type reporters have a closed minded agenda IMHO.

It sounds like he went hunting.

We must disarm correction officers.

---

You have to get your news from the source and not bloggers; Minnesota is a "Duty to Retreat States". People who get their "news" from from Fox type reporters have a closed minded agenda IMHO.

It sounds like he went hunting.

Yes. Capital hunting. Corrections officer.

USA has a crazy control problem. It refuses to deal with the mentally ill.

I hope he gets some nice long quality time with his former charges.

---

I hope he gets some nice long quality time with his former charges.

Jail is not a nice place for cops; they MUST be in punk custody. That means never leaving the cell block and 16 hours a day in the cell with another punk.

---

or, more likely, he is just doing it to annoy you.

How can you have a political forum without annoying someone?

:) just having some fun - hope no one minds... :)

That annoys me although I didn't watch it.

They were all just having an off day I think - we all suffer from those don't we? :)

Wonder if this just a one day thing or something more permanent.
'No loud Americans' sign in County Kerry, Ireland,

or, more likely, he is just doing it to annoy you.

How can you have a political forum without annoying someone?

:) just having some fun - hope no one minds... :)

That annoys me although I didn't watch it.

They were all just having an off day I think - we all suffer from those don't we? :)

Wonder if this just a one day thing or something more permanent.
'No loud Americans' sign in County Kerry, Ireland,

It would have been better if it said

"No brash or loud Americans".

---

Why, since The US has been the Dominant Military, and Economic Power since 1945 (but fading): Is there a complete lack of understanding of how it operates?

It's only a question of how you operate to yourselves. To the rest of the world when you enter the International scene, you are the USA. When will you Yanks realise that?

We 'Yanks' (actually referrers to people from New England) DO understand that Internationally, there is an American Government.

Internally, there is NO American Government, as people in other country's have.

What is so hard to understand?

But just look at your info box, you are identified, just like all the other in your country under the same flag, the Stars and Stripes.

And some of you on that side of the pond like to put all of us on this side as members of the EU, but look at our flags they are all different. And just as our flags are different we are different. Whereas you have nothing that immediately says there are difference between your crowd.

Internally, there is NO American Government, as people in other country's have.

There is. Sorry, but no matter how you try to spin it, the Federal government does have some authority over the states. Yes, its limited, but it is there.

We 'Yanks' (actually referrers to people from New England)

I wouldn't go to Alabama and call them Yankees.

But just look at your info box, you are identified, just like all the other in your country under the same flag, the Stars and Stripes.
And some of you on that side of the pond like to put all of us on this side as members of the EU

I don't, you people are city states not as united as the United States. US individual states have power that is not given to the federal government in the Constitution, like the death penalty. It was Arizona who chose the method of the botched execution not the federal government. So yes the EU has more power over the city states in some areas than the US federal government but less in others. Your city states have independent armies not subject to EU control. The several US states have independent armies also (National Guards) BUT with a stroke of a pen the Commander-in-Chief can federalize all units.

Internally, there is NO American Government, as people in other country's have.

There is. Sorry, but no matter how you try to spin it, the Federal government does have some authority over the states. Yes, its limited, but it is there.

Only what is given to the Federal government in the Constitution. The death penalty, for state crimes, is an individual state affair. It is Arizona's method of execution that is the topic.

---

Remember: 40% of the military forces of the US, are State National Guard.

The Regular Army looks down on Guard units. They don't truly integrate into the regulars; they are deployed and return as a unit. When a Guard unit returns form deployment VA doctors are assigned to do physicals not regular Army doctors. The RA looks at the Guard as civilians playing solder. Conscripts on the outer hand are considered Regular Army as their butts belong to them 100%.

Colorado and Washington are now ignoring Federal marijuana laws; so far no Federal police sent in. I never thought about how vast the US of A is until reading this forum. I'm closer to Europe than Arizona in miles but a universe away in political reasoning.

---

It was Arizona who chose the method of the botched execution not the federal government.

Colorado and Washington are now ignoring Federal marijuana laws;

So as we have established each state makes it own laws, it is in fact the Non-United States.

---

It was Arizona who chose the method of the botched execution not the federal government.

Colorado and Washington are now ignoring Federal marijuana laws;

So as we have established each state makes it own laws, it is in fact the Non-United States.

The would sees US as one, most likely, because the Constriction gives the Federal Government the exclusive right to make treaties; they never deal with the several states as individuals.

What laws an individual state makes has no effect on people not within its boarders so no unity is necessary.

A side note; wile states can't make treaties some states have entered into motor vehicle "agreements" with Canadian provinces to share driving records for serious violations. Motor vehicle laws are a state affair.

---

Well... Most 'Authority' amounts to bribery.

Irrelevant. It has authority because states accept it as having authority. The bribery only happens when the Federal government wants to create laws in areas where it traditionally does not have any competences. But even if you ignore those laws, you still come to the conclusion that in a number of areas the Federal government has power over the states legislators.

No Treaty signed by The Federal Government, has any authority upon The States, if it violates their Constitutional Rights. This happens frequently, and the Federal Government Treaty's become non-enforceable.

Wrong. You didn't read the constitution did you. There is this nice little clause called the Supremacy clause that states the US constitution, Federal statues and US treaties supersedes state laws and are the law of the land. In the case Missouri v. Holland, 252 US 416 the Supreme Court explicitly stated that this supremacy clause also applies to International Treaties the US signs. In case State laws conflict with valid Federal laws, state laws are nullified and Federal law takes over. It also states that state courts cannot nullify Federal law, only Federal courts can do such a thing.

The only thing is that International Treaties cannot be in conflict with the US constitution.

This also further reinforces the notion that the Federal government has some power over the states.

It is apparent that there are many non-American's who have no idea how The US Operates Internally. It is unique. When they say 'it is no different than us' or 'I can't see a difference', I am totally amazed.

Its apparent that you have no idea how the US functions, given how blatantly wrong you are about the powers of the Federal government. Or how other countries function. The only reason you are amazed is because you do not understand how your country works or how other countries have systems that are similar in place.

The State of Texas arrested a Mexican National for murder. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. His lawyer's, and The Mexican Government, went to the American FEDERAL Courts, stating (truthfully), the State of Texas did not allow this man to 'quickly' contact His Government, in violation of The Treaty.

I'm confused.

Why didn't he have his lawyer call Mexico?

---

As we're discussing state & federal laws, a little history lesson...

An important battle not many know about

"Without Bouvines there is no Magna Carta, and all the British and American law that stems from that. It's a muddy field, the armies are small, but everything depends on the struggle. It's one of the climactic moments of European history."

"5 Quebec (1759): The second decisive battle won by the British in the annus mirabilis of 1759, it ensured a largely English-speaking future for North America."

---

How do I reply to all the misstatements listed in your response.

I'll start with one (possibly adding later).

NO TREATY, signed by The Federal Government is Enforceable, if it Violates The Rights of The States. The 'Supremacy Clause' pertains to issues The Federal Government DOES have Authority. It does not involve the issue of Treaty's, nor other issues listed above.

Read your constitution, making treaties with other countries is something the Federal government has authority over. But if you don't believe me, just look up the case I cited. Missouri vs Holland.

Recent Example - The Federal Government signed a Treaty stating that ALL Foreign Nationals arrested, will have an opportunity, very quickly, to contact their Government.

I know the example. You didn't read what the actual outcome was. The SCOTUS didn't say that the treaty itself was unenforceable because it clashed with state laws.

What the court said was that there are two kinds of treaties. Self Executing treaties and non self executing treaties. The non self executing treaties require congress to make a law that implements these treaties, while for self executing treaties that is not necessary. The example you mentioned was what the SCOTUS called a non self executing treaty and since congress had not made an implement law because it assumed that it was self executing, the treaties on which this case was based were deemed invalid for the time.

The fact that the treaty clashed with state law had nothing to do with it and no, the courts did not state that any international treaties clashing with state laws are from this point on invalid.

Sorry but once again you have proven that you don't know how your own country works.

Your responses do correctly 'state the words' of The American Constitution. But with no understanding of The Entire Document, nor the meaning of these words, nor SCOTUS Decisions over more than 200 years.

So far I have demonstrated a better grasp of US constitutional law than you. I have a better grasp of the case law, and the way its interpreted. Ive done my research, while you at best demonstrate incomplete knowledge of specific case law or interpretations of law. First in the Hobby Lobby case, now here.

Read your constitution, making treaties with other countries is something the Federal government has authority over. But if you don't believe me, just look up the case I cited. Missouri vs Holland.

Why EXACTALLY did the SCOTUS say Missouri could not stop US warden Holland from enforcing the treaty that was specific to said treaty? If you know that you would not site that case as proof that all treaties void state law.

---

So far I have demonstrated a better grasp of US constitutional law than you.

Not a surprise. He is a former cop.

---

Read your constitution, making treaties with other countries is something the Federal government has authority over. But if you don't believe me, just look up the case I cited. Missouri vs Holland.

Again wrong.

This was based upon Interstate Commerce. Migratory Birds fly between States.

Nope. Again you didnt read the case. If you had, you would have known that the justices pretty much stated that if this rule had not been in an international treaty, it would have been unconstitutional because of the tenth amendment. But international treaties are as you say 'law of the land'. International treaties trump a states claim to sovereignty.

Interstate commerce wasn't cited by the court. And check any legal source, they all say that this case confirmed that international treaties can override state laws.