Dave Hernandez 
Member since May 10, 2013

Custom Lists

  • Zip.



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Links to Me

Recent Comments

Re: “Simulator prepares recruits for critical decision-making

These simulators have been used for a couple decades and are not only invaluable for training officers, but also for educating the public.

Time after time, after a highly publicized shooting by law enforcement officers, community leaders and even many of the people leading the outcry have come away completely changed by the experience of going through the simulator. They almost always have a new found appreciation for just how difficult the decision is and how fast it has to be made.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 11/06/2019 at 10:30 AM

Re: “Southeast shoulders one-third of city's pedestrian-vehicle fatalities

"Last year, Frabiele says, the pedestrians who died were found to be at fault in all but two of 13 fatal collisions. "

Yep. We see it all too often that m0r0ns are crossing the street in places where they are not supposed to or at times they are not supposed to. Very frequently, those very same !d!0ts are crossing when it is dark outside and they are wearing dark clothing.

Pedestrians do NOT always have the right-of-way. The only time they do is if they are crossing at a designated and clearly marked crossing point or intersection. If they cross in the middle of the street, as I personally see a lot of on both Platte and on Circle, then they they do NOT have the right-of-way and if they are hit by a vehicle, the pedestrian will be at fault. THIS IS THE LAW!

When these same numbskulls combine crossing in the middle of the street or against a light and they are wearing dark clothing and it is not full daylight, then the pedestrian has created a disaster just waiting to happen, one where they will almost always be the injured party.

Of course the bleeding hearts knuckleheads will amazingly try to blame the driver or the city instead of blaming the actual person at fault -- the pedestrian.

So, as a pedestrian, here are 3 really simple rules to DRAMATICALLY reduce your chances of being hit.

1) Only cross in designated and marked crossing points (crosswalks) or at intersections.
2) Do not cross against the light.
3) Wear white or reflective clothing when it is not full daylight. Doesn't hurt to have a flashlight or similar either.

If people would just follow these few simple, good sense, and reasonable rules, our number of pedestrians getting hit will be very significantly reduced. It really isn't that darn difficult.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 11/06/2019 at 10:19 AM

Re: “Anonymity leads to atrocious behavior

Sooo....what you are saying is that anonymity does not lead to atrocious behavior. A nice thing with anonymity is that is gives people the opportunity to speak their mind without the fear of being attacked. While that can be a double edged sword, I would rather that people have the freedom to speak their mind than to have them be subject to virtual and even real world attacks.

I tried NextDoor for a while and ended up leaving.

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 10/19/2019 at 8:47 PM

Re: “Electoral College system faces challenges, changes

"With National Popular Vote, all of Colorado's votes would count."

Not really. If the majority of the US voted for John Doe, and everyone in Colorado voted for Dave Smith, all of Colorado's electoral votes would go to John Doe. This means Colorado's votes don't really count. Yes, they go into the overall total tally, but in the actual vote that counts, it wouldn't matter.

The NPV is an alarming attempt to circumvent the Constitution without following the correct process for changing the Constitution -- the amendment process.

Furthermore, the NPV may be determined by the Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional compact.

The correct way to fix the electoral system is for states to move away from their "winner take all" policies. This does not require an unconstitutional compact and is in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

Let me be perfectly clear -- the Electoral College does not NOT prescribe the winner take all policy. Winner take all is entirely a creation of the states.

Under the current way states have implemented (winner take all) the electoral system a candidate need only win the plurality (not the majority) in 11 states to become President: CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ. Thanks to the states implementing the winner take all system, in such a vote, none of the other states matter.

So, ironically, the NPV is an attempt by the states to fix a problem they themselves are causing. Even more ironically, they are attempting to fix it by essentially using the exact same approach -- winner take all ( the winner of the national popular vote gets all the electors)! IOW, the NPV is just a doubling down on a $tup!d idea.

All the states have to do to fix the problem is to get rid of the winner take all systems they themselves implemented. There are several completely legal ways for the states to do this.

1) States assign all their votes proportionally based on how the entire population of the state voted. Great approach, but the intricacies of rounding may become an issue.

2) Votes are cast for the winner of each congressional district with the two remaining votes either assigned by the state legislature (the way US Senators used to be elected), or proportionally. This is a much cleaner system with less potential for controversy from rounding.

3) Divide the state into electoral college districts.

The bottom line, though, is Colorado's electoral votes are supposed to reflect how Colorado voted, not how people in other states voted. And for this reason, the NPV is an extremely bad idea.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 09/12/2019 at 11:30 AM

Re: “Gov. Polis survives recall attempt

bob cl

3) Unlike with state laws, there is no recall provision in federal laws.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 09/10/2019 at 3:55 PM

Re: “Let Pete Lee govern already

When the public does not like the way someone voted, recalls are a completely valid and very legal option.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 09/10/2019 at 9:31 AM

Re: “Gov. Polis survives recall attempt

"A "Red Flag Bill", what's wrong with that? "

A LOT! Due process, court costs, different standards of proof, disposition of personal property, the ability to get that property back, false claims, just to name a few problems.

If you are accused of being a threat the standard of proof for the people making the accusation is very low, called "reasonable suspicion". If they meet that standard, your firearms can be seized, by force. You will not be present when this hearing is held, in fact you will probably not even know it is happening until after it happens. Your due process will be waived for the initial seizure of your property

When you finally do go to court to fight these accustaions, no lawyer will be provided to you. If you want a lawyer, which I would HIGHLY recommend, it is going to probably cost you around $5,000 just for a single representation. To show that you are not a threat, your standard of proof is much higher, at least at the preponderance of evidence level.

If you win your case, you are still out that $5000 -- you cannot sue for damages. If you are lucky, then the firearms may be returned to you, but don't hold your breath -- in other states which have done this, it has often taken people months to get their firearms back, if ever.

If you are deemed to be a threat at the time, then you either have to sell your firearms to a licensed dealer (you cannot sell them yourself and you cannot give them to someone for safe keeping) or the police will take them.

After a year, there will be a re-evaluation. Again, if you are smart, you will hire a lawyer -- none will be appointed to you, so figure at least another $5000 to fight for your rights. Again, the standard of proof is much higher than to take the firearms in the first place.

If you win this one, you are now out at least $10,000 and again you cannot sue for damages.

A lot of people who will be affected by this law cannot afford to pay $5000 for a lawyer, much less $10,000.

In California, which was one of the first states to enact this law, for those people who were later cleared by the court to possess firearms, only about 40% actually get their firearms back.

"With all the deaths from gun violence in our nation, we need to have a way to remove guns from people with explosive mental conditions before they kill themselves, their wives and other innocents. "

All of which could already have been done under the existing system regarding restraining orders/protective orders without any new laws being passed. The problem was not the lack of a way to intervene, the problem is that few people were using it.

If you do not understand standards of proof, http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Stand… will get you started.

7 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 09/09/2019 at 2:49 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation