Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess the wacko's are right, line your roof and walls with aluminum foil, that will stop the Predators ability to "see through walls"
Close, but not quite. Aluminum will reflect some IR, but not all. Mirrors would be a better choice. Mirrors will completely reflect IR, whereas, water (and to a lesser extent oxygen and carbon molecules) absorb IR.
In either case, it does not matter if they can see through walls or not. If law enforcement has probable cause or a court-issued warrant, then any evidence they collect can be used against you in court. Otherwise, they cannot use it as evidence against you. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment does not require anyone under surveillance, or the owner of the property being searched or seized, to be notified.
Close, but not quite. Aluminum will reflect some IR, but not all. Mirrors would be a better choice. Mirrors will completely reflect IR, whereas, water (and to a lesser extent oxygen and carbon molecules) absorb IR.
It's just physics.
Light is photons. Photons are energy particles. Energy particles can be absorbed, reflected, refracted, bent, etc.
There was a company that made a polymer wax you could put on your car to absorb laser beams and give false readings for police using laser speed detectors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Wrong yet again, the Fourth Amendment does say that, specifically: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." Meaning, if probable cause exists, no warrant need be issued. If there is no probable cause, then a warrant is required.
I take it you've never applied for a warrant. Your reading of that is wrong.
"But" in this instance means "except."
"...no Warrants shall issue, [except] upon probably cause..."
You need "probable cause" in order to obtain a warrant.
Wow, what a Freudian slip.
"...no Warrants shall issue, [except] upon probable cause..."
There we go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
Excepting a few situations, probable cause alone is not sufficient to search, one must have probable cause and a warrant (exigence, consent, plain view, automobiles, and administrative searches are the exceptions).
There are other exceptions. To protect life from eminent threat of death or bodily harm, and to preserve evidence.
Hot pursuit does not require a warrant either. If I am in pursuit, and you enter an auto or building, I do not a warrant to pursue you into the building, or to search it afterward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe
The article states that the usefulness of the radar technology at this point is about 100 meters under the best ideal conditions. These things fly at 8000 feet. And even if the radar worked at that distance, it could not "see" anything but heat spots indicating a human or animal was present. They cannot actually "see" anything. The only reason these things work at all in the wars we have now is due to the fact that it is desert and we do not have to deal with clouds, trees and all the other obstructions found elsewhere in the world. If these things we the end all of everything the military would not keep hitting a dozen or so civilians for every target they shoot at.
You might want to actually look at the technology.
The US Air Force...We don't fly at night or in crappy weather.
Of course they do. Go read the contracts. "...desires an all-weather aircraft..." "...desires an all-weather aircraft with night capability..." etc, etc, etc.
You can see through clouds. And smoke. And dust, fog, mist. Damn near anything. I had thermal ID on my Bradley. Can't always see clearly, but clear enough to distinguish an armored vehicle from an automobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
The laws say you have a right to privacy in areas where you can reasonably expect privacy. These include areas like your home, a dressing room, a bathroom stall, a hotel room, etc. But there's no right to privacy in a public location.
That would be my reading and interpretation as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
The predator drone can't hover. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't know better than the laws of physics.
Perhaps. But it's only a matter of time before there are rotary wing UAVs, and those will hover.
And they will be very, very quiet, and very hard to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Where does the Fourth Amendment say the owner of the property being searched must be notified?
It doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
Hell, if you want to be a strict constitutionalist, it might be worth noting that the 4th amendment only requires probable cause (and particularity) for search and arrest warrants - it doesn't say anything about warrantless searches.
Actually it does.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The operand is "unreasonable." You have to determine what it means.
What is "unreasonable?" Dictionaries generally define it as...
Not guided by or based on good sense.
Beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness
...however, it would be best to consult a dictionary from the 1790s to see what "unreasonable" meant to the persons who authored the amendments.
Is it reasonable for the police to simply barge into your home?
I think the most rational person (as opposed to the most irrational idiot) would say "no."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe
The police do not need warrants to fly over. That falls under the "Plain Sight Doctrine" where, if illegal activity is in plain sight, a warrant is not needed.
But that is touchy.
Do people normally fly? I don't. Well, I did once. My cousin was on top of a silo. He said he flew up there. He was half-baked anyway, but I had to fly up and get him down before he fell and hurt himself.
Just because police can fly, it doesn't mean they ought to fly.
Normal would be walking, riding a bike or horse, or operating a motorcycle or a vehicle. Since those are activities that people normally do during the ordinary course of the day, police can and ought to do those things as well.
But, again, people don't normally fly, and the police ought not to be flying either. When it becomes normal for people to fly, then the police can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe
A drone cannot peer into a dwelling or through a window. It is not any different than having a police helicopter overhead.
If you ever get a chance, go up in an Hornet or an Apache
The normal course of technology is that it is miniaturized. That is not the case for UAVs. UAVs will only get bigger and bigger until they are basically a C-130 or a JSTARS just loaded with all kinds of avionics and electronic intelligence gathering devices, including signal intercept capabilities (ie they can monitor your internet and cell-phone).
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
You obviously do not prescribe to the idea of a slippery slope.
I do.
The slope is very real, and it is very slippery.
Roe v Wade is a most excellent example of the Slippery Slope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimmerama
Cops can already have this capability. I gave you the exact case where the police did that, and their evidence was suppressed because they did not have a warrant to use thermal imaging to see inside the house.
Then they were dumber than a box of rocks. In that instance, there would have been 100 different ways to legally get a warrant without anyone ever knowing thermal imaging had been used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
Still waiting to hear the loony logic decrying drones and not a peep about CCTV cameras everywhere you go monitored by police....
There is a very clear and distinct difference between me walking or driving on a public road and being under surveillance by CCTV, and me sitting in my condo being under surveillance by a UAV or manned aircraft.
I would hope people can recognize the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
MIRCEA - did you actually say this?
Quote:
"Man are you naive.
I used to run illegal wire-taps and then get warrants through other means to legally search.
You're limited only by your imagination, and as a last resort, I can always use the "anonymous tip" or get one of my paid informants to say whatever I tell them to say.
At 1:00 AM, the judge isn't going to be talking to my informant anyway. I'm going to call the judge and fax a copy of the warrant to his home for him to sign (or drive to his home).
The sheriff here has a helicopter with forward-looking infrared and thermal imaging. They can see "grow lights," meth labs etc. It'll be there 2-3-5 days from now. Plenty of time to get a warrant together through legal means.
I used to walk through parking lots in bars/night clubs and kick tail-lights out, then sit down the road and pull people over later because "they had a tail-light out."
Usually good for a DWI and/or drug bust.
There's always a way, it just depends on how clever you are."
If so, you are the kind of legal domestic terrorist should fear.
Relax.
Even though we are worlds apart on the political spectrum, I am on your side, and I will never allow myself to be used as a tool by the government again.
Your government has a long history of brutally and savagely oppressing others. I saw that when I was in Honduras, and the rest of it we know from declassified documents. I have a theory that over time, as government oppresses others, the line between people in other countries and its own citizens becomes finer and finer until the line is so blurred it is indistinct and government starts oppressing its own citizens.
I don't think your government is there yet, but it is certainly moving in that direction very rapidly.
When I was at the NTSC, I used to do stuff like take 32 troops and try to defend against an OPFOR airborne battalion. I got pretty good at it. I figure that might come in handy at some point in the future. So will all the terrorism/counter-terrorism, insurgency/counter-insurgency and intelligence/counter-intelligence stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim9251
And I used to love to arrest dirty cops like you who gave the good ones a bad name.
You'd have loved to. I was way more clever than that, but even for me there were limits. I never planted evidence, never coerced witnesses, never stole money or drugs, never took bribes or anything else. And I wasn't about to, which is one reason I stopped being a cop (because the vast majority of others were doing that).
Normally, I say if you want to effect change, do it from the inside, but that doesn't work for law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
We are never going to have FEMA camps. We have never had such a thing in this country. That was only for potential Japanese enemies of the state.
You might want to review REX84 and congressional legislation funding the construction and operation of detention facilities, so you don't make bone-headed statements like that.
There were no Japanese. There were American citizens of Japanese ancestry, but the question still remains why didn't they lock up German and Italian immigrants? Why didn't they lock up American citizens of German or Italian ancestry, especially those who had recently become citizens?
Newsflash: Asians don't exactly look like your typical WASP during the WW II era, but Germans and Italians did. So who would have an easier time infiltrating a government agency, private organization or work-place and spying, an Asian, or a European?
There are other exceptions. To protect life from eminent threat of death or bodily harm, and to preserve evidence.
Hot pursuit does not require a warrant either. If I am in pursuit, and you enter an auto or building, I do not a warrant to pursue you into the building, or to search it afterward.
I can't believe there's a cop out there that doesn't know what the term exigence refers to in this circumstance... You are the one claiming to be a dirty cop, right?
Also, while the 4th amendment now requires that a warrantless search or arrest require probable cause, that is only a result of judicial interpretation (that the 4th would be useless otherwise. The wording of the 4th, simply states that warrants require probable cause to prevent unreasonable search and seizure.
And finally, there was internment of Italian-Americans, just not on the same scale.
Last edited by rimmerama; 12-14-2011 at 12:19 AM..
Another way to look at this story. It was a civil matter of who owned the cows.
According to local reports, these cows were not alleged to be stolen, they had wandered onto the Brossart farm. According to certain local reports, Mr. Brossart believed these animals to be unclaimed and, in accordance with certain open range laws, the cattle belonged to him. When questioned in court, he answered repeatedly, that the cattle were "his property." Because of this property dispute, legally speaking, this is now a civil matter. Yet, the Sheriff's office served a criminal warrant to look for these cows.
When Mr. Brossart refused to honor the warrant, he was tazed and placed into custody. Mr. Brossart was not armed. Mr. Brossart's sons also refused to honor the warrant, and told law enforcement officers to get off the property. Initial reports say the boys had long guns, and later reports claim high powered rifles. This all resulted in a standoff where no shots were fired and no one was harmed.
Now, as a former prosecutor, who has a deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement and the dangers they face, I understand the problem with people brandishing guns in the presence of officers. But it appears to me that the situation was incited by criminalizing a civil dispute. This was reasonably a civil dispute over livestock ownership which would require a review by a judge andfull hearing involving all parties before property is taken.
But here is the really disturbing part. The next morning, a tip to law enforcement told officers that the boys were out on tractors harvesting and were not armed. Did the officers now come to the property and attempt to serve this warrant peaceably? No, they responded with MASSIVE force.
"Next thing they knew – a mini army and a Predator B drone have been called in. State Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulance, deputy sheriffs from three other counties and a drone arrived at the scene, reports the Los Angeles Times."
And now "the rest of the story." Apparently, the residents of this farm are members of the Sovereign Citizens Movement, a so-called "anti-government group which the FBI considers extremist and violent," according to the LA Times article. The primary reason for this is that Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen. However, don't forget who else DHS considers potential terrorists. Remember the report that claims veterans returning from Iraq and US citizens who are against abortion are also "potentially violent terrorists?" Here is an excerpt:
"Right-wing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely… It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."
Take some time and read what the ADL says about the Sovereign Citizens. If you refer to yourself as a Constitutionalist, you might be a terrorist. If you believe that government governs best when it governs closest to home, you might be a terrorist. If you take issue with the 16th or 17th amendments, the Federal Reserve, Fiat Money, or you believe in the Gold Standard, you might be a terrorist.
Just a week ago the crafters of the SB1867 said they could not conceive of the extraordinary powers given to DHS being used against US citizens; it only applies to "terrorists." Now we have military drones being employed in the US in police actions against citizens. How inconceivable is it for US citizens to be subjected to the extraordinary powers outlined in SB1867? I believe the purpose of SB1867 is to manipulate We the People into having given permission for this abuse of power in the name of security; in the name of fighting terrorism. Are we to believe that they didn't have this in mind when they wrote that bill?
If they were using the drone to spy without a warrant then I would have a problem with it. I'm sure they are using dones to spy without a warrant, but that's not the issue here.
you don't need a warrant to fly over someones else, and view something in plain sight.
drone, helicopter or plane, if you're keeping stuff out in the open and can be seen from the air, no expectation of privacy exists.
I am horrified that people support the tactics of a police state, ushering it in so agents of the gov't have the upper hand. You will regret this position.
and what does that have to do with this thread? Off topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
