TexasCHLforum.com

How about a drone?

MeMelYup wrote:How about a drone?

That's what anti-aircraft weapons are for.

Removed. I was actually off topic. Apologies to the OP.

BigGuy wrote:When push came to shove, what they actually did was throw out a Christian Theocracy in favor of a secular government.

Are you going to turn my thread about 4th amendment violations into a screed against Christians? I just want to be clear about where you're headed, and what exactly it has to do with the DEA planting cameras on private property in violation of the 4th amendment. If it is your intent to pee on Christians, I'm going to ask you politely to start your own thread about that.

Thank you for your cooperation.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

BigGuy wrote:When push came to shove, what they actually did was throw out a Christian Theocracy in favor of a secular government.

Are you going to turn my thread about 4th amendment violations into a screed against Christians? I just want to be clear about where you're headed, and what exactly it has to do with the DEA planting cameras on private property in violation of the 4th amendment. If it is your intent to pee on Christians, I'm going to ask you politely to start your own thread about that.

Thank you for your cooperation.

No intention to urinate on anybody, but point taken about the thread jacking. I'll remove the post.

One more example of the erosion of civil liberties in this country resulting in more power for the government, less freedom for the people. Hopefully, the Supremes will over rule the judge in this case, assuming O isn't reelected and appoints even more liberals to the bench. But even if they do overrule in this case, the fed's will continue to push the envelope in these cases because there is no penalty to stop them. When they smuggle guns that result in the deaths of an American and at least 80 Mexicans, no one is charged, no one goes to jail. When they trample on the rights of someone by illegally tracking people, no one is held accountable. The government hides behind the need to fight drugs or protect us from terrorism, too many people simply will not question the abuse of power by the government. I am not convinced that Romney will appoint the type of judges that we need, I am not convinced that he will significantly reduce the power and control of the state, I am not convinced that he will work to restore civil liberties, but I know that Obama won't. The judges and the politicians who support these types of rulings under the guise of protecting us are a much greater threat to us than some fool growing some happy plants.

Hmmm, what to do, what to do? Go get a nice Big Foot costume and start sneaking around the property at night?

The Annoyed Man wrote:So I guess that begs the question..... if you find a DEA agent skulking around your back yard in the middle of the night without a warrant, he does not properly identify himself, and he comes at you and you feel threatened, can you shoot him?

Why not? I think it should be open season under those circumstances.

LabRat wrote:If I find the cameras on my rural property (and its otherwise safe to do so), can I shoot the cameras as target practice?

My .308 should easily reach out to 600 yards. Might make the shots a little more interesting than paper or steel.

That sounds ideal to take out the terrorist cell carrying a suspicious electronic device.

C-dub wrote:Hmmm, what to do, what to do? Go get a nice Big Foot costume and start sneaking around the property at night?

C-dub wrote:Hmmm, what to do, what to do? Go get a nice Big Foot costume and start sneaking around the property at night?

For the win.

Warrantless Sniffing; Supreme Court seems skeptical of Florida drug dog case

So he took a trained dog named Franky and went up to the front door of the house.

Franky sniffed for several minutes before giving the signal drugs were present. The officer then used that as probable cause for a search warrant for the house, where—sure enough—pot was growing. The occupant was arrested, tried and convicted.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted sharply there is a difference between a casual visitor or even a salesman and a police officer intent on gathering evidence, saying there is no “implied consent for the policeman to come up with the dog,”

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed.

“If he’s going on just to knock on the door to sell tickets to the Policeman’s Ball, that’s fine. If he’s going on to conduct a search, that’s something else,” he said.

I'm not sure where I come down on this one. The dog got a hit from the front door which sure sounds like probable cause.

BigGuy wrote:Warrantless Sniffing; Supreme Court seems skeptical of Florida drug dog case

So he took a trained dog named Franky and went up to the front door of the house.

Franky sniffed for several minutes before giving the signal drugs were present. The officer then used that as probable cause for a search warrant for the house, where—sure enough—pot was growing. The occupant was arrested, tried and convicted.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted sharply there is a difference between a casual visitor or even a salesman and a police officer intent on gathering evidence, saying there is no “implied consent for the policeman to come up with the dog,”

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed.

“If he’s going on just to knock on the door to sell tickets to the Policeman’s Ball, that’s fine. If he’s going on to conduct a search, that’s something else,” he said.

I'm not sure where I come down on this one. The dog got a hit from the front door which sure sounds like probable cause.

The dog was there specifically for that cause, that makes it a search.

MeMelYup wrote:The dog was there specifically for that cause, that makes it a search.

That's what I was going to say. If the cop wasn't searching, then why did he bring the dog to the door and have sit there and sniff FOR SEVERAL MINUTES? That was a warrantless search.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:The dog was there specifically for that cause, that makes it a search.

That's what I was going to say. If the cop wasn't searching, then why did he bring the dog to the door and have sit there and sniff FOR SEVERAL MINUTES? That was a warrantless search.

How is that different from a LEO using a K9 to sniff out the exterior of a vehicle to get PC for a search?
And than there's the possibility of an induced hit.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM[/youtube]