| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2005 11:57:46 PM |
| Object: |
GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/01/17/gps_spying_may_prove_irresistible_to_police/
Activists who oppose the Scientology crime syndicate may wish to
take notice of the judicial ruling referenced in the above article.
Anyone may legally plant a GPS tracking device in anyone's vehicle
since the judge ruled that there is no expectation of privacy when
traveling on public roads.
So if activists wanted to track crime bosses to see which
politicians they meet with, it seems they may do so -- and then
make the data available in public. (I'd love to see real-time
GPS tracking information on some well known criminal lawyer's
movements being real-timed to a web site complete with map.
Then it would be easy to see which politicians or police leaders
are on the take.)
But it also means that Scientology criminals may plant devices in
law-abiding activist's vehicles with legal impunity -- unless, of
course, one can prove the crooks are malicious criminals, which
shouldn't be too difficult.
http://www.notserver.com/ contains schematics and a theory of
operation on a GPS jammer that effectivly thwarts GPS trackers
placed in one's vehicle by criminals.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
23 Jan 2005 04:25:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be considered a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after -- as
would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 11:51:51 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be considered a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after -- as
would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
I believe that there's a body of established criminal and civil case law
which accepts evidence collection provided it doesn't violate other laws.
As I was doing research on the Judi Bari bombing to see if there's
reasonable evidence for COINTELPRO to still be in effect, I saw that after
the FBI decided they weren't going to investigate who bombed Bari and
Cherney, the citizens group "Redwood Summer Justice Project" started to
perform their own criminal investigation, one that continues today.
Evidence gathering conducted so far by the citizens could conceivably be
coupled to an always-hoped-for smoking gun piece of evidence that by itself
might not convict the bomber.
Certainly private investigators who are supposed to be licensed if they
accept payment are rather wide open to gathering evidence -- and making it
up like Scientology criminals have done.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 03:08:27 PM |
|
|
In article <10vcn5niljm8r29@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be considered
a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after
-- as
would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
I believe that there's a body of established criminal and civil case law
which accepts evidence collection provided it doesn't violate other laws.
And since sticking a GPS tracker on a vehicle that doesn't belong to you
does indeed violate other laws (namely, trespassing to chattels),
there's no right top collect this supposed evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 10:00:05 PM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice is supportive of this judge's ruling only
because of accusations against his brother, David Rice,
in reference to GPS readings. Otherwise, Fred would argue
against this judge's ruling.
- Anonymous
===============================================================
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/riced.html
DAVID RICE
David Rice has done more than talk about harming the Church
of Scientology and its parishioners. He has actively sought
the means to conduct terrorism.
GPS Readings Taken by David Rice & Keith Henson
On July 5, 2000, David Rice was at one of the Church
facilities with Keith Henson and Barbara Graham. It was on
that day that Rice took the GPS (Global Positioning System)
readings of various buildings. Rice later posted this
information on the Internet along with a photo and the
coordinates of one of the buildings. He called it "target
data."
In his November 2000 Affidavit, Rice gives his false version
of the story on what "happened" on that day when he, Barbara
Graham and Keith Henson were harassing the Church. Rice
claims that he used the GPS device to simulate that it was a
tape recorder.
If that was his real intention, then why did he take the
actual readings? In any event, Rice's story is contradicted
by a debrief written by Barbara Graham (a.k.a. Barb Warr)
who clearly states that Rice was taking GPS coordinates and
that Keith Henson had them go out again to repeat this action
after a lunch break.
With his false affidavit David Rice was apparently attempting
to protect Keith Henson who had also made threats against the
Church. It is not the first time that Rice attempted to cover
up threats against the Church while blaming the Church for
having fabricated the threat. In July 1999, Rice blamed the
Church of Scientology for a bomb threat that had been made
against it several years earlier. Robert Clark, another avid
attacker of the Church, and the person who had actually made
the threat, posted to the Internet the following day that he
(Rob Clark) had been the one who made the bomb threat.
Of course Clark was dishonest enough to only admit his
terrorist threat after the statute of limitations ran out.
David Rice claims to be a computer network systems specialist
who used to live on his "own" boat, Myste, at Dana Point,
California. On October 23, 2000 he posted on the Internet
that he had sold the boat and was now in Hana Bay, Maui
- one of the Hawaiian islands.
In a November 2000 affidavit, which was posted on the Internet,
Rice confirmed that he has been out of the country and that he
was at that time planning to move on to French Polynesia.
His desire to remain outside United States' legal jurisdiction
is understandable.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/riced.html
================================================================
USENET Messages:
"We paused periodically to take GPS readings of the interesting
spots along the road; Davey's house, the church, the front gate,
and so forth. David had brought his handheld GPS device, what
a gadget!"
Barbara Graham July 6, 2000
"If you have any good ideas about terminating Scientology, I'd
sure like to hear them."
Steve Zadarnowski July 6, 2000
"GPS readings of Gold Base is a good start..."
Barbara Graham July 6, 2000
"And a good topo map. The approach is clear from the south."
Keith Henson July 7, 2000
"What did you have in mind for the GPS, Barb?"
Steve Zadarnowski July 8, 2000
"Enturbulation!"
Barbara Graham July 8, 2000
================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 02:21:54 AM |
|
|
"anonymous.informer@gmail.com" <anonymous.informer@gmail.com> wrote:
Fredric L. Rice is supportive of this judge's ruling only
because of accusations against his brother, David Rice,
in reference to GPS readings. Otherwise, Fred would argue
against this judge's ruling. - Anonymous
<laughing> David Miscaviage. Must be. Or Heber -- someone profoundly
insane.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 09:10:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:21:54 GMT, (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:
"anonymous.informer@gmail.com" <anonymous.informer@gmail.com> wrote:
Fredric L. Rice is supportive of this judge's ruling only
because of accusations against his brother, David Rice,
*WHAT* "accusations?" LOL! [1]
in reference to GPS readings. Otherwise, Fred would argue
against this judge's ruling. - Anonymous
This Scientology coward somehow got the Scientology crime
syndicate's "shore story" mixed up: he's supposed to claim the
Keith Henson is the infamous "GPS Terrorist(tm)(r)(c)," not me.
<laughing> David Miscaviage. Must be. Or Heber -- someone profoundly
insane.
Like there's a difference?
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
[1]
AFFIDAVIT --- DAVID M. RICE
CASE # HEMO 14371
State vs Keith Henson
Original Date: Friday, November 17, 2000, 4:20 AM
Revision Date: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:22 AM [See Footnote
#1]
My name is David Rice. I am a citizen of the United States. My
residence is indeterminate due to my employment as an
international boat delivery captain: I am currently acquiring
visas to work and live in French Polynesia. [See Footnote #2]
I have never written an Affidavit before, so please excuse my form
if it is improper.
This Affidavit is in regard to the State's contention, based upon
false claims made by spokespeople of the Scientology organization,
that the civil and human rights activist Keith Henson took GPS
(Longitude and Latitude) readings, or caused to have GPS readings
taken, of various structures on the Scientology property at Gilman
Springs, near Hemet, California. The activist Keith Henson was not
a party to this event and deed, and had no knowledge of the deed
prior to its occurrence.
To explain the issue to the Court and the Riverside District
Attorney's Office, I must explain a bit about myself and what lead
me to take the GPS readings.
In 1983 I became a civil rights activist, working specifically on
First Amendment issues (the right to free expression of religion,
the separation of secular and sectarian powers, and free speech).
I also worked with other Amendment issues (the right to privacy,
proper search and seizure, and a woman's right to chose abortion
and have access to contraception). I have been used as a
consultant to the American Civil Liberties Union in various cases
involving protecting a citizen's religious freedom; I have been a
consultant for newspaper reporters on various religious rights
cases; I was a member of a religious rights organization called
"Cultwatch Response" (now defunct); I was a member of the Orange
County Pro-Choice Coalition (now defunct); I have financially
supported civil rights organizations such as Americans United and
the First Amendment Research Foundation. In my defense of civil
rights, I have attended many pickets and protests.
In the late 1980s I protested the Ku Klux Klan / Aryan Nation in
Los Angeles county (incidentally, I supported their right to
demonstrate and speak their opinion, even while I protested and
criticised their opinion); I protested Bush's Oil War ("The Gulf
War"); I protested in defense of farm workers in California; I
protested several California Propositions that sought to limit
Mexican emigrants access to education and social services; I
placed my body between "Right to Life" activists and the girls and
women they sought to prevent from acquiring medical services.
In 1996 my civil rights activism lead me to learn about the human
rights abuses caused by and for the Scientology organization. The
brutal homicide of Lisa McPherson caused me to expand my civil
rights activism into the human rights arena. My human rights
activism lead me to protest and picket a few Scientology
businesses (called "Orgs" and "Missions" by the Scientology
organization). My religion teaches that once one becomes aware of
an injustice, it is one's spiritual and civic duty to work to end
that injustice.
As punishment for expressing my right and duty to protest
Scientology's crimes and human rights abuses, the Scientology
organization harassed me in several ways. They sent out goons to
stalk and harass me: the stalkers followed me to the residences of
my friends; the stalkers visited my previous residences and
harassed the people now living there; hate literature slandering
and libeling me appeared. One Scientologist was sent to stalk me
and did so by sitting in his car watching me every day for about
three weeks--- people I talked to told me he behaved mentally ill
and "freaky" and that they were afraid of him. (Since my harassers
never threatened me physically, I ignored them completely.)
The harassment I was subjected to by the Scientology organization
was ideal confirmation to me that my human rights activism in
protesting the Scientology organization's crimes and human rights
abuses was and is fully justified.
It is my emphatic conviction, belief, and guiding religious
precept that threats of any kind are a gross violation of
another's human rights: it is never justified for any reason--- I
therefore refuse to engage in such behavior, nor do I sit quietly
and tolerate such behavior. If Mr. Henson had ever engaged in such
behavior in my presence or on the Internet, I would have soundly
and aggressively castigate him for it: however, HE HAS NEVER DONE
SO.
On May 17, 2000, sixteen-year-old Ashlee Shaner died on the road
outside the Scientology organization's property at Gilman Springs.
Standard, sensible safety precautions could have easily prevented
the death. In my opinion, Scientology Inc. is slightly responsible
for that death. The human rights activist Keith Henson apparently
agrees with me on this issue, as he has taken up the banner of the
human right to life and has gone to the Scientology property to
protest that death.
Let it be known that I do not have any relationship with the human
rights activist Keith Henson; we have met three or four times
while working in our human rights activism. However, I believe
myself to be a very good judge of a person's character: In my
opinion, for anyone to assert that Mr. Henson has threatened
anyone physically is absurd; it is farcical in the extreme; it is
ludicrous to claim Mr. Henson would violate the law and another's
civil and human rights at the very time he was demonstrating in
support and defense of those rights! It is blatantly obvious that
Mr. Henson is protesting Scientology management's crimes and human
rights abuses in defense of Scientology members, not in opposition
to them. The only "threat" he poses is his speaking the truth
about the Scientology organization. Scientology Inc. fears the
words on Mr. Henson's picket signs, not imaginary threats they
claim he has made.
In the past five years I have never seen any Internet message from
anyone suggesting violence against Scientologists or Scientology
Inc. In that same time period, there has been only one web page
that threatened Scientologists: that web page showed evidence that
it was created by Scientology Inc. itself as fodder in its
political propaganda war against the civil and human rights
activists who criticize Scientology Inc. [See UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA Vs. Criminal No. 78-401 MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al. See also
AFFIDAVIT OF PAULETTE COOPER, 4th day of March, 1985.]
When Scientology Inc. asserts they are subjected to abuse and
threats on the Internet, they are asserting a falsehood. If it
were true, I and many others would be working very hard opposing
such behavior.
Via the Internet I heard that Mr. Henson had allegedly been
subject to assault, battery, and various forms of other harassment
at the hands of Scientology goons (such as his daughter allegedly
being stalked and threatened). I had heard that Mr. Henson had
allegedly been forced into the highway, and subjected to the
threat of being run over by traffic, by agents of Scientology.
Various other civil and human rights activists had reported that
when Scientology agents believe they are being video or audio
recorded, they cease or limit such abuse (this is important to
remember when I address the GPS unit).
As such, on July 5 2000 I went to celebrate the birth of our
Nation by protesting Scientology management's human rights abuses
in general, and the alleged criminal harassment of the civil and
human rights activist Keith Henson in particular. I was also there
to give my respects to Ashlee Shaner.
Since assault and abuse by Scientology agents appears to be
mitigated by the presence of video and audio recording equipment,
I wished to bring a tape recorder with me when I demonstrated
Scientology's abuses. Unfortunately, I do not have a tape
recorder, nor did I have the money to buy one. However, I do have
a microphone, and I have a device that looks very similar to a
tape recording machine: a hand-held GPS unit. I taped the plug of
the microphone to the GPS case, and pinned the microphone to my
hat: I made the GPS unit look like a tape recorder in the hopes of
deterring assault, battery, and verbal abuse against my person.
When I arrived at the protest site, I was very pleased to see Mr.
Henson there protesting (at the time I believed he had already
gone back to his residence at Palo Alto). Mr. Henson was not being
assaulted when I arrived; he was, however, being slightly annoyed
by two Scientology agents assigned to stalk him: one walking in
front of him, the other walking behind him. I parked my car, and I
and another human rights activist got out and went to join Mr.
Henson.
Unfortunately, the Scientology agents sent into the street to
"handle" us appeared to know that my GPS unit was not a tape
recorder: one or the other may have been familiar with hand-held
GPS units and was not fooled.
Since I just happened to have a GPS unit with me, and since while
there protesting I recalled the interest among the human rights
community to know the accurate geographic location of the
compound, I spent a few minutes using the GPS unit to take the
Longitude and Latitude location of the area.
As such, the GPS readings were the result of a fluke: Mr. Henson
had no knowledge of the event. As far as I know, he had no idea
what I was doing, as he may not have been familiar with what a
hand-held GPS unit looks like. Mr. Henson did say later that he
thought that me and my GPS was "silly:" I agreed--- taking the GPS
readings was for my own amusement, which I shared with the civil
and human rights community on the Internet. Only an imbecile or a
madman would consider this a "threat."
(Previously, on June 25 2000, Scientology management itself
provided conclusive proof that they do not consider picketers and
protesters physically threatening: they provided conclusive proof
that they fear the words on the human rights activists' protest
signs, and do not fear the human rights activists themselves: I
will explain below.)
Let the record also show that in my presence Keith Henson has
never, by word or by deed or by implication, shown anything other
than compassion and sympathy for Scientologists. He has never in
my presence, nor on the Internet, threatened any Scientologist
(individually or collectively) with violence. Mr. Henson is out
there fighting for Scientologists' rights, not against them: the
Scientology organization realizes that fact, and is trying to
silence his dissenting opinion of them via their deceptive claims
of being "threatened" by him. Anyone who has monitored the
situation will, in my opinion, see this to be blatantly apparent.
Mister Henson is defending Scientologists against crimes and
abuses committed against them by Scientology management, and is
thus working for Scientologists, not against them.
In my opinion, Mister Keith Henson is a hero: I was very proud to
meet him and shake his hand. His great courage in the face of
astounding abuse and harassment at the hands of Scientology Inc.
has been a vast inspiration to thousands of other human rights
activists throughout the world. In my opinion, the State does not
have a valid case against him.
If the State asserts that Scientology Inc. feels "threatened" by
picketers and protesters (and presumably the recording of GPS
Longitude and Latitude coordinates), the State need only consider
the actions of Scientology management on June 25 2000. Also, if
the State continues to refuse to see the fact that it is Keith
Henson's words Scientology Inc. fears and not his imaginary
"threats," Scientology management's actions on June 25 2000 will
correct the State's false assertions.
On June 25 2000 I arrived at the "Golden Era" compound
specifically to protest the avoidable death of Ashlee Shaner. When
I arrived with a friend, we spent fifteen minutes at her tiny
roadside memorial making Native American "prayer feathers" [See
Footnote #3] in her memory (my mother's mother is Hopi [See
Footnote #4]). We then picked up our protest signs and walked up
the road. Unknown to us at the time, yet another young woman was
dying on the "Golden Era" compound at that very moment (Stacy
Moxon).
Scientology management came out and tried very hard to make us
leave before news teams could arrive and see our protest signs and
talk to us. It would have been a huge public relations injury to
have two protesters protesting one death while yet another death
was occuring.
Ken Hoden (from the Scientology's so-called "public relations"
department, The Office of Special Affairs) was sent out to talk us
into GOING AWAY WITH HIM to a restaurant to have breakfast: he
even said he would pay for the meal. When we declined, another
woman was sent out and she, too, PLEADED with us to go with her
somewhere for breakfast. (She also faked a knee injury to keep us
from walking up the road to meet news crews when they arrived.)
These actions were not those of people who feared physical harm:
they were the actions of people who feared the words on our
protest signs, and our potential words to the news crews who were,
unknown to us at the time, on their way to cover the latest death.
In all, four people came out to "shoo" us away before news
reporters arrived, even as Ms. Moxon's body was still twitching in
a power transformer vault. None of them gave any hint that they
felt in any way physically threatened by us--- their behavior
showed the exact opposite! I ask the Court: if you believed or
felt yourself to be physically threatened by someone, would you
invite your perceived threatener out for breakfast?
I hereby swear that the foregoing is true and accurate under
penalty of perjury of the laws of the Commonwealths of California
and Hawai'i.
Footnotes:
[1] On Wednesday, December 06, 2000 I received notice that my
Affidavit contained an incorrect date and incorrect sequence of
events. Therefore on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 I have corrected
the errors in this, the revised Affidavit.
[2] The project in French Polynesia was terminated due to robbery,
as reported and filed to the [Censored] Police Department.
[3] Pahos
[4] It was later revealed to me that my mother's mother is
Cherokee, having moved to the Hopi / Zuni Reservation as an
infant. Ooops! My mistake!
---
http://lastliberal.org
Man Will Never Be Free Until The Last King Is Strangled With
The Entrails of the Last Priest.
"I'd rather kill a man than a snake. Not because I love snakes or hate men.
It is a question, rather, of proportion." -- Edward Abbey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
23 Jan 2005 06:52:02 PM |
|
|
In article <q198v0966nad6ou597cjvv9b6dt3rsr5gf@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be considered
a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after --
as would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
No, there's not. If you think I have evidence in my home and the "Feds
refuse to go after it", does that give you a right to break into my home
to gather it?
Not hardly.
The same principle applies to my car. You don't have the right to go
sticking things to my personal property without my consent. That's
called a trespass and you can be cited and prosecuted for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 11:51:55 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <q198v0966nad6ou597cjvv9b6dt3rsr5gf@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be considered
a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after --
as would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
No, there's not. If you think I have evidence in my home and the "Feds
refuse to go after it", does that give you a right to break into my home
to gather it? Not hardly.
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Also if the FBI or the Nazi "Homeland Security" fascists suspect that
there's evidence in your house, "USA PATRIOT Act" tells them they can
violate the Constitution and break into your house any time they want
to, no warrant, no evidence of a crime, no nothing. It's a "peek," as
the fascist regime calls it.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 03:06:41 PM |
|
|
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <q198v0966nad6ou597cjvv9b6dt3rsr5gf@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <35e9amF4kd2ngU1@individual.net>, towelie said...
Wouldn't planting a device on somebody else's property be
considered
a form of vandalism?
How about stalking?
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to go after
as would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
No, there's not. If you think I have evidence in my home and the "Feds
refuse to go after it", does that give you a right to break into my home
to gather it? Not hardly.
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
Also if the FBI or the Nazi "Homeland Security" fascists suspect that
there's evidence in your house, "USA PATRIOT Act" tells them they can
violate the Constitution and break into your house any time they want
to, no warrant, no evidence of a crime, no nothing.
No, it doesn't. Cite me the section of the Patriot Act that allows
warrantless searches at the government's whim. And I want an actual
legal cite, not a link to some paranoid nutcase's web site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 01:52:10 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
No, there's not. If you think I have evidence in my home and the "Feds
refuse to go after it", does that give you a right to break into my home
to gather it? Not hardly.
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
And anyone may follow you in your car and record where you go and when.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 06:20:13 PM |
|
|
In article <10vfijc73nvr42e@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
No, there's not. If you think I have evidence in my home and the "Feds
refuse to go after it", does that give you a right to break into my
home to gather it? Not hardly.
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people
using public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
And anyone may follow you in your car and record where you go and when.
Sure. Never said they couldn't. Although there are stalking laws in most
jurisdictions which might prohibit such things.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
The judge said there was no privacy violation but he said nothing about
the trespass violation.
The state has laws making such a thing a crime. No judge can just
overrule the statute and pretend it doesn't exist. Judges interpret the
law, they don't write it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 09:25:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:52:10 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
He ruled on whether the police could.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 02:20:59 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:52:10 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
He ruled on whether the police could.
She didn't make such a distinction according to everything I've found on
the case, and she ruled in any event that the evidence could be admitted --
which would include evidence gathered in like manner by citizens.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 11:52:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:20:59 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:52:10 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
He ruled on whether the police could.
She didn't make such a distinction according to everything I've found on
the case, and she ruled in any event that the evidence could be admitted --
which would include evidence gathered in like manner by citizens.
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "johnebravo836" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 02:58:04 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:20:59 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:52:10 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
The Judge who ruled recently does not agree with you.
He ruled on whether the police could.
She didn't make such a distinction according to everything I've found on
the case, and she ruled in any event that the evidence could be admitted --
which would include evidence gathered in like manner by citizens.
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
You can find the opinion at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cwrulings.fwx?mode=rptexec
(it's the "Opinion" document dated 01/05/05 in USA vs Moran, et al)
or
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYNC/05-00115.PDF
The portion of the opinion that pertains to the GPS device starts on pg.
68. In short, it was a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal
prosecution, not a class action suit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 04:28:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0500, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
You can find the opinion at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cwrulings.fwx?mode=rptexec
"Here Moran complains of a GPS device attached to his vehicle by law
enforcement personnel without a warrant." so it's not automatically
applicable to someone who's not a police officer attaching a GPS
device to a vehicle. A court would have to rule on that.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
28 Jan 2005 01:12:00 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0500, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
You can find the opinion at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cwrulings.fwx?mode=rptexec
"Here Moran complains of a GPS device attached to his vehicle by law
enforcement personnel without a warrant." so it's not automatically
applicable to someone who's not a police officer attaching a GPS
device to a vehicle. A court would have to rule on that.
If there were a Judicial ruling that stipulated that only police officers
would be allowed to plant tracking and recording devices without a court
order, warrant, or subpoena, that would be establishing a special class of
citizen, I would expect. The ruling should have to be aplicable to all
citizens, not just police officers.
_With_ a warrant or subpoena, that would be different as the planting of
the device would be performed by a duly elected or employed agent of the
State who would be operating as an agent of the State in an official
capacity.
You're right: It's a grey area that a Judge would have to decide.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
28 Jan 2005 03:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:12:00 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0500, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
You can find the opinion at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cwrulings.fwx?mode=rptexec
"Here Moran complains of a GPS device attached to his vehicle by law
enforcement personnel without a warrant." so it's not automatically
applicable to someone who's not a police officer attaching a GPS
device to a vehicle. A court would have to rule on that.
If there were a Judicial ruling that stipulated that only police officers
would be allowed to plant tracking and recording devices without a court
order, warrant, or subpoena, that would be establishing a special class of
citizen, I would expect.
It's called setting a precedent.
The ruling should have to be aplicable to all
citizens, not just police officers.
The ruling is what it is. Whether other courts use it to rule that it
applies to all, or just to police officers, depends on 2 things:
1) Whether the ruling created a precedent, and
2) Whether other courts choose to rely on it if it is.
_With_ a warrant or subpoena, that would be different as the planting of
the device would be performed by a duly elected or employed agent of the
State who would be operating as an agent of the State in an official
capacity.
Well ...
The reason it would be legal is that it would be done in accordance
with someone empowered to authorize doing such things, a judge. Who
is empowered to actually do it? Whomever the warrant says is
authorized. A cop. A technician. Whomever. Definitely acting as an
agent of the jurisdiction - state, county, city.
You're right: It's a grey area that a Judge would have to decide.
The judge in the next case.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
28 Jan 2005 04:53:57 PM |
|
|
In article <amclv0dh4llne77p1qhkhafh4bjcsubq46@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:12:00 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:58:04 -0500, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Weren't the people involved police officers? Wasn't the case NOT a
class-action suit?
You can find the opinion at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cwrulings.fwx?mode=rptexec
"Here Moran complains of a GPS device attached to his vehicle by law
enforcement personnel without a warrant." so it's not automatically
applicable to someone who's not a police officer attaching a GPS
device to a vehicle. A court would have to rule on that.
If there were a Judicial ruling that stipulated that only police officers
would be allowed to plant tracking and recording devices without a court
order, warrant, or subpoena, that would be establishing a special class of
citizen, I would expect.
It's called setting a precedent.
So what? You are a nonentity with side whiskers.
The ruling should have to be aplicable to all
citizens, not just police officers.
The ruling is what it is. Whether other courts use it to rule that it
applies to all, or just to police officers, depends on 2 things:
Scientologists like scientology?
1) Whether the ruling created a precedent, and
2) Whether other courts choose to rely on it if it is.
Not a dubya word.
_With_ a warrant or subpoena, that would be different as the planting of
the device would be performed by a duly elected or employed agent of the
State who would be operating as an agent of the State in an official
capacity.
Well ...
There definitely was.
The reason it would be legal is that it would be done in accordance
with someone empowered to authorize doing such things, a judge. Who
is empowered to actually do it? Whomever the warrant says is
authorized. A cop. A technician. Whomever. Definitely acting as an
agent of the jurisdiction - state, county, city.
Any questions.
You're right: It's a grey area that a Judge would have to decide.
The judge in the next case.
Both drives work flawlessly otherwise.
--
Lady Chatterly
"That a BOT is not human and the FBI, NNACP, ER, GB, FALCIO etc will
not bother tracing them." -- -= The NIGHT BOT =-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 10:21:08 PM |
|
|
In article <2pngv0lhufoestghv5lui5fn5mquaiphum@4ax.com>
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
He ruled on whether the police could.
This po reminds me of reasons people give for not seeking custody?
--
Lady Chatterly
"lady chatterly and i hand yings leash to you. good luck. oh and it
forgets its housetrained at times" -- edens morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johnebravo836" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 12:23:56 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
[snip]
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission (or
a warrant, if it's the government).
As a general rule, you can't "trespass" onto personal property. For
example, in New York State, the penal law defines "trespassing" as follows:
S 140.05 Trespass.
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains
unlawfully in or upon premises.
Trespass is a violation.
(See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a31.html)
That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't other reasons why
attaching a GPS device to personal property might be objectionable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 06:17:56 PM |
|
|
In article <35q5sdF4l1sbhU1@individual.net>, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
[snip]
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission
(or a warrant, if it's the government).
As a general rule, you can't "trespass" onto personal property.
Yes, you can. It's called "trespass to chattels". What you cited is
trespass to real property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johnebravo836" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
27 Jan 2005 10:32:41 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35q5sdF4l1sbhU1@individual.net>, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
[snip]
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission
(or a warrant, if it's the government).
As a general rule, you can't "trespass" onto personal property.
Yes, you can. It's called "trespass to chattels". What you cited is
trespass to real property.
What you're referring to is a tort, not a criminal offense. Are you
aware of any jurisdiction in which "trespass to chattels" is actually a
crime? If so, would it have covered the attachment of a GPS device?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
29 Jan 2005 11:17:07 PM |
|
|
In article <35sjniF4q3bdnU1@individual.net>,
johnebravo836 <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <35q5sdF4l1sbhU1@individual.net>, johnebravo836
<johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <10vcn5qqr9rop2d@corp.supernews.com>,
wrote:
That's not relevant since the judicial finding only covers people using
public streets, finding that nobody who does so can expect privacy.
Sure, you can follow me around on the public streets if you want. I
agree there's no expectation of privacy there.
But you can't stick stuff to my personal property. That's not even a
privacy issue. It's a trespass issue. No one has the right to trespass
on my property (whether it's real or personal) without my permission
(or a warrant, if it's the government).
As a general rule, you can't "trespass" onto personal property.
Yes, you can. It's called "trespass to chattels". What you cited is
trespass to real property.
What you're referring to is a tort, not a criminal offense.
Sure, but it's still against the law, albeit a civil one. So I don't see
how some judge can just arbitrarily change that and say from this point
forward, trespass to chattels is no longer a valid cause of action; a
citizen has no right to be free from others messing around with his/her
personal property.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
23 Jan 2005 05:29:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:25:17 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:50:23 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Not if it's a citizen collecting evidence the Feds refuse to
go after -- as would be the case for Scientology criminals.
There's a Constitutional right to gather evidence?
There is a professional "right" to stalk people, with and without
GPS transmitters hidden on victim's automobiles. For example,
private investigators are allowed to stalk people even if they
stalk people for malicious, abusive purposes.
I am compelled to agree with Fredric: if someone puts a GPS
tracking device on another person's car and is caught doing so,
the owner of the tracking device might try to defend the act by
claiming she or he had good reason to think that her or his victim
was planning or performing a criminal act. Adultry probably being
high on the list. :-)
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
---
http://lastliberal.org
Man Will Never Be Free Until The Last King Is Strangled With
The Entrails of the Last Priest.
Are you aware that you cannot write without typo's? Write to me without a
typo and I will began you education... - Don Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
23 Jan 2005 07:07:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:29:47 GMT, (The Last
Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile) said in alt.atheism:
I am compelled to agree with Fredric: if someone puts a GPS
tracking device on another person's car and is caught doing so,
the owner of the tracking device might try to defend the act by
claiming she or he had good reason to think that her or his victim
was planning or performing a criminal act. Adultry probably being
high on the list. :-)
Aside from the fact that adultery isn't a criminal act. :)
And civilians aren't allowed to prevent someone from committing a
criminal act.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 11:51:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:29:47 GMT, (The Last
Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile) said in alt.atheism:
I am compelled to agree with Fredric: if someone puts a GPS
tracking device on another person's car and is caught doing so,
the owner of the tracking device might try to defend the act by
claiming she or he had good reason to think that her or his victim
was planning or performing a criminal act. Adultry probably being
high on the list. :-)
Aside from the fact that adultery isn't a criminal act. :)
And civilians aren't allowed to prevent someone from committing a criminal act.
Actually yes, they are. Case law exists where homicides have occured
where a citizen has put bullets through another citizen to safeguard
the life of innocent people. Bank guards are armed for the purpose,
in fact.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 05:23:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:51:54 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Actually yes, they are. Case law exists where homicides have occured
where a citizen has put bullets through another citizen to safeguard
the life of innocent people. Bank guards are armed for the purpose,
in fact.
Fred, justifiable homicide is still homicide - something one is NOT
permitted to do. The court can (and should) not punish the
perpetrator if the act was, indeed, justifiable (that holds for any
act), but one is found guilty of justifiable homicide, one isn't found
not guilty just because it was justifiable.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
25 Jan 2005 06:15:52 PM |
|
|
In article <d2ldv0hfb0jpvahmkkacagpu4a4e2nu6g1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:51:54 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Actually yes, they are. Case law exists where homicides have occured
where a citizen has put bullets through another citizen to safeguard
the life of innocent people. Bank guards are armed for the purpose,
in fact.
Fred, justifiable homicide is still homicide - something one is NOT
permitted to do. The court can (and should) not punish the
perpetrator if the act was, indeed, justifiable (that holds for any
act), but one is found guilty of justifiable homicide, one isn't found
not guilty just because it was justifiable.
No, in a legtimate case of self-defense or defense of others, one isn't
even indicted, let alone tried and convicted.
The grand jury no-bills the person and the case is over. No conviction,
not even a trial.
And when the DA does take a case like that to trial, he doesn't charge
the defendant with "justifiable homicide". (There is no such charge.) He
charges murder or manslaughter because he doesn't believe the
defendant's claim of self-defense and thinks he can prove otherwise. If
the DA truly believes the defendant acted in legitimate self-defense or
defense of others, he never brings charges in the first place. In fact,
he is prohibited by the canons of ethics from doing so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: GPS Trackers perfectly legal |
26 Jan 2005 04:51:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:15:52 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <d2ldv0hfb0jpvahmkkacagpu4a4e2nu6g1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:51:54 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) said in alt.atheism:
Actually yes, they are. Case law exists where homicides have occured
where a citizen has put bullets through another citizen to safeguard
the life of innocent people. Bank guards are armed for the purpose,
in fact.
Fred, justifiable homicide is still homicide - something one is NOT
permitted to do. The court can (and should) not punish the
perpetrator if the act was, indeed, justifiable (that holds for any
act), but one is found guilty of justifiable homicide, one isn't found
not guilty just because it was justifiable.
No, in a legtimate case of self-defense or defense of others, one isn't
even indicted, let alone tried and convicted.
The grand jury no-bills the person and the case is over. No conviction,
not even a trial.
And when the DA does take a case like that to trial, he doesn't charge
the defendant with "justifiable homicide". (There is no such charge.) He
charges murder or manslaughter because he doesn't believe the
defendant's claim of self-defense and thinks he can prove otherwise. If
the DA truly believes the defendant acted in legitimate self-defense or
defense of others, he never brings charges in the first place. In fact,
he is prohibited by the canons of ethics from doing so.
<blink blink>
*Ethics?*
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
