On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:13:30 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:

We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables.

peace and justice,

peaking of 911...


How can you be such a damned traitor?



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:58:09 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:


nutter!

peace and justice,


peaking of 911...


How can you be such a damned traitor?



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:49:19 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:


What guidance does "original meaning" provide there?

peaking of 911...


How can you be such a damned traitor?



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:17:33 -0700, dave wrote:

There is no way to tell what people were really thinking in 1787.

Um...we could try READING what they wrote....

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:37:33 -0700, dave wrote:

This is my Bible:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm

Got something against the REAL thing?

On 4/22/2011 11:24 PM, RHF wrote:

...
Conclusion : Natural American Born -
or- Native Kenya Born Does Not Matter Now
-cause- The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending
To Voting "NO" on an Obama Second Term in 2012
.
and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF
.
.

NEVER underestimate the stupidity, ignorance and moronic capabilities of
the American brain dead.

We put the tootsie roll stabbing, twinkle toed, jerry brown back in the
office of governor ... last time he was in he almost bankrupted and
ruined California. Since he was unable to effect complete destruction,
heeeees bbaaaaacccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

Just doing damage control and completing the actions which arnie failed
at ...

Regards,
JS

On 4/23/2011 9:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 4/22/2011 11:24 PM, RHF wrote:

...
Conclusion : Natural American Born -
or- Native Kenya Born Does Not Matter Now
-cause- The American Public "The Voters" Are Trending
To Voting "NO" on an Obama Second Term in 2012
.
and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF
.
.

NEVER underestimate the stupidity, ignorance and moronic capabilities of
the American brain dead.

As an example, look at the birther cult.

On Apr 21, 4:13*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:

English common law at the time would define the term since that is
what they were basing it on.

And just what did the English common law have to say about infrared
cameras and telephone taps?

If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes
a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes
into the house.

In addition the forth amendment
clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause.

We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables.

I would like to see a number put on that. At least 75% probable that
there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. Of course
that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges.

On 04/24/2011 01:34 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:



It's been at least a decade, maybe two, since cops have even needed a
warrant to search your property. It's been "legal" for them to barge in
and get a warrant after the fact (they're SUPPOSED to have to show cause
why they performed the search, but if a cop tells a judge he reasonably
believed a crime was being committed, chances are good that he'll get
his post-search warrant...) And, of course, they don't even need a
warrant at all to search your vehicle, they can do that on a whim at any
traffic stop.



They cannot search your vehicle if you don't give them permission unless
they arrest you.

On Apr 24, 1:22*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:

If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes
a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes
into the house.

The English common law said THAT?

Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into
someone's home without a warrant. It simply says (if I understand
correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. That
is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. The question is
if it is a search and if so is there probably cause.

In addition the forth amendment
clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause.
We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables..
I would like to see a number put on that. *At least 75% probable that
there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. *Of course
that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges.

Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT.

What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you
compute that?

That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. You do things
like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire
tracks at the scene. Most likely you will have to calculate joint
probabilities.* Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of
statistical knowledge.

*For example, tracks show about a size 10 shoe. There are probably Y
people in the area with that shoe size. The right shoe has unusual
wear on the outer side of the toe. The thief stepped in mud and
probably weighed about 200 pounds. Thief was able to reach the entry
window without putting any box or ladder in the soft dirt underneath
which means he must be six feet or more tall. Calculate the joint
probability of all those. Then combine that with things like witness
reports, what a pawn shop owner might remember or have records of from
the stuff being pawned and you can get some pretty good numbers.