This discussion has touched on a variety of topics, some of them at cross
purposes.
If you catch one cop in black ninja gear inside your house, and shoot him,
at least in California, you'll probably have legitimate self-defense claims,
and if he did yell "Police", well, dead men tell no tales.
Sh
At 8:59 AM -0700 8/8/01, Tim May wrote:
>(Sandy and Black Unicorn will doubtless consider it "bellicose" to
>say that if I ever find a black-clad ninja rustling around in my
>house, I expect to treat him as I would treat any other such
>varmint. A double tap in the center of mass.
You might wa
Somebody asked:
> >>1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of
> >>whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is
> it possible
> >>that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant
> >>discussed in open testimony?
Greg (I think) wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 04:03 PM, Dr. Evil wrote:
>
> >
At 04:21 PM 8/8/01 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>At 08:59 AM 8/8/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
>> According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging
>> are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are
>> being discussed.
>
>The Sopranos gets it right - the p
At 03:53 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote:
>From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [...] In California, there is the presumption
> > that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research
> > that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm.
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:59:55AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> So much for the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect against
> precisely this kind of police and state snooping. When a scrap of paper,
> issued in secret, enables the king's men to wander through a house, the
> "secure in on
On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 04:03 PM, Dr. Evil wrote:
>> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but
>> if it
>> did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the
>> presumption
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially
> i
At 08:59 AM 8/8/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging
> are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are
> being discussed.
The Sopranos gets it right - the process is called "minimization", and is
intended to
> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it
> did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption
Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially
impossible for it to ever happen. If it were to happen, it is almost
certai
- Original Message -
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 10:24 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > Interesting -- where did I get the
Black Unicorn wrote:
> I didn't realize any states but Virginia
> still held this old "burglary" definition.
> Are you certain that's current law?
No, but I'm about to leave town on business so I won't be looking it up. My
recollection is that California law actually IMPROVED from the viewpoint
- Original Message -
From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions
> Tim wrote:
>
> > 2) What happens in these breaking-a
Here's the most comprehensive source of case law covering the subject I've
ever seen:
Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS)
Searching and Seizing Computers
and Obtaining Electronic Evidence
in Criminal Investigations
"This publication provides a comprehensive guide to t
14 matches
Mail list logo
