TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote: The same courts that just ruled that silence equals guilt?.....

Specifically what they ruled is that your silence can be used against you if you don't invoke Miranda.
Example:
LEO: What's your name?
Suspect: Bob Jones
LEO: Bob, did you just commit a crime:
Suspect: <silence>

That non-response can be used in court.
Had the suspect said that he wanted to invoke his/her right to remain silent, subsequent silence cannot be used.


I'm not afraid of technology. It can be used against the government also. Can you imagine a traffic stop today without a camera?

An infra red thermal imaging is more effective and available today.

Wouldn't this be considered an unreasonable search and potential seizure or was that only in effect when the Constitution meant something?

If you needed any more convincing that New York City and the NYPD were terrible just check out this fancy new device that they're developing with the Pentagon. I apologize in advance for the Huffington Post link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 13813.html

CoffeeNut wrote:Wouldn't this be considered an unreasonable search and potential seizure or was that only in effect when the Constitution meant something?

Well it kind of depends on when and how they use such a device. If it's located on random street corners then yes I would hope the courts call it unconstitutional. On the other hand if it's located in places we would expect a search and are warned about it then whats the problem?

EEllis wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:Wouldn't this be considered an unreasonable search and potential seizure or was that only in effect when the Constitution meant something?

Well it kind of depends on when and how they use such a device. If it's located on random street corners then yes I would hope the courts call it unconstitutional. On the other hand if it's located in places we would expect a search and are warned about it then whats the problem?

I disagree. I shouldn't expect to be searched anywhere I go or wish to go. Why should I be searched if I get on a plane to go to Cali? Why should I be searched if I take a train, etc.. I am a law abiding citizen and should not EXPECT to be searched at all.

MeMelYup wrote:

EEllis wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:Wouldn't this be considered an unreasonable search and potential seizure or was that only in effect when the Constitution meant something?

Well it kind of depends on when and how they use such a device. If it's located on random street corners then yes I would hope the courts call it unconstitutional. On the other hand if it's located in places we would expect a search and are warned about it then whats the problem?

I disagree. I shouldn't expect to be searched anywhere I go or wish to go. Why should I be searched if I get on a plane to go to Cali? Why should I be searched if I take a train, etc.. I am a law abiding citizen and should not EXPECT to be searched at all.

How about a courthouse? The lobby of a private high security building with posted signs? Federal buildings? Jails and prisons? I know we can have one entrance for "Law Abiding" citizens and another for the other people.

MeMelYup wrote: I disagree. I shouldn't expect to be searched anywhere I go or wish to go. Why should I be searched if I get on a plane to go to Cali? Why should I be searched if I take a train, etc.. I am a law abiding citizen and should not EXPECT to be searched at all.

As a pilot and a CHL owner, something about because those are federally mandated secure areas (at least in airports). You don't have a right to fly on a plane. You're granted the privilege of flying commercial in exchange for giving up some of your privacy rights.

And yes, I think the TSA is the biggest waste of tax payer dollars in the last decade....

I'm with you. I'd rather not be searched at all, even at the cost of some personal safety.

Wait so the price of a plane ticket is a pat down......I know a bunch of people that would gladly hop a plane for that price.

No, when one buys a plane ticket one uses legal tender to contract a service (transport from here to there). The searches are not conducted by the airlines, but rather by the give an entity you are never supposed to be forced to surrender your rights to. However we live in no mans land now where the constitution is a piece of parchment and not the supreme law of the land.

Now back on target.

mamabearCali wrote:Wait so the price of a plane ticket is a pat down......I know a bunch of people that would gladly hop a plane for that price.

No, when one buys a plane ticket one uses legal tender to contract a service (transport from here to there). The searches are not conducted by the airlines, but rather by the give an entity you are never supposed to be forced to surrender your rights to. However we live in no mans land now where the constitution is a piece of parchment and not the supreme law of the land.

Now back on target.

Actually you don't have to go thru screenings to fly, if you have or charter your own plane.

Hence my interest in private aviation. Will take a pretty penny to get there, but as long as we are not in civil unrest anytime soon we will get there.

EEllis wrote: Actually you don't have to go thru screenings to fly, if you have or charter your own plane.

That is generally true. I have a hit a few airports that have secure general aviation areas, but they are rare. To me, it's another example of tremendous waste... Sure, there is massive security around a commerical 707 or even an American Airlines turboprop, but in most airports with at least 4000' of runway, I can walk right up to and board private jets or even ex-military aircraft.

So we spend billions securing one side of the airport where the "cattle" are (that's you and me when we fly commercial) and we let anyone off the street walk right up to an aircraft on the other side of the runway. If you think I'm kidding, I'm not..

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: Actually you don't have to go thru screenings to fly, if you have or charter your own plane.

That is generally true. I have a hit a few airports that have secure general aviation areas, but they are rare. To me, it's another example of tremendous waste... Sure, there is massive security around a commerical 707 or even an American Airlines turboprop, but in most airports with at least 4000' of runway, I can walk right up to and board private jets or even ex-military aircraft.

So we spend billions securing one side of the airport where the "cattle" are (that's you and me when we fly commercial) and we let anyone off the street walk right up to an aircraft on the other side of the runway. If you think I'm kidding, I'm not..

Which is why it's called "security theater".

Beiruty wrote:An infra red thermal imaging is more effective and available today.

Yes, but IR exposes body parts that people don't want to be seen, even if in weird colors supplied by the equipment (we can't see IR) so the storm of protest to using IR would be deafening.