20D: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !

smb wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:33:48 -0600, Jer wrote:

smb wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:28:32 -0600, Jer wrote:

smb wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0600, Jer wrote:

smb wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:47:38 -0500, 223rem wrote:

smb wrote:

Let's say that mythical piece of paper in your pocket has information
that is also known to others. Would you still object to showing it to
a police officer if he asks?
Damn right I would object. The cop has no right to violate my privacy
and humiliate me. Where the hell do you think we live, Stalin's USSR?
I would object also. But in the context of this conversation, nobody
was stopped and required to show private information about anything.
My comment above was in response to an example about how we volunteer
private information to agents of the government all the time when we
file our taxes.

Someone is taking pictures in public. A cop asks to see those
pictures that were just taken. Big deal. Did he demand to confiscate
the memory card?
Yes.


Did he demand to see any other personal pictures that might be on the camera?
Yes.

Did he demand to see any other personal information?
Yes.

So I take it that you have personally experienced this situation,
which is *different* from the one which started this thread?
Different situation? Hardly.
Well, quite different that in the situation described, the police
didn't demand to confiscate anything.
I can see you're still having a problem with that reading comprehension
thing. In the original scenario, the only difference is Bret helped
them with their "investigation" and I refused to. Several times, my
refusal sent the cop on their way to go suspect someone else of
nefarious acts. Twice it didn't, and after a short stint in a holding
cell, I grabbed the car at the pound and went on my way. On one
occasion, my equipment was damaged, but an insurance claim fixed that.
It's the ones that didn't have the guts to "do the right thing" that
bother me - not the two that did their job right. Surprised? Go
survive alone in a cold bloody foxhole with two dead guys for three
days, you'll understand. That or you just really don't give a ****
about anybody but yourself.

No, I have no problem with reading comprehension.

If they demanded to take his camera from him to search it, I would be
complaining as loudly as you are.



What in the world were you taking pictures of that prompted the police
to physically confiscate your memory card?
The situation in mind was when I was collecting evidence of a man
sticking his tongue (and other appendages) down the throat of someone he
wasn't married to. Mind you, the cop's demands went unanswered.
Ok, I actually suspected that was your line of work. Kind of ironic,
isn't it? You loudly complain about someone violating your right to
privacy while you are in the process of violating the privacy of
others? Oh, that's right... you get paid to do that so it's ok. Your
mark didn't happen to be our previous president, did it? ;-)
Taking pictures of someone in a park violates their privacy? You'll
have to explain this to me.

Next time someone is hiding in the bushes taking pictures of you
putting various appendages down someone's throat, let us know how you
feel about your privacy being violated.

Understand this Grasshopper, the instant you stick a toe out your door,
I own the photo evidence of what you do. I don't have a family
depending on me to keep my pants on and not drag home this week's STD
for my wife to deal with. I'm not out spending this week's pay check
leaving my family to go without food or a home. Philandering parents
don't deserve the shame foisted upon them in divorce court, they deserve
much more, and I enjoy sticking it to every one.




Or let's say you're in a store with a heavy coat and the security
cameras see you opening and closing that coat several times near the
merchandise with your back to the camera... would you object to a
cop asking you to open your coat to show that you haven't been putting
stuff in there?
That's probably private property and behavior that gives reasonable
cause for search. Has nothing to do with our original scenario.
You forget that the hypothetical questional behavior potentially
violates some very public laws against shoplifting. Would you say
the same thing about committing murder on private property, that it's
just a private matter?


Remember, we're not talking about a cop "pawing through" anything,
rather merely showing him something that you are actively doing in a
public place at the time.
Like texting my girlfriend on my cellphone for example? Should I show
him the text messages in my phone's memory if he asks to see them? Or
the emails on my laptop? I guess I should, since there's nothing illegal
in them, right?
If there was just cause, sure. But it's hard to imagine a cop
randomly wanting to see your text messages.
It's not difficult for me to imagine this, they do it all the time.
Really. Where do you live?
In the United States of the Offended. Does the term Carnivore II ring a
bell? Your tax dollars at work. Weep Grasshopper.
Oh, I'm not weeping at all, Mr. Entomology. You're very naive if you
think email is or should be secure and private. If your messages to
someone are that sensitive, you should be using strong encryption.
What makes you think I don't? Down here in Mexico things are a little
different.

If you think American cops are abusive of your rights, don't try to
start anything with the ones down there... unless you have enough
money to bribe them, of course.

Mexican cops and I get along just fine, they don't hassle me a bit. But
then, they think I'm a tourista. Just wear baggy shorts, white socks
and sandals, a broad brim 'Mexican' hat, stand around looking stupid and
they ignore me like everybody else does.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start shooting
you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand up to recoil.

Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography
tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle.

Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the
portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold
the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil.


Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the
"expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of
many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure
you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable
during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before
the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over
sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless.

Olin McDaniel

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start
shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand
up to recoil.

Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography
tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle.

Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the
portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold
the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil.


Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the
"expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of
many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure
you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable
during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before
the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over
sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless.

Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting
using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works.

One test outweighs all the opinions in the world.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start
shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand
up to recoil.

Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography
tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle.

Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the
portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold
the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil.


Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the
"expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of
many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure
you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable
during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before
the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over
sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless.

Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting
using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works.

One test outweighs all the opinions in the world.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

O.K.,

I had to shoot weapons that was used during the Korean war. I was also in an
Army Band, that had to play musical instruments. We were required to target
shoot all type of weapons every so often since a Band had been wiped out in
Korea. Everyone has their own way of shooting photos, but I think shooting
photos is more like playing a musical instrument than shooting a gun.

There is no doubt that using a tripod will result in a cleaner photo. But,
when shooting without a tripod, I hold the camera (Nikon D200) lightly,
apply pressure on the button to get the auto focus, and then press the
button further not knowing exactly when the camera will take the shot. Of
course, camera settings are preset when necessary.

There is little doubt in my mind that the best photo shot will be the one
that is on a tripod with a remote switch of some sort. But, I do a lot of
shooting "out of hand" in order to get photos I would not get otherwise.
Most of my travel photos are taken without a tripod, and I find a 1st level
sharpening/focusing of a photo with software is all I ever need if any
sharpening/focusing is needed at all.


Some of my photos taking on my last trip report in Lybia are acessed by
clicking the highlighted text in the report at:

http://site01789.customer.hagenhosti...ibyaindex.html

Robert

Robert Nabors wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start
shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand
up to recoil.

Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography
tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle.

Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of
the portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough
to hold the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable
during recoil.


Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the
"expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter
of many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I
assure you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held
stable during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the
barrel before the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise
shooting over sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless.

Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting
using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works.

One test outweighs all the opinions in the world.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

O.K.,

I had to shoot weapons that was used during the Korean war. I was
also in an Army Band, that had to play musical instruments. We were
required to target shoot all type of weapons every so often since a
Band had been wiped out in Korea. Everyone has their own way of
shooting photos, but I think shooting photos is more like playing a
musical instrument than shooting a gun.

There is no doubt that using a tripod will result in a cleaner photo.
But, when shooting without a tripod, I hold the camera (Nikon D200)
lightly, apply pressure on the button to get the auto focus, and then
press the button further not knowing exactly when the camera will
take the shot. Of course, camera settings are preset when necessary.

There is little doubt in my mind that the best photo shot will be the
one that is on a tripod with a remote switch of some sort. But, I do
a lot of shooting "out of hand" in order to get photos I would not
get otherwise. Most of my travel photos are taken without a tripod,
and I find a 1st level sharpening/focusing of a photo with software
is all I ever need if any sharpening/focusing is needed at all.


Some of my photos taking on my last trip report in Lybia are acessed
by clicking the highlighted text in the report at:

http://site01789.customer.hagenhosti...ibyaindex.html

That's all well and good but what was under discussion was the validity
of forbidding the use of photographic tripods in certain locations on
the assumption that they are useful as aids to the use of weapons.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

smb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:20:27 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

smb wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 08:37:24 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:

On Feb 27, 9:06 am, smb wrote:
Nobody has yet documented where Bush has lied about anything.
ROFL!

How about his first lie as President?
"I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

I said documented, not politically-slanted opinion.

(Marked OT because it's OT now.) So anyway, here are some documented
lies from Bush:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a
crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

"177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to
be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike
America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset,
every power of this government to protect the American people."

"We do not torture."

"These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They
weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill."

"A wiretap requires a court order."

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
laboratories."

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

"I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, 'Would
you ever deficit spend?' I said, 'Only – only – in times of war, in
times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of
national emergency.'"

You've taken some out of context partial (supposed) quotes from

Always the excuses.

--
Ray Fischer