On NOW at RadioFR!
Doug from Upland interviews JAYNA DAVIS discussing the OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Posted on 12/03/2002 6:32:19 AM PST by Iron Eagle
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:38:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/03/02 Fire alerts authorities to nearly 500 weapons By MICHAEL CLANCY STAFF WRITER FAIR HAVEN -- Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons -- all of them apparently held legally -- which police found in a home after the fire department responded to a chimney fire and the homeowner threatened the fire chief with a rifle, authorities said yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at app.com ...
I ran into a similar weapons problem a few years back. (but not with 500 weapons!) When the DA filed charges, I didn't hire Johnny Cochran, I hired a local attorney, a real sweet gal (outside the courtroom), but in the court room she had more in common with a rabid wolf, than a human being. When you see the prosecutor physically wince in pain at her quick thinking, her logic and acid tongue, you know you've hired the right person. Hell, even if you don't win, you've had the pleasure of watching the prosecutor get bitch slapped!
At the arraignment, instead of entering a plea, she filed a demurrer. That kind of motion tells the prosecutor, that his complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and even if it did, the facts alleged were insufficient to amount to a violation of that cause. (That's the equivalent of saying, yeah, my client committed those acts, so what?) And even if the demurrer is unsuccessful, you still get to see the prosecutions entire case presented before trial and you've also set the stage for a powerful appeal if you lose at trial.
I think a demurrer could work for Mr. Arford. If the facts outlined in the newspaper article are complete and accurate (that'd be a first!), Mr. Arford's action, in grabbing that rifle, never amounted to a violation of any law. Not only would it never go to trial, it won't even get past arraignment. And after a successful demurrer, judges tend to look very favorably upon any defense motions for return of property.
A demurrer is a very rare motion in criminal cases, maybe once in every 10,000 cases. Mostly that's because of ignorance on the part of lawyers. Many think it's only an option in civil cases. Others are unfamiliar how to draw up such a motion in a criminal case and how to use it as a pre-trial tactic. Another reason it's so rare is that the defendant can't avail himself of that motion after he has once entered his plea, and in many cases that happens before the lawyer gets involved.
Regards,
Boot Hill
I'm tempted to ask, what makes you think we can't?!?
But from my own professional experience, I can tell you that a failure to detect nukes is not caused by lagging sensor technology development, it is caused by the simple physics of the task. Beyond about 20 meters, even the Gamma Ray radiation from an unshielded nuke gets lost in the background noise from space. There are some real cute computer programs that use statistical analysis that can pull a signal out of the noise even when the signal to noise ratio is less than unity, but they need a long sensor signal integration time for that to work. That puts such detection methods outside what intel can make practical use of.
The problem with satellite, SR-72 and Aurora(?) photo intelligence is two-fold: First they will always have far more photos than gifted analysts and second, it's to easy to avoid operations when the satellite is within photo/sensor range. You can even go to a NASA website and get accurate satellite tracking data.
The technology to detect marijuana (and any other plant form) from an airborne platform is over 30 years old. The infrared sensors are so sophisticated they can tell you what species of plants/trees are being observed, how many, their maturity and even their health. But that technology is so expensive that it is rarely used on such frivolous pursuits as chasing down marijuana. That is usually accomplished (when airborne) by the human eye and from relatively low altitudes.
Regards,
Boot Hill
Actually, it almost certainly wasn't that. If a chimney fire is going long enough for firemen to arrive, it isn't itsy bitsy. Most likely what happened by my reading is that the man noticed the chimney fire and closed the damper IMMEDIATELY (i.e. in well under a minute). This prevented damage to the flue or surrounding structures. Unfortunately, it left him with another smaller-but-significant problem: he still had a fire burning in his fireplace which no had nowhere for the smoke to go. If the wood fire had been flaming when the chimney fire occurred (as it most likely would have been) it would continue to smoke for awhile even after being extinguished.
In short, the fire was almost certainly out by the time the firefighters arrived, and if the man had been going around opening windows, starting fans, etc. the smoke was almost certainly past its worst as well. Since all the smoke would have been from a woodburning fire (instead of from e.g. burning plastic) the health effects from it would have been comparatively minor.
While it would be good in such circumstances to have fire fighters present to assist in ventilation and in assessing the situation (i.e. making sure the fire hadn't spread to the areas adjoining the chimney) such assistance could probably have been best provided in cooperation with the homeowner (who could show the firefighters where the crawlspace accesses were, etc.) Unfortunately, in part due to the over-zealous litigation system in this country, there is often an adversarial relationship between firefighters and homeowners where none should exist.
--Boot Hill
On NOW at RadioFR!
Doug from Upland interviews JAYNA DAVIS discussing the OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Because we aren't using it in Iraq are we? If we are, then there must not be any detected thus far. If we aren't, then why not?
Hard to say, the inspectors, not surprisingly, haven't revealed exactly the extent of the sensor technology they are currently using in Iraq. Moreover, the inspectors are employed by and under the control of the UN and as such, probably would not have access, due to national security concerns, to the most advanced sensor technology available to our intelligence agencies. Would you hand over our most secret and advanced technology to the UN?
You can be sure that they are using some sort of Gamma Ray detection system, despite their inherent limitations. And you can also be just as sure that Iraq has taken steps to shield nuclear sources from detection. The whole effort has taken on the air of a cat and mouse game and the proverbial shell game. It looks to me like the successful combination will prove to be human intelligence, backed with satellite photo intel, as the primary method to detect any nuclear weapon components, with sensor technology acting only as a backup.
Bio-weapons are going to be more difficult. For sensor technology to work there, there would have to be some sort of leak and any leak would leave a trail of dead humans in its wake. The facilities capable of producing bio-weapons, while not small, can be disguised by virtue of the dual-use nature of that kind of production, and can be cleaned of any bio-weapon traces. The finished raw organisms only occupy a very small volume and can thus be stored and hidden nearly anywhere. Even when weaponized, concealment is still quite easy. Again, the task will fall primarily to humans backed with photo intelligence, not sensor technology.
Given the difficulty of finding these WMD, I'm discouraged that Bush has staked the success of the War on Terror to finding these weapons before sending the military into Iraq. IMO, he had plenty of justification without relying on the WMD excuse.
Regards,
Boot Hill
Under the circumstance yes. If not now, when is more appropriate than now? Utililize all means available to discover WMD's in Iraq. If we aren't, then why?
That's what we argued and that's why we prevailed!
--Boot Hill
takenoprisoner replies: "Under the circumstance yes."
For once, I'm speechless.
--Boot Hill
I thought you were the expert?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.