NM Leon
New member
Quote:Leon, if you can't color within the lines in polite fashion here, then please save your rude comments for the Church, and those that will put up with it there. This is my thread. I started it, and if it can't remain civil it will indeed turn the direction that last thread did, and I have already asked for moderation Before I started this thread to insure that it will be removed if it in fact does turn that direction. Your interjecting your interpretation of what I stated or didn't state comes across as rude, condescending and combative. I didn't post this to split hairs with you on amounts of radiation, and I didn't say that arrests have happened from technologies available to our govt. I simply stated that said technology does in fact exist.... The same way that I presented that exceptions to the 4th Amendment exist.
If you in particular can't abstain from the type of reply you are making in this thread, then I would request that it be removed, or at the very least locked.
As you should know very well as an ex-director, this is not "your" thread, anything posted here belongs in it's entirety to Predator Masters.
When you introduce gratuitous sarcasm and decide to "color outside the lines" in your response to legitimate questions and facts, you should expect to be responded to in kind.
When you make assertions depending on scientific fact that are not just wrong in degree, but absolutely 100% fantasy, you should expect to be corrected.
When you make assertions of fact-in-law, you should expect to be asked for legal citations to back up your assertions.
As you also know, knowingly posting inaccurate information is against the TOS. If you want to post your opinion about what might happen at some point in the future, that's fine. If you want to assume an air of authority and state "facts", especially when those "facts" are about laws that directly affect hunters, you had BETTER be able to cite case law.
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarI know that they can indeed detect radiation, and if you have said radiation, and they do detect it, without a note similar to a prescription looking documant, they WILL detain you. (I'll let YOU split the hairs of what they can detect or cannot detect.)
I'll leave it to you to call BS on the amount of radiation they can detect. I'm not trained in their equipment, although I know that they HAVE it.
Is a device like a CT or CAT Scan an X-Ray? I ask this because I indeed know people that have had these that have either 1) Been Detained or 2) Had said note from the Dr.
No one has said they couldn't detect radiation, only that x-rays left no radiation to be detected.
Yes Barry, a CAT (or CT) is an x-ray machine, and no doubt you know people who were "active radiation emitters" after their scans but it wasn't because they had been exposed to x-rays during the CAT scans any more than it was because they had their blood pressure checked during the same visit. If you check with the folks you know, you will find that they had a PET/CT or some other type of Nuclear Medicine where radioactive nucleotides were introduced into their body. The reason they would set off radiation detectors is because of the radioactive substances that were put into those people (as 19grizz69 posted about), either intravenously, orally, anally, or by breathing gas, but NOT because of any x-rays. The fact that a person undergoing nuclear medicine procedures might set off detectors has been known for decades, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with x-rays. It has nothing to do with the amount of radiation an x-ray leaves behind, because X-RAYS DON'T LEAVE ANY RADIATION BEHIND.
Getting enough x-rays of enough strength might well kill you, but...
YOU CAN NOT SET OFF RADIATION DETECTORS AS A RESULT OF HAVING HAD ANY NUMBER OF X-RAYS OF ANY STRENGTH .
Telling people that they will be held up at a check point if they've had an x-ray is giving them inaccurate information. Continuing to defend that erroneous information is doing a disservice to the members at best.
Originally Posted By: NM Leonand anywhere any court has said that warrant-less drive by searches would be legal or admissible in court, as in: a big white truck drives down your street and sniffs out your gunpowder for reloading, or detects how many guns you keep in your home, and how much ammo you have for each gun? What will they use the information for? All perfectly legal. They are indeed "searching" without warrant in those cases, aren't they?
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarDid I ever say that people could be arrested and charges made to stick with this? Who even mentioned a court would uphold ANYTHING? I certainly didn't. I didn't even imply it....
You didn't just imply, you clearly said that such searches would be "All perfectly legal" even though they would be "indeed "searching" without warrant in those cases". I asked you for legal citations backing up that assertion. That should be easy to show, since especially in large metro areas, SWAT teams already use "remote detection" technology. Have they ever used it without a warrant? If so, was that found to be legal by the courts? I don't know, I asked you for those court cases because it was your assertion.
We're still waiting.
You also made the factual legal assertion that "A warden out here can also search your residence without warrant if they believe that you are holding 'Fruits of the Crime'". Again, though it certainly seems to violate 4th amendment law, it could be the actual case in NM. If so it should be easy enough to show with court cases where it had happened and been ruled a valid search by the courts. Since it was your assertion, I asked for the legal cases supporting that assertion.
We're still waiting.
If you want to start a thread about the possibility of an authoritarian government at some point in the future and what their abuses might be, that's fine, though it would be better placed in the "church".
If you want to present factual information for the member's benefit (as was your stated purpose), make sure your "facts" are correct and be prepared to defend them, especially when it's legal information that may well affect hunters.
How many guys might let a warden search their house without a warrant because you told them he just had to "believe" they might have illegal game parts and didn't need to get a warrant?
How many guys here might forgo or postpone travel because they couldn't get ahold of their doctor and maybe their wife recently had a mammography?
If you are shown to be wrong, or can't support your assertions, admit it and move on. To continue to defend erroneous assertions presented as fact is not only disingenuous and a disservice to members who might trust your knowledge, it's irresponsible. It's also the reason we have the proscription against inaccurate info in the TOS.
If you in particular can't abstain from the type of reply you are making in this thread, then I would request that it be removed, or at the very least locked.
As you should know very well as an ex-director, this is not "your" thread, anything posted here belongs in it's entirety to Predator Masters.
When you introduce gratuitous sarcasm and decide to "color outside the lines" in your response to legitimate questions and facts, you should expect to be responded to in kind.
When you make assertions depending on scientific fact that are not just wrong in degree, but absolutely 100% fantasy, you should expect to be corrected.
When you make assertions of fact-in-law, you should expect to be asked for legal citations to back up your assertions.
As you also know, knowingly posting inaccurate information is against the TOS. If you want to post your opinion about what might happen at some point in the future, that's fine. If you want to assume an air of authority and state "facts", especially when those "facts" are about laws that directly affect hunters, you had BETTER be able to cite case law.
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarI know that they can indeed detect radiation, and if you have said radiation, and they do detect it, without a note similar to a prescription looking documant, they WILL detain you. (I'll let YOU split the hairs of what they can detect or cannot detect.)
I'll leave it to you to call BS on the amount of radiation they can detect. I'm not trained in their equipment, although I know that they HAVE it.
Is a device like a CT or CAT Scan an X-Ray? I ask this because I indeed know people that have had these that have either 1) Been Detained or 2) Had said note from the Dr.
No one has said they couldn't detect radiation, only that x-rays left no radiation to be detected.
Yes Barry, a CAT (or CT) is an x-ray machine, and no doubt you know people who were "active radiation emitters" after their scans but it wasn't because they had been exposed to x-rays during the CAT scans any more than it was because they had their blood pressure checked during the same visit. If you check with the folks you know, you will find that they had a PET/CT or some other type of Nuclear Medicine where radioactive nucleotides were introduced into their body. The reason they would set off radiation detectors is because of the radioactive substances that were put into those people (as 19grizz69 posted about), either intravenously, orally, anally, or by breathing gas, but NOT because of any x-rays. The fact that a person undergoing nuclear medicine procedures might set off detectors has been known for decades, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with x-rays. It has nothing to do with the amount of radiation an x-ray leaves behind, because X-RAYS DON'T LEAVE ANY RADIATION BEHIND.
Getting enough x-rays of enough strength might well kill you, but...
YOU CAN NOT SET OFF RADIATION DETECTORS AS A RESULT OF HAVING HAD ANY NUMBER OF X-RAYS OF ANY STRENGTH .
Telling people that they will be held up at a check point if they've had an x-ray is giving them inaccurate information. Continuing to defend that erroneous information is doing a disservice to the members at best.
Originally Posted By: NM Leonand anywhere any court has said that warrant-less drive by searches would be legal or admissible in court, as in: a big white truck drives down your street and sniffs out your gunpowder for reloading, or detects how many guns you keep in your home, and how much ammo you have for each gun? What will they use the information for? All perfectly legal. They are indeed "searching" without warrant in those cases, aren't they?
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarDid I ever say that people could be arrested and charges made to stick with this? Who even mentioned a court would uphold ANYTHING? I certainly didn't. I didn't even imply it....
You didn't just imply, you clearly said that such searches would be "All perfectly legal" even though they would be "indeed "searching" without warrant in those cases". I asked you for legal citations backing up that assertion. That should be easy to show, since especially in large metro areas, SWAT teams already use "remote detection" technology. Have they ever used it without a warrant? If so, was that found to be legal by the courts? I don't know, I asked you for those court cases because it was your assertion.
We're still waiting.
You also made the factual legal assertion that "A warden out here can also search your residence without warrant if they believe that you are holding 'Fruits of the Crime'". Again, though it certainly seems to violate 4th amendment law, it could be the actual case in NM. If so it should be easy enough to show with court cases where it had happened and been ruled a valid search by the courts. Since it was your assertion, I asked for the legal cases supporting that assertion.
We're still waiting.
If you want to start a thread about the possibility of an authoritarian government at some point in the future and what their abuses might be, that's fine, though it would be better placed in the "church".
If you want to present factual information for the member's benefit (as was your stated purpose), make sure your "facts" are correct and be prepared to defend them, especially when it's legal information that may well affect hunters.
How many guys might let a warden search their house without a warrant because you told them he just had to "believe" they might have illegal game parts and didn't need to get a warrant?
How many guys here might forgo or postpone travel because they couldn't get ahold of their doctor and maybe their wife recently had a mammography?
If you are shown to be wrong, or can't support your assertions, admit it and move on. To continue to defend erroneous assertions presented as fact is not only disingenuous and a disservice to members who might trust your knowledge, it's irresponsible. It's also the reason we have the proscription against inaccurate info in the TOS.
