Not for nothing, but I kind of dislike Gnome. Too much irrelevant junk in the right-click menus, not enough relevant stuff there. But my installation here is a good piece of a decade old, so yours may be newer and improveder.
I'd bet they'd expect the NSA to be all over that sort of thing, and the pulse-width modulation as well.
So I'd expect they wouldn't bother. The buzz could just be there to be different from the numbers, making it easy for a recording receiver to record days of info then play back as a high-pitched (or ultrasonic) whine, from which any spoken transmissions would stand out clearly. The spoken numbers are probably the coded info most of the time, and the worded announcements likely convey information the code in the numbers couldn't, like telling agents which new codebook to use in case they'd lost the use of the old one, or making it abundantly clear that something has to happen immediately without bothering to decode the numbers.
Pretty basic communications-theory stuff regarding noise and synchronization over a carrier that's simple to access from almost anywhere. In fact, I wonder what parts of the Earth it doesn't reach.
You should review the case. Just from your description I can tell that the cops likely knew or had evidence that: 1. it was a bad neighborhood with a lot of cars being broken into. 2. he was breaking into her car. 3. she could tell he was breaking into her car. 4. there was nothing reasonable she could do to stop him but to shoot him.
And I would guess that there were other things, like she told him to stop before she shot him, but if those 4 things were true she wouldn't actually have to.
BTW, if she wasn't charged, it's not "case law," it's just an anecdote in the news. There's always the situation where the cops and prosecutor know something wrong happened and simply decide not to pursue it for their own reasons. Someone else may insist and turn it into a political problem, but if nobody does, then it just turns out that way. It doesn't make the anecdote a matter of law that you can point to as a precedent in court after you shoot a cop for trying to put a GPS bug on your car.
That's a better guess than the spectographic analysis. FM is far less susceptible to noise. And you could easily build a pulse-timing receiver out of parts you find at Radio Shack.
But that limits your activities to places with stores like Radio Shack (or akihabara).
It looks to me like harmonics on a waveform with sharp corners (i.e., a buzz, not a beep).
It certainly doesn't seem to have any pattern reminiscent of digital data, and given how long ago it started, and how susceptible the signal is to amplitude noise, I highly doubt they were using multi-valued bits in the encoding.
First, you saying he's a terrorist isn't enough. You'll have to show reason to believe he's a terrorist. You know, racist shit like the color of his skin or the size of his nose.
Driving onto a military base is not an ordinary situation. The rules for the military are completely different from the rules for civilians, even where they're worded the same. And, since the military is a high-value target for terrorists, anything out of the ordinary can reasonbly be treated as a threat. You don't get that in your driveway.
You're changing the facts of the case to suit your argument; i.e., propping up a straw-man. It was about a hand in a wheel-well, not digging around under the hood.
Even if he's digging around under the hood, deadly force may not be the only reasonable means to stop it. It's certainly not the first reasonable action to take.
if I saw some guy sitting or bending down on the pavement near my car, I would NEVER assume its 'harmless and lawful'.
And that makes you a sociopath.
If I saw some guy sitting or bending down on the pavement near my car, the first words out of my mouth would be "Hey, what's up, lose your cat?"
stop being pedantic. cops get away with shit because they're part of the system and the system never fucks with its own. get real and cut the shit, will ya?
I'm not being pedantic. You are being paranoid.
You only believe cops "get away with shit" because you don't know shit about cops. Cops almost never get away with shit. They almost always have reasonable justification for what you think is shit, and when they don't, the shit comes down on them double hard. You don't know the rules so you assume they're overstepping them; they know the rules and the rules say they can use more force to arrest you than you use to avoid being arrested, but not excessively so, and each escalation comes with justifications. And where things get grey, they're trained to make them black-and-white when writing their reports or giving evidence in court, because if they're grey then their version in black-and-white fits into the grey and is therefore truthful testimony. Meanwhile they're excessively careful to ensure that your rights aren't infringed, because they know that will lose them the case.
If you have evidence the system is not fucking with people who need to be fucked with, the law is there to serve you. Act on it instead of throwing up your hands and insulting my intelligence to assuage the guilt you feel over your inaction.
I think you're a demon-wizard from the 86th dimension. Does that give me the right to sever your head and cryo-pak it?
No. I need to show evidence that my belief that there was danger was reasonable.
Now, if you were Afghanistan you might have a chance of showing your statement to be reasonable. But not in Irving. In Irving you'd be just another smart-ass trying to beat a murder rap. Good luck with the jury.
criminal mischief at night is a situation where deadly force is justifiable. So if they are putting it on at night, it's explicitly legal to shoot them in the back without warning.
Putting a magnetized object into your wheel well is not criminal mischief. You're going to have to show evidence that you saw damage being done. And from the link I posted, the person doing the shooting "reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means". Shooting someone in the back is not that. You're going to have to bring a justification that you couldn't stop them by shouting at them, showing them your gun, shoving them, calling the cops, or kicking them in the head, or otherwise ascertaining that they wouldn't stop unless they were shot. Then you can have at it.
Since the person doing it in this hypothetical case is a cop, deadly force will never be necessary. They won't continue planting the tracking device once they know of your presence, no matter how they try to cover it, so you'll have no reason to believe anything is being done to your vehicle, much less criminal mischief.
There's no loophole in this law that says you can turn into John Wayne and start shooting at what you suppose are bad guys on sight and then make semantic arguments to justify it. Deadly force is a last resort, not a free ride, not even in Texas.
Well, no, there's no "wee bit more" in the law. The courts expect the cops to use significant force but not excessive force, depending on the police's knowledge of the person they're arresting. Someone who's already fled or resisted (rodney king) can reasonably be expected to fight, so the cops are justified in starting out using all but deadly force, and threatening to use deadly force. Someone who has no reputation with the police who's just being arrested without resisting can't reasonable be expected to resist, so the cops are justified in laying hands on the person and holding them, but not hitting them.
In fact, if you're not resisting and the cops don't have a reason to believe you'd resist or fight, and they do use excessive force, you're justified in fighting the cop to stop the use of excessive force. But don't count on proving it; all the cop needs to say is "he made a threatening motion" and that's evidence enough.
that's not what "furtive motion" means when someone is trying to attack someone
cops aren't linguists, and courts take that into account
you aren't a cop. you need evidence that you have reasonable belief that something imminent is going to cause damage
"it might have been a bomb" isn't that. "i saw what looked like a bomb" when the thing in evidence looks like a bomb might be that. when it looks like a little GPS tracking device, and you had no way to see it, you're going to jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Not for nothing, but I kind of dislike Gnome. Too much irrelevant junk in the right-click menus, not enough relevant stuff there. But my installation here is a good piece of a decade old, so yours may be newer and improveder.
Why? What semi-naked celebrity are you going to have to scrunch into the empty part of the screen?
I'd bet they'd expect the NSA to be all over that sort of thing, and the pulse-width modulation as well.
So I'd expect they wouldn't bother. The buzz could just be there to be different from the numbers, making it easy for a recording receiver to record days of info then play back as a high-pitched (or ultrasonic) whine, from which any spoken transmissions would stand out clearly. The spoken numbers are probably the coded info most of the time, and the worded announcements likely convey information the code in the numbers couldn't, like telling agents which new codebook to use in case they'd lost the use of the old one, or making it abundantly clear that something has to happen immediately without bothering to decode the numbers.
Pretty basic communications-theory stuff regarding noise and synchronization over a carrier that's simple to access from almost anywhere. In fact, I wonder what parts of the Earth it doesn't reach.
On the plus side you'd get a great workout posting to /.
I do anyway. Sigh.
You should review the case. Just from your description I can tell that the cops likely knew or had evidence that:
1. it was a bad neighborhood with a lot of cars being broken into.
2. he was breaking into her car.
3. she could tell he was breaking into her car.
4. there was nothing reasonable she could do to stop him but to shoot him.
And I would guess that there were other things, like she told him to stop before she shot him, but if those 4 things were true she wouldn't actually have to.
BTW, if she wasn't charged, it's not "case law," it's just an anecdote in the news. There's always the situation where the cops and prosecutor know something wrong happened and simply decide not to pursue it for their own reasons. Someone else may insist and turn it into a political problem, but if nobody does, then it just turns out that way. It doesn't make the anecdote a matter of law that you can point to as a precedent in court after you shoot a cop for trying to put a GPS bug on your car.
Unless you're Sarah Connor.
(Man. Sometimes I forget how transformative that woman was.)
That's a better guess than the spectographic analysis. FM is far less susceptible to noise. And you could easily build a pulse-timing receiver out of parts you find at Radio Shack.
But that limits your activities to places with stores like Radio Shack (or akihabara).
It looks to me like harmonics on a waveform with sharp corners (i.e., a buzz, not a beep).
It certainly doesn't seem to have any pattern reminiscent of digital data, and given how long ago it started, and how susceptible the signal is to amplitude noise, I highly doubt they were using multi-valued bits in the encoding.
You'll get your ack when you see the mushroom cloud.
They're Republicans who think the war they have isn't the war they want.
are they anything like terminatoes?
You had time to make all those other posts.
And if your yard is fenced and posted, the cop isn't going to go there to place the tracker because it's illegal for him to do so without a warrant.
it's not like you can tell the need for deadly force from the need to ask "what are you doing?"
Asked and answered. You need more proof of "terrorist" and "bomb" than your wild imagination.
Only if the cop is "assaulting" you without a legal reason.
First, you saying he's a terrorist isn't enough. You'll have to show reason to believe he's a terrorist. You know, racist shit like the color of his skin or the size of his nose.
Driving onto a military base is not an ordinary situation. The rules for the military are completely different from the rules for civilians, even where they're worded the same. And, since the military is a high-value target for terrorists, anything out of the ordinary can reasonbly be treated as a threat. You don't get that in your driveway.
Take the word "deadly" out, if tresspass or fighting words are all you have for evidence.
shoot first, ask questions later
Spend the rest of your life in jail, and expect it to be considerably shortened by lethal injection.
A jury may have said that, once, but unless you were in the neighbor's house during the break-in, the statutes don't.
And you're missing some evidence showing that deadly force was the only means of stopping it.
You're changing the facts of the case to suit your argument; i.e., propping up a straw-man. It was about a hand in a wheel-well, not digging around under the hood.
Even if he's digging around under the hood, deadly force may not be the only reasonable means to stop it. It's certainly not the first reasonable action to take.
if I saw some guy sitting or bending down on the pavement near my car, I would NEVER assume its 'harmless and lawful'.
And that makes you a sociopath.
If I saw some guy sitting or bending down on the pavement near my car, the first words out of my mouth would be "Hey, what's up, lose your cat?"
stop being pedantic. cops get away with shit because they're part of the system and the system never fucks with its own. get real and cut the shit, will ya?
I'm not being pedantic. You are being paranoid.
You only believe cops "get away with shit" because you don't know shit about cops. Cops almost never get away with shit. They almost always have reasonable justification for what you think is shit, and when they don't, the shit comes down on them double hard. You don't know the rules so you assume they're overstepping them; they know the rules and the rules say they can use more force to arrest you than you use to avoid being arrested, but not excessively so, and each escalation comes with justifications. And where things get grey, they're trained to make them black-and-white when writing their reports or giving evidence in court, because if they're grey then their version in black-and-white fits into the grey and is therefore truthful testimony. Meanwhile they're excessively careful to ensure that your rights aren't infringed, because they know that will lose them the case.
If you have evidence the system is not fucking with people who need to be fucked with, the law is there to serve you. Act on it instead of throwing up your hands and insulting my intelligence to assuage the guilt you feel over your inaction.
I think you're a demon-wizard from the 86th dimension. Does that give me the right to sever your head and cryo-pak it?
No. I need to show evidence that my belief that there was danger was reasonable.
Now, if you were Afghanistan you might have a chance of showing your statement to be reasonable. But not in Irving. In Irving you'd be just another smart-ass trying to beat a murder rap. Good luck with the jury.
criminal mischief at night is a situation where deadly force is justifiable. So if they are putting it on at night, it's explicitly legal to shoot them in the back without warning.
Putting a magnetized object into your wheel well is not criminal mischief. You're going to have to show evidence that you saw damage being done. And from the link I posted, the person doing the shooting "reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means". Shooting someone in the back is not that. You're going to have to bring a justification that you couldn't stop them by shouting at them, showing them your gun, shoving them, calling the cops, or kicking them in the head, or otherwise ascertaining that they wouldn't stop unless they were shot. Then you can have at it.
Since the person doing it in this hypothetical case is a cop, deadly force will never be necessary. They won't continue planting the tracking device once they know of your presence, no matter how they try to cover it, so you'll have no reason to believe anything is being done to your vehicle, much less criminal mischief.
There's no loophole in this law that says you can turn into John Wayne and start shooting at what you suppose are bad guys on sight and then make semantic arguments to justify it. Deadly force is a last resort, not a free ride, not even in Texas.
Well, no, there's no "wee bit more" in the law. The courts expect the cops to use significant force but not excessive force, depending on the police's knowledge of the person they're arresting. Someone who's already fled or resisted (rodney king) can reasonably be expected to fight, so the cops are justified in starting out using all but deadly force, and threatening to use deadly force. Someone who has no reputation with the police who's just being arrested without resisting can't reasonable be expected to resist, so the cops are justified in laying hands on the person and holding them, but not hitting them.
In fact, if you're not resisting and the cops don't have a reason to believe you'd resist or fight, and they do use excessive force, you're justified in fighting the cop to stop the use of excessive force. But don't count on proving it; all the cop needs to say is "he made a threatening motion" and that's evidence enough.
that's not what "furtive motion" means when someone is trying to attack someone
cops aren't linguists, and courts take that into account
you aren't a cop. you need evidence that you have reasonable belief that something imminent is going to cause damage
"it might have been a bomb" isn't that. "i saw what looked like a bomb" when the thing in evidence looks like a bomb might be that. when it looks like a little GPS tracking device, and you had no way to see it, you're going to jail.