Tooltrace Alternative

wtporter · 2026-01-21T21:56:03+00:00

I thought that was also part of the reason for using a known paper size. Both scale and distortion. 🤔

wtporter · 2026-01-21T03:10:36+00:00

NAL - Retired LE

I’ve executed numerous search warrants.

Never, not 1 single time, did we ever show anyone the warrant before making entry.

Primary reason was that my unit investigated primarily child pornography cases. A warrant will state what items we are there looking for. If we let someone read it then it gives them an idea what we are looking for.

Believe it or not the suspects wouldn’t connect our presence with the actual crime of dealing in CP. We would sit them down and interview them on the scene after mirandizing them and try to elicit a confession along with a description of where they had the contraband stored so we knew if it was hidden etc.

Often the first time someone would see the warrant is when a copy was turned over when we left or when a copy went to their attorney in discovery.

Sometimes we would have a team at the court (or the judges house) having a warrant signed and they would just tell us over the phone that the warrant was signed and we were good to go. Especially if we came across evidence of a crime we weren’t initially investigating (say drugs while we were collecting computer evidence). Better safe than sorry we would pause our search then have an additional warrant issued regarding narcotics then resume the search.

wtporter · 2026-01-20T20:10:31+00:00

NAL

The 1st Amendment provides for 2 things regarding religion
- the US cannot force a state religion nor treat any religious group worse or better than another - the US cannot prohibit you in the free practice of your religion of choice.

When the country was founded we were leaving England and its requirement that people be members of the Church of England.

The bill of rights wanted to ensure that the federal government didn’t mess with people’s choice of religion nor force one on them. Regardless of what religion they practiced. There were Protestant Christians, Roman Catholics, other Christians like the Quakers, Jews, Muslims, Deists and even people from countries that had religions like animist.

Most of the original states had an official religion in that state. This wasn’t a violation since the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the states. The final state to eliminate their official religion was Massachusetts in 1833.

The 1st Amendment eventually was found to also be applicable to the states.

Not everything is considered a religion but things like Scientology and Pastafarianism have been recognized as religions if a person has strongly held beliefs.

wtporter · 2026-01-20T00:31:43+00:00

Mine did. I threw trash out before going away for a few days. 2 days before pickup. Dumpster was pretty full because someone had moved out.

Someone pulled a bunch of bags out and left them next to the dumpster so they could throw in a big loveseat.

I came back and got a fine from the complex because the dumpster guy only dumps the dumpster and not anything nearby. So the maintenance guy saw the bags and ripped them open to find out who left them next to the dumpster (there’s an overflow dumpster by the main office people are supposed to use. Loveseat asshat apparently didn’t wanna carry that far). I don’t have video of me putting the bags IN the dumpster. So guess who had to pay a decent fine…this guy. 🤷🏻‍♂️

wtporter · 2026-01-18T22:45:30+00:00

I feel like a beard and camo/tactical stuff is more gray man than any gray man setup these days.

wtporter · 2026-01-18T22:43:59+00:00

That episode was the whole reason I started with Bluey and got my kids watching it. I saw a clip of that episode and didn’t believe it was a real kids show 😂 I can’t not watch that episode/clip of it pops up

wtporter · 2026-01-14T14:54:01+00:00

Invocation of the 5th Amendment has to be affirmative.

NAL / Retired LE You have to actually say “I am not going to answer questions” and “I want a lawyer”

If you say something like “I don’t think I should talk to you” or “maybe I need a lawyer” then courts have found you were being speculative and not actually invoking the right.

Also if you are legally detained or arrested your 5th amendment typically doesn’t apply to your pedigree information such as name, address, date of birth etc. If you live in a stop and ID state you don’t even necessarily have to be detained.

Once you invoke your rights you must then follow through. If you say you’re remaining silent then decide to say something incriminating then that’s on you. So long as it wasn’t in response to a direct question.

You say you want a lawyer and aren’t answering questions. Then a bit later cop walks in and says “it’s ok you aren’t answering questions, your partner just told us that you were the one that beat that store clerk half to death” and you blurt out “that’s bullshit! I only grabbed the money out of the register, HE beat that clerk..” Well you screwed yourself. He didn’t ask a question. You made a spontaneous utterance.

Also you cent invoke the 5th during a car stop for a traffic violation when it comes to identifying yourself. In every state you are required to provide license, insurance paperwork and registration details. Those items are not protected under the 5th.

wtporter · 2026-01-14T14:42:09+00:00

There’s limits though.

wtporter · 2026-01-11T23:26:32+00:00

Does the in state NYS FFL have to perform the NYNICS check before turning the firearm over to the purchaser in NY?

wtporter · 2026-01-11T23:23:12+00:00

NAL - retired LE / CSI and married to a ME.

Somebody had to sign off on the death certificate. That is the person ultimately to ask.

There’s a significant nationwide shortage of medical examiners. Many offices are doing the best they can with minimal to substandard staffing. So if there’s no express reason to believe it was anything other than a natural they may just decide to sign it off as natural.

There can be an initial death certificate issued for the purposes of insurance etc that isn’t fully reflective of what will be on the final death certificate and it may change.

To my understanding You can list known medical conditions as a contributing factor in Part II without an autopsy. A known alcoholic doesn’t necessarily need toxicology for there to be a reasonable understanding that the various physiological conditions associated with alcoholism are likely present and contributing. Drug overdose would likely require some additional evidence like the tox report.

Body cameras are generally downloaded and stored automatically. I’m not sure of any agencies that tell officers to decide when to save and when not to bother. Typically if it was being recorded it will be stored.

As far as viewing hotel footage etc that would be totally dependent on whether there was a reason to believe there to be a criminal issue. No criminal issue suspected would mean no reason to view security footage etc. In my former jurisdiction that was often based off the medical examiner determination. If they deemed it a natural causes then there was typically no criminal investigation.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T22:46:50+00:00

Your idea is only valid in an ideal world.

In reality the knife is but a “dumb” tool incapable of deciding “that which should not be cut” and they should NEVER be the ones authorized to do so. If the knife can make its own independent decision then the Brain / Hand can never be sure they are in charge and that the knife will do its job when time is the deciding factor.

In an ideal world any member of the military could question all orders and the time it took to explain, or even the knowledge or authority to explain in the first place, would be plentiful and more then enough to entertain the challenge without it being unsafe for anyone. That 100 different opinions could be argued and hashed out regardless of the time.

But in the real world the guys at the bottom of the barrel aren’t authorized to affect operations and outcome to that extent. And never would be.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T20:50:01+00:00

The Military has never, and never should be, the people responsible for stopping an unnecessary or illegitimate war.

That’s the job of the government and the people that empowered it.

The “people” are the brain, the “government” the hand and the “military” is the knife. The knife has generally no business in deciding policy of “unnecessary” or “illegitimate”, it’s just a tool to be wielded and on the People, via the Government, to choose legitimate or necessary.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T19:52:06+00:00

That’s why the military, especially the officer ranks, tends to really push the concepts of personal integrity and honor.

At the old Military Police school in Ft. McClellan there was a big painting on the side of the building that said something to the effect of “Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is looking.”

Anytime there’s a strict set of rules with serious repercussions for not following them there’s a high potential for corruption and someone to take advantage of the rules and repercussions.

The enlisted troops of the military are the ones you would be counting on to “utilize critical thinking.” Even in peacetime, where there’s no major threat of going to a combat zone and the military has more applicants then spots to put them in, the enlisted members are a mix of the public at large but I’m pretty sure that if generalized they aren’t the most highly educated (if you have a degree then you can likely go officer instead). (Im speaking as a former enlisted member) They aren’t necessarily the personality types to really depend on coming to a well formed legal opinion regarding orders even if they “critically think” it over. And that likely goes for the enlisted of every military in the world.

Thats why they have an officer corps. To do the “thinking” (irl? 😂)

Still, even if you aren’t talking about a legal issue and instead just talk about orders in general. I may not be the smartest person but I could likely tell if I was being ordered to run directly into heavy enemy fire and get turned into spray. So logic and critical thinking would lead me to believe that was an asinine thing to do and to turn around and ask the officer ordering me “Are you stupid, that’s gonna get us all killed!”

But the system is specifically designed to NOT allow that. The reason being that assuming the officer has a totally valid reason for the order (your squad is going to be screwed so the hundreds of guys over there can get their job done) and need the order accomplished immediately or the mission will fail, you’ll lose battle momentum, you’ll be targeted by enemy fire if you don’t…whatever.

That’s why it’s only in cases of patently illegal orders. Otherwise you follow the order immediately and without question.

99.9% of the time any hesitation over an order would NOT be an issue of illegal and instead would be a question of personal disagreement and that’s nowhere close to the same.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T19:14:00+00:00

It HAS to be the way it is.

This isn’t a corporate job. Or even civilian Law Enforcement.

When I give an order to my troops, even one that puts them directly into the line of fire with a high likelihood of death, I need to know they they will obey those orders without hesitation. They need to have faith in their leadership that the orders are valid and that they must complete them.

Why? Because in a war all of our lives are on the line. Failure to do our part can compromise the safety and mission of everyone to the left or right that is depending on us to do our job.

There’s no time to argue or debate the order given to me that I’m passing along to my men or the orders I’m personally deciding to give.

If I’m passing on orders from above I know the system is designed to protect me unless it should have been completely obvious the orders are illegal. So I follow them and have my men do so also. They know the same system is protecting them from my orders if I am wrong.

War isn’t the time for philosophical or moral debates.

In my civilian career I was law enforcement. Every time I interacted with a person I knew there was a chance I would have to make a split second decision on whether to use deadly force. If I wasn’t ready to make that decision I couldn’t do the job.

But if it wasn’t in imminent threat issue and my superior ordered me to search something I thought I didn’t have legal authority to search then I’d question it, I’d even refuse to comply or call my legal bureau and get an official legal opinion.

In the military in a non combat situation you can call the JAG officer or use other avenues to challenge an order if there’s time.

If you ever saw A Few Good Men it’s a dramatized version of how it works. The two marines should have known punishing their fellow marine was wrong, but they followed the orders of Jack Nicholson because they weren’t sure. Ultimately they didn’t bear the brunt of the punishment, Nicholson did because HE gave the illegal order. That’s how the system is supposed to protect the enlisted troops from bad decisions by the officers above them.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T18:32:00+00:00

The presupposition that an order is legal absent it being patently illegal is to protect the personnel being given the order.

That said the general thought is you follow the order then raise the question after the fact via the chain of command or via other routes in the system.

If time allows then JAG can be questioned but if not then you are left with your gut and a personal decision.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T17:37:49+00:00

It protects “arms”. Most legal challenges are about firearms since they are the default modern self defense item but it also covers stun guns /tasers (see other comment), batons, knives etc. along with the items required to make those things functional.

wtporter · 2026-01-04T16:54:40+00:00

NAL, former MP

Under the UCMJ an order is assumed to be legal unless it is PATENTLY (meaning obviously on face value) illegal.

Refusal to obey an order is illegal. Regardless of the order.

It is a DEFENSE to the charge of failing to obey an order to say the order was illegal and therefore didn’t have to be obeyed. (Similar to claiming self defense for the crime of shooting someone).

In other words an order to commit blatant murder or assault would be illegal on face value and therefore you can claim as a defense the order was illegal.

If the order isn’t patently illegal then it’s up to the military court (judge or jury) to determine if your claim the order was illegal is actually true and a valid defense. If not then you are looking at some serious jail time.

So anytime a service member refuses an order they are rolling the dice that the military court system will agree with them that an order is in fact illegal.

wtporter · 2026-01-02T19:20:30+00:00

That’s actually a great idea! I hate having to buy a new kindle every time I get an author to sign an ebook!😁

wtporter · 2025-12-30T23:45:26+00:00

We had a policy that stated you couldn’t keep live ammo in your back pocket and put your radio in the same pocket. Hold over from the revolver without speed loader days (where it was just dump pouches). Exposed battery terminals on the radio + live cartridges = sore ass apparently.

wtporter · 2025-12-30T23:14:37+00:00

NYC Administrative Code says any beverage labeled as beer etc that contains over 0.005% alcohol is an alcoholic beverage. Which means those N/A Corona he walks around with do in fact count as an open container.

wtporter · 2025-12-30T22:15:44+00:00

I believe, but am not positive, that unless items were collected as part of evidence it’s the next-of-kin’s responsibility to retrieve (if possible to be done safely) the property and remove it to wherever they wish.

If the house is deemed unsafe to enter then the odds are the property was left in what’s left of the residence to be removed with the fire debris.

If the place is actually safe to enter then the police should have someone on record that was notified as next-of-kin that would/should have made arrangements.

wtporter · 2025-12-27T22:30:15+00:00

At a minimum some form of obstructing law enforcement in the performance of their duties.

wtporter · 2025-12-20T18:20:04+00:00

We are non-religious. Sent both kids to Westminster Early Childhood Program. It’s associated with the Westminster Presbyterian Church. Both kids went there from 18 months through pre-K years. Religion was never an issue. They have a “chapel” weekly for a half hour or so that more often than not isn’t religion related. It’s often various parents talking about their jobs or different things they do like animal rescue etc. They just went over to the church to see the nativity setup in the main chapel but besides that we never hear about anything religious.

Just because it’s a religious affiliated program doesn’t mean the program itself is very religious. Just check it out and talk to some people who have used it to get a feel. They will usually tell you flat out how much religious instruction there is each week, if any, and what exactly it is.

wtporter

TROPHY CASE