Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Helping Joe let go | Main | Blow up a bit of the beltway contest »

August 10, 2006

Tigers hazardous to 4th Amendment rights

The police can enter your home without a warrant if there's a tiger in it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d834a6c35853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tigers hazardous to 4th Amendment rights:

Comments

Seems kind of cruel to keep a tiger in an apartment. Perhaps he should have gone with one of the smaller members of the family to which tigers belong. I think they are called "cats."

I apologize ahead of time for this being kinda off topic, but I thought you might be interested in hearing this...

Remember the post you did about a year ago on Gen. Kevin Byrnes being thrown under the bus, allegedly for an extramarital affair?

You might recall I posted a fairly Byzantine alternate theory on my site that you linked to...

The only reason I bring this up now, is that in the last month or so, our blog signed up for site metering, and it appears that twice in the last 30 days people have been looking at your original post and clicking through to my follow up.

The first, back in July, was an IP from the U.S. Army Information Center in Fort Benning, GA and the second, yesterday was from an IP in Hyattsville, MD, very close to the U.S. Army Research Center in Adelphi, MD.

Just something to make you go "hmmm..."

mojo sends

Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me. Soon, they'll be using our Persian and Black Shorthair kitties as an excuse to trample all over our property rights.

Am I the only one who read this and thought of "Look out Ned, those people have a tiger in their apartment", < voice box > "let's search the place" < / voice box >

Or do I watch too much South Park?

I still wonder: will police enter random domiciles and claim "but I thought there was a tiger in there, but it turned out just to be a tabby"?

I'm not thrilled about the NYPD going into a residence without a warrant. They can argue that the tiger posed an immediate threat to human life. The ruling will probably stand if challenged again.

Surely citizens are entitled to own tigers for self-defence?

"Now, the first thing to do when you're being stalked by an ugly mob with redcurrants is to - release the tiger!"

(He does so. Growls. Screams.)


"The great advantage of the tiger in unarmed combat is that he eats not only the fruit-laden foe but also the redcurrants. Tigers however do not relish the peach. The peach assailant should be attacked with a crocodile."

"Surely citizens are entitled to own tigers for self-defence?"

The second amendment guarantees it! But responsible tiger enthusiasts don't abuse their rights, and take safety courses offered by the National Tiger Association. Don't forget to take refreshers. Even the most experienced tiger handlers can have mishaps (See Siegfried...or was that Roy?)

-Remember, a tiger is not a toy.
-Don't try to impress people by brandishing your tiger.
-Don't ever point your tiger at anything you are not prepared to have eaten.
-Always keep you tiger cleaned, and in proper working condition.
-Don't use more tiger than you can handle.
-Keep your tiger away from children until they are mature enough to use it wisely.

Hey, how about a cite to that case? Some New York court?

nope

haha. nice

The comments to this entry are closed.