If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   NYPD to deploy new, portable high-tech devices that can scan people walking down the street for concealed weapons   (nydailynews.com) divider line 334
    More: Scary, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, N.Y.P.D., New York Civil Liberties Union, London Metropolitan Police, concealed weapons, Waldorf-Astoria, assault weapons, false positives  
•       •       •

10097 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 3:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



334 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 11:55:30 PM
Any idea if any of the useless douchenozzles that wear the NYPD badge will ever be trained up to the level of firearms competence that would allow them to shoot more bullets into life threatening suspects than innocent bystanders?
 
2013-01-24 12:14:18 AM

BronyMedic: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?

Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

WalkingCarpet: Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.


fark they can't even stop weapons from getting into jails or prisons. They look up your ass there.
 
2013-01-24 12:15:14 AM

redmid17: LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.


I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.
 
2013-01-24 12:16:27 AM

skullkrusher: certainly better than stop and frisks but still kinda icky


How does this prevent what happened to the children?
 
2013-01-24 12:22:37 AM

StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.


Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.
 
2013-01-24 12:25:55 AM
I wonder which neighborhoods they plan to use this in.
 
2013-01-24 12:27:57 AM
Many moons ago, pre-TSA, someone from work was going on a business trip. Some of the guys in the shop thought it would be amusing to cut a handgun silhouette from thin sheetmetal and slip it into the side of his briefcase where it would go undetected until laid on the carryon x-ray scanner. Everyone, including airport security (LAX) was (were?) highly amused.

/Have a meeting with NYPD in the morning, so I'll be getting a kick thinking about this the entire time.
 
2013-01-24 12:35:25 AM

Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.


Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.
 
2013-01-24 12:51:35 AM

Bucky Katt: I wonder which neighborhoods they plan to use this in.


WSJ article:  "Officials said in its current form, the machine could be mounted on a truck and deployed to sites identified as prone to gun violence."

Same article says this boxy thing is a prototype that cost "multimillions" and the goal is something small enough for cops to wear on their belts.  Also, there are no plans to deploy this technology yet.  City is still talking to its lawyers about how to use it without running afoul of the 4th Amendment.

I would have figured out the legal aspect before sinking millions into the technology, but I don't have access to DoD funds.

Use of this device could be justified in a Terry stop, in which cops have a "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."  NYPD has been relying on Terry for its stop-and-frisk practice.

But scanning every passerby for weapons is never going to fly.  "Reasonable suspicion" must be attached to a specific person for specific, articulable reason(s).  Cops can't just say everyone in the neighborhood is suspicious because there have been shootings.
 
2013-01-24 01:07:13 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.


The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.
 
2013-01-24 01:50:10 AM

BronyMedic: The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


Mom, last month:  "Don't touch anything that's in my home office."

Mom, today: "WTF are you doing with the iPad that was in my office?!"

Kid:  "Well, you just bought it; it wasn't in your office last month."

What we need  are cops that don't act like kids.
 
2013-01-24 01:52:17 AM

Rincewind53: WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?


Nope. This will last about one arrest. Probably the ACLU already has the motion for injunction written and just waiting for a date stamp.
 
2013-01-24 02:15:53 AM
OW! my sperm!
 
2013-01-24 02:17:04 AM
dvdmedia.ign.com

oops i guess thats what I get for not previewing..
 
2013-01-24 02:28:13 AM
Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!
 
2013-01-24 02:40:09 AM

Wrencher: Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!


The Big Gulp is a 7-11 product. 7-11 and other large convenience store chains are exempt from Bloomberg's decree because they are regulated by the State, not the city.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:46 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Wrencher: Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!

The Big Gulp is a 7-11 product. 7-11 and other large convenience store chains are exempt from Bloomberg's decree because they are regulated by the State, not the city.


Even more pointless...
 
2013-01-24 04:15:38 AM

BronyMedic: The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


Congress didn't seem to have any problems passing laws covering the telegraph, the telephone, radio, tv, movies, cell phones, computers, and the internet.

Also, the Constitution doesn't really need to be tweaked for the modern age. It covers basic concepts of how our government is constructed and Rights, not ever changing methods of violating those Rights. So when they say, "secure in your person", they farking mean it no matter how you intend to poke around a person's private affairs.
 
2013-01-24 04:17:04 AM

russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.


In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.
 
2013-01-24 04:20:52 AM

sheep snorter: Sales of a new product to skyrocket. Its a piece of metal in a gun shape. Used to harass the fark out of the police scanners and the more skilled individuals can place it into unsuspecting peoples pockets or purses.

/Oh the bump and stuff(opposite of the bump and pull) on the subway is going to be that much more fun.


They'll probably just outlaw it because it's not a gun.
 
2013-01-24 06:38:50 AM
i.telegraph.co.uk
Just wear wool.
 
2013-01-24 07:49:19 AM

You Idiots: You liberals Leftists are getting exactly the police state you deserve deeply desire, have planned for, and have been building for over 100 years.


The current batch of online neo-Progressive shiat-disturbers are merely the latest in a long line of criminals. They may not all be aware of the history of their own movement, but this police-state agenda goes way back.
 
2013-01-24 09:10:38 AM
If this quote "with the shape of a hidden gun clearly visible under his clothing when viewed through the device" was referring to the pic provided I obviously have a different definition of 'clearly visible' than the NYPD.
 
2013-01-24 09:18:24 AM

Abacus9: russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.

In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.


Well that is a complete lie. It is a secondary. Law in az. There must be a primary cause for stop. But what are facts to liberals.
 
2013-01-24 12:53:54 PM
You people that wanted tougher gun control are seeing the ramifications.

When you willingly give up one freedom, you consent to give up all freedom.


/hates guns
 
2013-01-24 01:44:01 PM
Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.
 
2013-01-24 01:59:06 PM

GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.


The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-01-24 03:18:00 PM

OgreMagi: GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.


Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha
//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against
///trying to get data before making an opinion
 
2013-01-24 05:37:21 PM

GRCooper: OgreMagi: GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha
//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against
///trying to get data before making an opinion


Why were they scanning private property in ther first place?
 
2013-01-24 05:38:20 PM
Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?
 
2013-01-24 07:21:39 PM

OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?


Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?
 
2013-01-24 07:53:56 PM

GRCooper: OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?


Why do they need to violate the 4th amendment to test their equipment? Can they not view their own police department to test it out? Also, the criminal, if detected wouldn't be able to use a 4th amendment defense because it was not his property that was violated, however the owner should be able to sue the department for the infringement.
 
2013-01-24 07:55:58 PM

GRCooper: OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?


The problem is when they are "testing new equipment" every damn night of the year.

As for what do the police do? Same thing they do now, nothing. Because they have donuts to eat.
 
2013-01-25 12:10:55 AM

BronyMedic: StoPPeRmobile: Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.

The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


They don't need to. Secure in your person. Same today as it has ever been. farking laziness and fear drive change like this.

Oh I forgot money.
 
Displayed 34 of 334 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report