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 63
    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  
•       •       •

10098 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-23 12:56:02 PM  
7 votes:

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?
2013-01-23 02:44:55 PM  
6 votes:

BronyMedic: 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.


Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/
2013-01-23 12:49:55 PM  
6 votes:
In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.
2013-01-23 04:19:21 PM  
3 votes:
images.wisegeek.com
2013-01-23 03:55:02 PM  
3 votes:
Not to make this a gun argument (I know, too late) but it is the very mindset that rabidly encroaches on what many may call their Second Amendment Rights that feels that citizens really have no rights whatsoever.
2013-01-23 03:52:33 PM  
3 votes:

BronyMedic: Ah. So marksmanship isn't the only thing crappy at the NYPD.


They have found a way to abuse every right a citizen will ever have, and are researching even more abuse. You can't sit on your front step any more without getting a summons.

Marquis de Sod: Innocent? Innocent of what?


Everything under the sun until the cops can provide a valid reason for a search. The technology in tfa IS a search, not a reason for one.
2013-01-23 03:49:34 PM  
3 votes:

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?


The NYPD doesn't really care what any authority other than the Mayor of New York says.
2013-01-23 03:47:18 PM  
3 votes:
assets.nydailynews.com

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?
2013-01-23 03:46:42 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-01-23 03:04:00 PM  
3 votes:

impaler: BronyMedic: 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.

Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/


That may be the most vile and disgusting headline I've read today.
2013-01-23 02:47:18 PM  
3 votes:
Those tinfoil hats aren't looking so crazy now, eh folks?
2013-01-23 02:46:42 PM  
3 votes:
BUT IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT AM I RIGHT GUYS?
2013-01-23 02:46:27 PM  
3 votes:

AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?


Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.
2013-01-23 01:01:51 PM  
3 votes:
Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

assets.nydailynews.com

Sure it's kind of a crappy lo-res pic but just because something's in the shape of a gun doesn't mean it's a gun.

Unless I'm missing something with this technology.

And if they're going to frisk someone that they think has a concealed weapon you can bet it's not going to be a "Hello sir, how is your day going?  Mind if we ask you a few questions?" kind of a stop.
2013-01-24 12:51:35 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-23 09:42:09 PM  
2 votes:
And New York continues its decent into a fascist hell hole... You could not pay me to live in that city or state at this point.
2013-01-23 04:56:48 PM  
2 votes:

redmid17: There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.


Agreed. It makes it so there are less loopholes.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
not
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless you can find a way to do it with technology, except for infrared scanners, or backscatter x-rays, etc"

or
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
not
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless they are scary moooslems; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless it is horribly unpopular speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless the people in positions of power find it inconvenient."

or
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
not
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the guns are scary looking."
2013-01-23 04:38:52 PM  
2 votes:

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"

Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.

Honestly I think I just like stirring up shiat about peoples' rights.

If this was used in places where carrying handguns is illegal, then fark the rights. You's a criminal. Everyone else walks by untouched.

I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.


That you personally endorse authoritarian fascism does not alter Constitutional protections.
2013-01-23 04:06:15 PM  
2 votes:

oldfarthenry: guns

legal

LEGAL!

LEGAL!!

LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!

MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!

HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!


Yes, a bunch of people using guns in a non-threating (except for that one suffed rabbit that appears to be in trouble)matter is pretty meh.

And police using litteral farking X-ray machines to scan people just walking down the street is a pretty goddamn horrible infringement.
2013-01-23 04:01:45 PM  
2 votes:

TheJoe03: Honestly, did we ever? I was listening to some George Carlin this morning and he simply brought up the internment of Japanese-AMERICANS. Plenty of other obvious examples (slavery, lack of woman's suffrage, Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson's presidency, the PATRIOT Act, etc etc etc).


It's sad isn't it? I know no one is gonna use their AR15 to "Water the tree of democracy" or any of that bullshiat, but a lot of gun enthusiasts do see their Second Amendment rights as a canary in a coal mine. Yeah, there are some nuts out there, but can it be said that they have no reason do resent what is and has gone on? The sickening authoritarian mindset is probably the least "American" value that one can come up with.
2013-01-23 03:57:47 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Concealed handgun licenses in New York are reserved for wealthy individuals with connections to politicians. Such individuals are already exempted from police searches for any reason.
2013-01-23 03:52:34 PM  
2 votes:

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?


Yeah in light of the ruling the feds just laid down about the program, I think this will go nowhere.
2013-01-23 03:51:09 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: that's ok, I wasn't using my freedom anyways. I wonder if you can sterilize people with this thing? crank it up, zap sperm from 10 meters out and go cruising around the streets with it.


It appears to be a passive device, like a thermal imaging camera but looking at a different section of the electromagnetic spectrum. The privacy concerns are valid, but the only health risk is an indirect one from high-velocity lead poisoning.
2013-01-23 03:50:32 PM  
2 votes:
Everyone should start carrying L shaped metal plates
2013-01-23 03:50:31 PM  
2 votes:
We should have invaded New York instead of Iraq.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
2013-01-23 03:49:27 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-23 03:47:57 PM  
2 votes:
When I read something in a gun thread that is in all caps I automatically translate it in my head to I HAVE NOTHING WORTHWHILE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BUT FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS.  I also picture people in the politics threads as kittens chasing balls of yarn.  It helps me get through the day.
2013-01-23 02:47:15 PM  
2 votes:

impaler: BronyMedic: 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.

Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/


Ah. So marksmanship isn't the only thing crappy at the NYPD.
2013-01-23 01:37:06 PM  
2 votes:
What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?
2013-01-24 07:53:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:49:19 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-23 11:32:23 PM  
1 votes:
Of course the NYPD can do this.

See, what we have nowadays is what we call a LIVING CONSTITUTION.

It has emanations and penumbras.

One of its emanations, right there under one of the penumbras, is the power of the police to fark up your shiat, whenever the hell they feel like it.

But that's not a principle of freedom that the country was founded on, right?

Tough shiat -- the Constitution has evolved. Get it?

Fall in line, citizen.
2013-01-23 08:27:54 PM  
1 votes:
So how long before protestors learn to start making and carrying EMP devices to protests?
2013-01-23 06:26:31 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.


I'd love to see the modern day attack ads that would be aired against the founding fathers, it would be both hilarious and sad.
2013-01-23 06:25:20 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."


It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.
2013-01-23 06:05:31 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-23 05:20:29 PM  
1 votes:
We've already got random searches in public transportation.  If we're going to go full-on dystopian I hope we go that route, then at least then we get a free grope out of the deal.

FUNFACT!  This is where the phrase "To cop a feel" came from.

FUNNER FACT!  Sometimes I like taking educated guesses about etymology.
2013-01-23 05:14:54 PM  
1 votes:
Our elected officials justify violating our rights and privacy on the grounds that some people are criminals.

Ok, fine. From now on, the financial information of all elected officials shall be complete open to the public. Every single farking transaction, no exception. Because some politicians have been known to take bribes. And since police officers hold a position of power, we have to be certain they are above repoach. So their financial information shall be public, too. This is fully justifiable because there have been instances of police corruption.
2013-01-23 05:02:53 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: you personally endorse authoritarian fascism

That's absurd and you're a fool.

I would expect an authoritarian fascist to attempt to dismiss criticism through ad hominem.

I didn't know that was a feature of Authoritarian Fasciststm.


It is. You have to read the fine print.
2013-01-23 04:53:37 PM  
1 votes:
payload.cargocollective.com
2013-01-23 04:38:01 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"

Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.

Honestly I think I just like stirring up shiat about peoples' rights.

If this was used in places where carrying handguns is illegal, then fark the rights. You's a criminal. Everyone else walks by untouched.

I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.


So my initial assertion that you aren't very good at the whole constitutional aspect of life was right? I don't particularly care for law breakers either, but if police or other government officials can arbitrarily define who receives due process it will be abused.
2013-01-23 04:25:40 PM  
1 votes:

Tanthalas39: Same idiots upset about this are okay with infringing on other constitutional amendments.


It's funny you mention this. I have many of the anti-gun crowd farkied in yellow and sure as sh*t there are several of them in here complaining.
2013-01-23 04:23:14 PM  
1 votes:

Silverstaff: 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?

The NYPD doesn't really care what any authority other than the Mayor of New York says.


Considering that the NYPD actively works with and in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF etc and has officers working overseas I would imagine they get their marching orders from much higher up than just Bloomberg.

This is the same dept that thinks it has the authority to walk up to any individual on the streets of NY and frisk them without probable cause. They actively argue that this is a needed crime stopping tool.

They were getting heat from the pot smokers so Cuomo decided to give them shelter by offering to decrim small amounts (which in NYC is already a non arrestable offense). The police were finding people with weed on them during these stop and frisks. The issue is that Terry stops only allow an officer to check for WEAPONS everything else is off limits. They were basically forcing people to turn out their pockets, if you had weed they would arrest you for having weed in public which is arrestable vs. a bench ticket for simple possession. That quietly went away and the NYPD continued their stop and frisk.

How anyone can look at stop and frisk and not call it unconstitutional is BEYOND me. It is the very epitome of unlawful search. Walking down the street minding your own business and the police jump out and throw you against the wall and tell you to empty your pockets. The police command that authorized this should all be put behind bars for the 1000s of civil rights violations.

The NYPD is where laws and procedures are tired and honed before being exported to police dept all over the country.
2013-01-23 04:12:32 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: "Illegal guns are a huge problem, but there is literally nothing you are allowed to do to search for illegal guns."


No.

"Illegal guns may be a problem, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to run roughshod over the Constitution. You still have to follow the rules."
2013-01-23 04:09:59 PM  
1 votes:

Ivo Shandor: Weaver95: that's ok, I wasn't using my freedom anyways. I wonder if you can sterilize people with this thing? crank it up, zap sperm from 10 meters out and go cruising around the streets with it.

It appears to be a passive device, like a thermal imaging camera but looking at a different section of the electromagnetic spectrum. The privacy concerns are valid, but the only health risk is an indirect one from high-velocity lead poisoning.


You could in effect blind them by radiating in the same band in which they are looking.

Also, wet clothes would defeat this system, as would clothing made out of metal fibers like lamé.

Plus, you could introduce a *HUGE* number of false positives by simply arranging metal-containing articles like a cellphone and a pen or small flashlight into a "gun like" configuration,

Another thing to consider is that the waves used can penetrate plastics. A gun like a Glock, without the magazine inserted into it, isn't going to look like a gun, just a rectangular blob that could be any number of legal objects.
2013-01-23 04:09:45 PM  
1 votes:
"Illegal guns are a huge problem, but there is literally nothing you are allowed to do to search for illegal guns."
2013-01-23 04:03:54 PM  
1 votes:

Ohlookabutterfly: King Something: King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.

Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."

Thats there is a whole lot of "all whites are racists" butthurt, man. Don't you know the three most beautiful words in the english language are "I forgive you"? Stop perpetuating that ridiculous victim mindset and get on with your life.


I was going for the "The NYPD are a bunch of racist assholes" angle. If you doubt my word, look up Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima or Sean Bell.

Or the cop who was driving drunk and ran over and killed a pregnant Hispanic woman, her two kids and her unborn child. He got convicted on all counts but his sentences were served concurrently instead of consecutively, and he was eligible for parole about halfway through his sentence; had the roles been reversed and the pregnant Hispanic woman run over the cop while driving drunk, she would have long since been executed.
2013-01-23 04:03:12 PM  
1 votes:

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?


'm with you on this one, the bright line for what constitutes a search has always been "in plain view"  so using magnifying optics to peer into a place is okay since you could already see what was thee and the person only had to draw a curtain to protect their privacy.  However using microphones or other devices to hear what you otherwise could not hear  is not okay because the person, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, can unwittinglyhave that privacy breached.   That's the logic they applied to the use of thermal scanners, seeing into the IR is not "plain" sight, so no go without a warrant.

This has GOT to fall into the same category, even with the reduced expectation of privacy that applies while in public.  I assume the NYPD will claim they only use this device when they already have the level of "reasonable suspicion" that would allow them to do a Terry stop, but we've seen how wantonly they abuse that already, so I think the courts will view this with a high degree of suspicion
2013-01-23 03:57:57 PM  
1 votes:
NYPD has something like 35,000 officers. That's bigger than the population of a lot of small towns. There should be an independent 50-member force that arrests NYPD officers for violating people's rights.
2013-01-23 03:57:54 PM  
1 votes:
And a rash of new plastic guns hit the market in 3, 2, 1...
2013-01-23 03:57:43 PM  
1 votes:
A new scan-inhibiting clothing line is launched in 3, 2, ....

So, will they stop and frisk anyone they can't get a clear scan on? Would that be probable cause?
2013-01-23 03:56:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

Innocent? Innocent of what?


Nothing.
They've broken a law, we just have to figure out which one.

/And they can cool their heels in the lockup till we do.
2013-01-23 03:56:39 PM  
1 votes:

drjekel_mrhyde: I hope the pics are put out to the public
/Can't wait to see what people are sticking up their but, being New Yorkers and all


I dunno man, you have to walk a lot in NYC. It's no so easy with things up your butt, take my word for it.
2013-01-23 03:55:26 PM  
1 votes:

King Something: King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.

Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."


Thats there is a whole lot of "all whites are racists" butthurt, man. Don't you know the three most beautiful words in the english language are "I forgive you"? Stop perpetuating that ridiculous victim mindset and get on with your life.
2013-01-23 03:54:44 PM  
1 votes:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-01-23 03:52:18 PM  
1 votes:

WalkingCarpet: And if they're going to frisk someone that they think has a concealed weapon you can bet it's not going to be a "Hello sir, how is your day going?  Mind if we ask you a few questions?" kind of a stop.


Depending on what neighborhood you're in, you weren't going to get those kinds of stops anyway.
2013-01-23 03:51:10 PM  
1 votes:

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.


You know things are nutty when Sheriff Joe is cited as a bastion of common sense.
2013-01-23 03:49:22 PM  
1 votes:
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
legal
i1151.photobucket.com
LEGAL!
i1151.photobucket.com
LEGAL!!
i1151.photobucket.com
LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!
img1.dressycostumes.com
HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!
2013-01-23 03:47:22 PM  
1 votes:
Why exactly is NYC so authoritarian? How can you elect Guiliani and Bloomberg back to back? At least a place like San Francisco, which has some zany laws, is still a chill liberal city that doesn't treat it's citizens like prisoners. I mean, is that racist stop and frisk program still happening? Can you still get arrested for marijuana possession? Can a New Yorker explain what the deal is? Reminds me of France, a supposed liberal land that has some messed up, draconian laws (ie weird detainment rules and a strong anti-drug stance).
2013-01-23 03:46:06 PM  
1 votes:
that's ok, I wasn't using my freedom anyways.  I wonder if you can sterilize people with this thing?  crank it up, zap sperm from 10 meters out and go cruising around the streets with it.
2013-01-23 03:43:59 PM  
1 votes:
www.wired.com

/see you at the party Richter.
2013-01-23 03:43:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


Innocent? Innocent of what?
2013-01-23 03:05:21 PM  
1 votes:

King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.


Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report