Flat Out Nutz!

[joedog]

NYPD begins testing long-distance gun detector as alternative to physical searches

By Amar Toor posted Jan 21st 2012 7:08AM

As part of its ongoing effort to keep New York City safe, the NYPD has begun testing a new scanning device capable of detecting concealed firearms from a distance of about 16 feet. Developed in conjunction with the Department of Defense, the technology uses terahertz imaging detection to measure the radiation that humans naturally emit, and determine whether the flow of this radiation is impeded by a foreign object -- in this case, a gun. During a speech Tuesday, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the device shows "a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical search." Kelly went on to say that the technology would only be deployed under "reasonably suspicious circumstances," though some civil liberties activists are already expressing concerns. "We find this proposal both intriguing and worrisome," New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman said in a statement, adding that the scanner could all too easily infringe upon civilian privacy. "If the NYPD is moving forward with this, the public needs more information about this technology, how it works and the dangers it presents." For now, the NYPD is only testing the device at a shooting range in the Bronx, and has yet to offer a timeline for its potential deployment

Civil Liberties save your time...I'll tell you the dangers to the public......THEY GET HOME ALIVE!!!!

[bassboogieman]

The ACLU is paranoid. Their most important word in any of their litigation is "could" happen. That particular word means a low probabilty, unlike "possibly" or more importantly "would". Bottom line, LEO's have a difficult & dangerous occupation. Any device that takes an advantage away from a suspect and gives it to a LEO, is ok by me.

Could it be abused? It "COULD", but that has to be weighed against "would". It "WOULD" reduce the risk to LEO's in approaching a suspect, as KNOWING is always preferable to guessing. By reading the above a "suspect", in lieu of this device being available, would be approached and physically searched. Now, which situation is more dangerous to all involved - a scan or approach and search?

I really think it's time to stop giving criminals an advantage by overly concerning ourselves with transgressions upon the innocent. In the context of the above NYC test program, truely innocent individuals are seldom subject to unwarrnated attention. It's behaviour of a suspecious nature that usually draws attention. We've gotten accustomed to "scanning' in airports and govenment buildings in the name of "security", therefore I can't object to scanning persons demonstrating "suspected suspecious behaviour" by LEO's in an effort to protect their (LEO's) well being, while engaged in an investigation of suspected criminal activity.

[Bassboss]

I gotta be honest... When I first say it I thought "what about innocent until proven guilty," and "Right to privacy." They say it would only be used with probable cause, but I can't help but think it will be be abused... we will see though. And Bruce definitely has a point.

[kennethdaysale]

The ACLU started out with a noble "mission" to protect our civil liberties...but sometime in the 70's began to change into the most twisted sickening arm of the extreme far left imaginable. I have absolutely no respect for them at all.

[WTL]

The US Constitution probably is where those crazy leftwingers are getting these ideas about warrantless searches.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

The US Constitution probably is where those crazy leftwingers are getting these ideas about warrantless searches.

I don't want to get into this whole ideological thing here....BUT I know you didn't just position those leftwingers as "Constitution Thumpers" ? pleeeeze

[joedog]

You have to take into your thoughts that if you carry a firearm by law you must state so upon any comunication with law enforcement. Wisconsin, new to carry hand guns...legally. But if a business says no hand guns allowed, like a bar for example, at the door you by law can be physically search, from a BOUNCER to check. I don't know how it works and really don't care. It's to check for GUNS, nothing else.
I hope they perfect it at cost that every single policeperson in America can have one.

[Tavery5]

Cool technology that could possibly save lives. The other side of the coin is, not if it would be abused, but when, where and how much.

L.E.O. have a very tough and dangerous job, but you know that going in and it is a conscious decision. The fact that it is tough and dangerous does not negate others constitutional rights.

The ACLU generally starts out on the far left because they know that they are going to lose ground and hope to get a foot hold somewhere close to appropriate. Not that I feel it always ends up that way.

[Jrob78]

It's interesting how in a place where the rights of law abiding citizens have already been infringed upon, it sets up for the city to infringe upon them further.

Here in TX, technology like that would be virtually useless because law abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed handgun to protect themselves.

I feel much safer protecting myself than leaving it up to cops with gun scanners.

[carolina-rig-01]

Originally Posted by Jrob78

It's interesting how in a place where the rights of law abiding citizens have already been infringed upon, it sets up for the city to infringe upon them further.

Here in TX, technology like that would be virtually useless because law abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed handgun to protect themselves.

I feel much safer protecting myself than leaving it up to cops with gun scanners.

I could not agree more.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I don't want to get into this whole ideological thing here....BUT I know you didn't just position those leftwingers as "Constitution Thumpers" ? pleeeeze

Emphatically, YES.

Why arent you?


[QUOTE]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/QUOTE]

[Vegasspider]

I love the ACLU and what it stands for. I agree that the technology is geared towards saving lives. I am in NYC on a regular basis and until your there and can have an appreciation of the constant crowd size then I think you would quickly agree that some sort of sweeping device would be most the most efficient means of detection. In certain crowd sizes it is easiest to hide in plane sight do to the masses. Blending in is not problem. I once read or heard that the daily “transit” means in NYC is the equivalent to super bowl size crowds on a daily basis. So therefore I agree that the ACLU would defiantly imbrues this sort of technology. I see it as a total positive. I can but don’t carry and when I do I would have no problem with anyone knowing it. It’s a privilege and a right so what’s the big deal with big brother knowing your carrying?

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Vegasspider

It’s a privilege and a right so what’s the big deal with big brother knowing your carrying?

The big deal is the Constitution. And it is, a pretty...big...****ing....deal....


It was written to afford generous protection to our rights, to prevent them from being taken away over time by drawing the line not on the middle of the slippery slope, but before you get to the slope.

While I agree that I wish law enforcement could be trusted to use this, as it might prevent a few deaths, I think it is more dangerous to ignore the Constitution than to try and bend it here for this one case.

For anybody who thinks that there is only one group, be it the left or the right, who is responsible for the degredation of the Constitution over the past 200 years, look to this thread. It has been attacked from every direction.

[bassboogieman]

I have to disagree with Billy on the huge, red, copy of a portion of our Constitution. The key word is "unreasonable" regarding a search (or scan, in this example). The basic premise of the right to carry a weapon in NYC is denied by law unles you have a VERY difficult to obtain CWP for the City. The ordinance now in a test mode is a device for a LEO to check an individual that in other circumstances would be approached and very likely searched due to probable cause, thus a LEO can be aware of the possibility that individual may be armed, requiring more caution during the approach.

This has to be a good thing for law enforcement, abuse can be dealt with IF it should occur. The paranoia surrounding the minute possibilites of this being used in a manor other than intended is far less a possiblity than someone being injured/killed due to a denial of the ability to use it. Those that LEGALLY carry a weapon have nothing to fear from this ordinance, only those that do so illegally - and for those individuals I have no sympathy.

Read the ordinace again, the scanner is effective (currently) from 16', which indicates it's use would be in an approach to a suspicious character. Would it be better to be approaced at gunpoint or with a scanner? Which is more intrusive? Which more likely to result in an accidental (or non-rightous shooting)? More frightening to an innocent individual? With a scanner, depending upon circumstances, a LEO's weapon may be retained in it's holster or in hand without being pointed.

As I said previously, innocent persons have little to fear form this ordinance. Those that should be affected, are those individuals that are in the process of a confrontation with an officer and are already heading towards a detention and search under current legal guidelines. This device is but a tool for an officer to check for weapons upon his approach, rather than being totally surprised upon the production of a weapon, or prior to actually laying hands on the suspected individual. I do not see the constitutional issue with that, as the ordinace does not provide for the routine (unreasonable) scanning (search) of individuals in a random fashion.

I strongly support the Second Ammendment, as well as all our Constitionally provided safeguards to our rights as citizens, I have a CWP, and as such I feel no intrusion, let alone a threat, to my civil liberties from an ordinance like the one now being tested in NYC. Nor would I be opposed to the use of such a device nationwide.

P.S. due to the problem with simutanious posting I didn't see this:

For anybody who thinks that there is only one group, be it the left or the right, who is responsible for the degredation of the Constitution over the past 200 years, look to this thread. It has been attacked from every direction.

I haven't seen any attacks upon the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't mentioned until your first post, as a reason to oppose such an ordinance, and I haven't seen a single attack on it, let alone from all sides to this point. I am not an attorney, or an expert on Constitutional law, I trust in the Supreme Court to address that and since this particular issue has not been referred there, I personallly don't see a Constitutional issue with the NYC ordinace as it is currently written.

[WTL]

Boogie, I originally read the thread on my phone, so perhaps I missed part of the impact of the original post. Then I went to further correct it, and my internet on my laptop died mid-post.

There are obviously no issues of using the device in circumstances where a search is already authorized.

The issue is in using the device against the general population. Like a police scanner, who sits behind a billboard. That would be unreasonable.

I think that may be the ACLU's position as well. They said that it was "intriging and worrisome". Intriging is a word you dont use unless you see some value in something. Yes, the device can be a good thing if used in circumstances where again, a physical search was already authorized. But only those circumstances. I think civil libertarians just want to make sure that everyone knows that that is where the line is. Joedog, in his last sentence, was pretty dismissive of civil liberties and that is further reason to be worried - others also might disregard and abuse the device.

I havent seen the thing in use, but I don't see how a scanner could really be as helpful as yall are hoping in the case of those scenarios like the one that happened a few years ago - a man reached for a wallet and the cops thought it was a gun. The problem there was everything happened so fast, its hard to see a cop in that moment diverting his eyes from a suspect to a depth finder, essentially.

[joedog]

Originally Posted by Jrob78

It's interesting how in a place where the rights of law abiding citizens have already been infringed upon, it sets up for the city to infringe upon them further.

Here in TX, technology like that would be virtually useless because law abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed handgun to protect themselves.

I feel much safer protecting myself than leaving it up to cops with gun scanners.

Can in Wiscosin now too. But still, when communicating with LEOs you MUST inform them. Same in Alaska and there you don't just have the right, but everyone actually DOES have one. You can check or may already know, but it maybe the same in Texas. And the Texasans probably wouldn't object to thier LEOs from having this tool ethier.

[joedog]

I'm probably going to anger all but I am so tired of the COULD arguement.
Just my opinion, but anything that involves humans can and does have a could aspect.
Our founders COULD have meant something else!

[WTL]

Not angry, but the Constitution draws the line to forclose a lot of "coulds".

If you don't like that, you could get the Constitution amended. Good luck.

[bassboogieman]

If you don't like that, you could get the Constitution amended. Good luck.

That was a funny comment. It has been amended 27 times, so far, with 4 amendments pending action by enough states to ratify them. The funny part, and it really had me laughing, was the good luck - as the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992 - YES it took 197 YEARS. One of the pending Amendments was proposed in 1789 and remarkedly still in the process of ratification - YES 222 YEARS. So LMFAO because, if Joedog could get an Amendment proposed - MAYBE his great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren MIGHT see it ratified. Funny chit there Billy.

[joedog]

I LIKE EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR SYSTEM!
Especially the part that allows me to ask question 'where I said anything against our Constitution or the system that governs it?' .
I challenged one 'word'.
Woulda, coulda ,shoulda!

[kennethdaysale]

Typical Pumpkinseed

[bassboogieman]

Where the he** is Bryce when ya need him? Well, don't actually need him, but I thought I'd see him chime in on this one. Taking a sabatical buddy?

[Jrob78]

Originally Posted by joedog

Can in Wiscosin now too. But still, when communicating with LEOs you MUST inform them. Same in Alaska and there you don't just have the right, but everyone actually DOES have one. You can check or may already know, but it maybe the same in Texas. And the Texasans probably wouldn't object to thier LEOs from having this tool ethier.

In Texas, you no longer have to inform LEO's if you are carrying. They changed the law a year or 2 ago. I still display my CHL (concealed handgun license) to the officer anytime I am asked for my drivers license (which is rare) while I'm carrying. I don't want there to be any surprises.

My point was that if NYC hadn't already infringed on their citizens right to bear arms, this gun scanner wouldn't be very useful for pinpointing criminals with guns. As it is now, only the criminals do carry guns, the general public isn't allowed to. I realize that is more of a gun control, 2nd amendment issue but this is the next step after 2nd amendment rights have been stripped away.

If I am going about my business as usual, not breaking any laws or doing anything wrong, it isn't anyone's business what I am legally carrying on my person.

[Vegasspider]

As Ron White would say, I don't give a fu-- about your rights when you are anything but innocent! The freedom we all love and enjoy would not be possible without LEO, I only wish the device would have a 50' range.

"innocent persons have little to fear form this ordinance. Those that should be affected, are those individuals that are in the process of a confrontation with an officer and are already heading towards a detention and search under current legal guidelines. This device is but a tool for an officer to check for weapons upon his approach, rather than being totally surprised upon the production of a weapon, or prior to actually laying hands on the suspected individual. I do not see the constitutional issue with that, as the ordinace does not provide for the routine (unreasonable) scanning (search) of individuals in a random fashion."

I guess if your saying in an example a LEO is sitting behind a billboard and detects you have gun when passing by and that is their only basis for stopping you, I could agree that could get somewhat picky, but still not a disregard to your rights. *If you have nothing to concerned about and you get stopped and the LEO says see ya later all in order then still no problem IMO. *I am not even sure where the abuse would come in - in example like this. *We would hope 100% of the time if all checks out you and the LEO go on about your business. *If not then the person carrying when they know they should not be or suspected of wrong doing does give the LEO the advantage and is that not what we all want? *

Unless I am totally missing the boat and that is always a possibility I don’t see how this would be a loss of freedom on any level if you have nothing to worry about. I don't see anything that allows this to be used as a method for taking away the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by bassboogieman

I have to disagree with Billy on the huge, red, copy of a portion of our Constitution. The key word is "unreasonable" regarding a search (or scan, in this example). The basic premise of the right to carry a weapon in NYC is denied by law unles you have a VERY difficult to obtain CWP for the City. The ordinance now in a test mode is a device for a LEO to check an individual that in other circumstances would be approached and very likely searched due to probable cause, thus a LEO can be aware of the possibility that individual may be armed, requiring more caution during the approach.

This has to be a good thing for law enforcement, abuse can be dealt with IF it should occur. The paranoia surrounding the minute possibilites of this being used in a manor other than intended is far less a possiblity than someone being injured/killed due to a denial of the ability to use it. Those that LEGALLY carry a weapon have nothing to fear from this ordinance, only those that do so illegally - and for those individuals I have no sympathy.

Read the ordinace again, the scanner is effective (currently) from 16', which indicates it's use would be in an approach to a suspicious character. Would it be better to be approaced at gunpoint or with a scanner? Which is more intrusive? Which more likely to result in an accidental (or non-rightous shooting)? More frightening to an innocent individual? With a scanner, depending upon circumstances, a LEO's weapon may be retained in it's holster or in hand without being pointed.

As I said previously, innocent persons have little to fear form this ordinance. Those that should be affected, are those individuals that are in the process of a confrontation with an officer and are already heading towards a detention and search under current legal guidelines. This device is but a tool for an officer to check for weapons upon his approach, rather than being totally surprised upon the production of a weapon, or prior to actually laying hands on the suspected individual. I do not see the constitutional issue with that, as the ordinace does not provide for the routine (unreasonable) scanning (search) of individuals in a random fashion.

I strongly support the Second Ammendment, as well as all our Constitionally provided safeguards to our rights as citizens, I have a CWP, and as such I feel no intrusion, let alone a threat, to my civil liberties from an ordinance like the one now being tested in NYC. Nor would I be opposed to the use of such a device nationwide.

P.S. due to the problem with simutanious posting I didn't see this:

I haven't seen any attacks upon the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't mentioned until your first post, as a reason to oppose such an ordinance, and I haven't seen a single attack on it, let alone from all sides to this point. I am not an attorney, or an expert on Constitutional law, I trust in the Supreme Court to address that and since this particular issue has not been referred there, I personallly don't see a Constitutional issue with the NYC ordinace as it is currently written.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Vegasspider

I guess if your saying in an example a LEO is sitting behind a billboard and detects you have gun when passing by and that is their only basis for stopping you, I could agree that could get somewhat picky, but still not a disregard to your rights. *If you have nothing to concerned about and you get stopped and the LEO says see ya later all in order then still no problem IMO. *

That is what I am saying, and it is unequivocally a search. For a search, you need a warrant or probable cause, not that you just happened to amble by. This is non-negotiable. The Constitution bars searching just everyone, and "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldnt worry" is a terrible, flat out awful and stupid standard to try to hold people to.


Basically, this device has the potential to expand the invasiveness of airport TSA searches to every day life. Yall want THAT?

I might not continue posting in this thread. I wont call you guys personally fascist, but the idea that we can be searched anytime, anywhere without cause is a fascist idea. The device will be improved in later generations to be able to detect anything and from any distance. If you really think its ok, then there is no way I can pull back the indoctrination.