The NYPD is looking to create a mobile version of the kind of full body scans we’re all used to at airports, in that it’d show the shape of objects stored underneath clothing. The system would allow police officers to spot armed passerby on the street without ever having to get out of a police van.
this makes sense for places that don’t let their citizens protect themselves with guns, but for somewhere like Florida, you’d likely see a good number of legally concealed weapons…
via DVICE.
“this makes sense for places that don’t let their citizens object to unprovoked, gratuitous searches.”
FIXED.
4th amendment anyone?
I question the legality of this device. Wouldn’t that qualify as illegal search? One more reason to add to the list of “Why I will never go to NY”
i moved from nyc for that reason
As technology progresses you will see more and more intrusive government devices in your life and most of you will do nothing about it. Most of you istead, will be distracted by fears of gang violence, illegal immigrants and what is happening in the Middle East. In addition, you will probably be influenced by politicians who have a (D) or (R) after their names, and since “your” party can’t do anything wrong if they want it then it must be good for you, God forbid you vote another party (seriously God might be forbidding some Americans from voting for someone else).
Anyways what I am trying to say is enjoy your illegal downloads because the government cannot stop technology and you will not stop the technology in the governments hands.
Gee thanks oh wise one. That would go a lot further if you didn’t have the grammatical prowess of an inner city D student.
Do more listening, kid. You just made yourself look like a retard.
Oh please, I would at least be a C student in an inner city school.
manny youre a fucking idiot. go fuck yourself. this guy is absolutely correct. most americans are dumber than a fucking doorknob (see: magnus) and are easily manipulated by (R) and (D) behind a candidate’s name. they also trust that the govt can do no wrong. those that do speak out only do so via web-bitching and nothing more. pussies.
What you can “do about it” is make sure the stupid machine gets as many false positives as possible.
A cardboard cutout of a pistol covered in tinfoil will be far more effective than a tinfoil hat in this case.
But you aren’t going to do that, do you know why? Because you are out of the house trying to accomplish something, grocery shopping, heading to the bar to see friend, off to the movies with the girlfriend etc. The last thing you want to do is end up in jail which is exactly what is going to happen if you do that. Now if everyone was doing it everyday then yes it would make an impact but no one is going to do it and neither are you.
no, I’ll be the one carrying a real gun and scattering the cardboard and tinfoil fakes about
OH BOY! GUN THREAD!
So the police will be able to further trample on the average shmuck while the people who actually would worry about this kind of thing just find a way around it.
If it were only used in circumstances where there was already probable cause to search manually or with a mag then I am guessing that this would still be legal.
Stop and frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses “unusual conduct” that leads that officer to reasonably believe “that criminal activity may be afoot”, that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a “pat-down search” (or “frisk”) to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[23]