|
Home > Archive > Emergency services > October 2004 > Time for a auto kill switch!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]Pages: Pages: 1 [2]
| Author |
Time for a auto kill switch!
|
|
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| BTR1701 wrote:
> Ah, so since I'm a USSS agent, then any time I complain about government
> over-reaching I *must* be referring to the locals again. I see.
>
> I wonder if the reverse is true. Can I make the same unfounded
> assumptions about your statements?
I thought you already were doing that...
>
>
> How does "a regular basis" figure into my simple and generic reference
> to "the government"?
Because it clearly defines which parts of the government you would need
to be referring to. When one worries about the misuse of a tool that
only a subset of law enforcement would use "on a regular basis", one is
pointing pretty sqaurely at that subset whether one wishes to admit it
or not.
>
>
> You can suspect whatever you like but the fact is that I was referring
> to any government agency that engages in vehicle stops. Be that the FBI
> or the Santa Monica Beach Police.
Then you are ignoring the fact that by far most pursuits are conducted
by local uniform police agencies. Even when the FBI is involved it's
usually the locals who get stuck cleaning up afterwards.
And I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that you truly meant that
you fear US Secret Service agents would be out there killing cars on a
whim. Even I would expect the majority of any misuse (and I wouldn't
expect much) to come from the local police ranks. I'd also expect the
penalties for abuse to be severe enough to at least equal those involved
with any of the other means currently employed to end pursuits.
>
>
> Why is that a bad thing? As a lawyer, I anticipated abuse of process by
> my fellow attorneys as well. Didn't make me a bad lawyer.
>
> How exactly does recognizing and anticipating the potential for abuse
> make a cop less of a "good law and order" person?
Because you are ignoring the fact that such abuses would be very rare,
that there are means to deal with improper use of force issues already
in place and that safely terminating high speed pursuits is a big
concern for both the public and the police. Asserting that such devices
would be employed on a "whim" is, IMO, an unfair and irresponsible act
for an LEO.
Steve
| |
|
|
Why is everyone even having this discussion? It's a
waste of Bandwidth. Noone is about to start allowing
cops to possess kill switches or any other such device.
Not until we start hiring professional people to be cops that
is. It would never work with the current low mentality of
the current cop population.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Osqdnfgr1bOBJPTcRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "Steve Furbish"
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sure, once I've broken the law.
>
> But this is a requirement that I install equipment on my car (probably
> at my own expense) that allows the government to render it inoperative
> at their whim before I've ever done anything wrong.
My guess is that any such device would be considered a safety feature or
anti-theft device similar to driver airbags, emmissions equipment,
passive anti-theft devices, On-Star or LoJack. Sure it would add to the
overall purchase price of a new vehicle, but I don't think they'd
mandate installation in older vehicles (how many old clunkers have you
seen retrofitted with airbags?). It's purpose would be singlefold - to
stop a fleeing vehicle during a police chase. I suppose I should be
rather surprised that an alleged (federal) LEO would throw out the "on a
whim" complaint as if they had no understanding of the whole concept of
probable cause, public safety, the use of force, or criminal/civil
liability, but I'm not. I've seen that elitist attitude before among
some of your federal brethren when they simply cannot help but look down
upon local law enforcement as something inferior without the slightest
consideration for the differences in responsibilities we hold.
Sure, once you've broken the law. That's when such a device could be
legitimately employed (on PC, not a whim). Odd that you haven't
advocated totally disarming all police on the off chance that deadly
force will someday be misused....
Steve
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| In article <msadnaUswpHsKfDcRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> Because it clearly defines which parts of the government you would need
> to be referring to.
No, it really doesn't. That's just the way *you* have clearly defined it.
> When one worries about the misuse of a tool that
> only a subset of law enforcement would use "on a regular basis",
Putting "on a regular basis" in quotes like that is disingenuous since
it's your criteria, not mine.
Besides, something can occur "on a regular basis" and still not happen
very often. Halley's comet passes through the inner solar system on a
regular basis-- every 75 years like clockwork.
>
> Then you are ignoring the fact that by far most pursuits are conducted
> by local uniform police agencies. Even when the FBI is involved it's
> usually the locals who get stuck cleaning up afterwards.
Weird. I can't speak for the Bureau but I've personally never left the
locals "cleaning up" anything afterwards in any investigation I've run.
Perhaps you're just being elitist...
> And I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that you truly meant that
> you fear US Secret Service agents would be out there killing cars on a
> whim.
I'd expect it as much from one law enforcement officer as another.
People are people, no matter where their paycheck comes from.
You keep trying to foist this prejudice on me based on nothing more than
your suspicions and speculations, then using those suspicions and
speculations to prove my prejudice.
>
> Because you are ignoring the fact that such abuses would be very rare,
> that there are means to deal with improper use of force issues already
> in place and that safely terminating high speed pursuits is a big
> concern for both the public and the police. Asserting that such devices
> would be employed on a "whim" is, IMO, an unfair and irresponsible act
> for an LEO.
Ever since I worked on a Justice Department project documenting abuses
of civil forfeiture "tools" (on both the local and federal level, just
so we're clear), I've had a healthy suspicion for anticipating how the
government might turn new tools against the citizens.
That hardly makes me anti-law and order. It puts me squarely among such
luminaries as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
I don't see any more need for every citizen to have a
government-mandated kill switch in their car on the off-chance the
police need to stop them from fleeing, than I see the need for every
citizen to be forced to have a shock-chip embedded beneath their skin on
the off-chance the cops need to stop them from resisting arrest.
After all, if a hidden kill-switch is okay for your car, why isn't a
hidden kill switch okay for your person as well?
It will only be used when legally necessary, abuses will be rare and
penalties for abuse severe. right?
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| In article <67erm0lbdqvq07er93lbto29pfpuutvu0d@4ax.com>,
CR <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote:
> Why is everyone even having this discussion? It's a
> waste of Bandwidth. Noone is about to start allowing
> cops to possess kill switches or any other such device.
All of Usenet is a waste of bandwidth if that's your criteria.
| |
| Arif Khokar 2004-10-13, 10:08 pm |
| BTR1701 wrote:
> Airbags? Yes.
Actually:
Airbags? Not so much.
This is a case of the government mandating a device designed to protect
a 50th percentile sized *unbelted* male in a frontal collision. That's
why they're more of a liability for children and shorter people who wear
seatbelts.
> And even if you do make that argument, my response is no thanks. I'm a
> grown adult. I don't need a nanny government running around protecting
> me from the evils of the world at every turn.
That's precisely what the government did when mandating airbags because
not enough people were buckling up.
> Oh, and the airbag regs only apply to manufacturers. The government
> requires that the auto makers install airbags in cars. However, there's
> no law against the owner of the car disabling or removing them after
> they buy the car.
I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
liabliity purposes.
My mother is only 5' 2" tall. She sits very close to the steering wheel
when driving. If she ever got into a collision that resulted in airbag
deployment (I believe that 25 mph is sufficient), she'd definitly suffer
serious injury or die due to the airbags.
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 2:08 am |
| CR wrote:
>
> Why is everyone even having this discussion? It's a
> waste of Bandwidth. Noone is about to start allowing
> cops to possess kill switches or any other such device.
How do you know? Everything begins small with discussion.
Eventually, when people have had enough (cars stolen,
loved ones killed in a chase, and higher taxes to
house thieves ($30,000 per year), things may begin to move
towards steps to control the situation so no more
innocent people will be killed.
> Not until we start hiring professional people to be cops that
> is. It would never work with the current low mentality of
> the current cop population.
Let's start at the top ..... at the White House. The
President feels it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
at any gun show without a background check. (A terrorists'
dream!)
KM
| |
| Bernard Farquart 2004-10-14, 2:08 am |
|
<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416E0F96.EED23685@ix.netcom.com...
> Let's start at the top ..... at the White House. The
> President feels it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
> at any gun show without a background check. (A terrorists'
> dream!)
B.S. the terrorists, you may remember, only need .99 box cutters,
how many assault weapons were used by the Saudis on 9-11?
A pimps dream, perhaps, a drug dealer's dream, sure,
but if you are willing to slit someone open with a little
box cutter, and die during the commission of an act of
terror, the assault weapons ban will have little effect.
Bernard
| |
| 223rem 2004-10-14, 11:08 am |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> Nice dodge.
>
> So are you saying now that you formed your view of police after watching
> TV or reading a newspaper?
>
> Steve
Yes. And the internet too. I dont see anything wrong with these
sources of information.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-14, 11:08 am |
| In article <416E0F96.EED23685@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> CR wrote:
>
> How do you know? Everything begins small with discussion.
> Eventually, when people have had enough (cars stolen,
> loved ones killed in a chase, and higher taxes to
> house thieves ($30,000 per year), things may begin to move
> towards steps to control the situation so no more
> innocent people will be killed.
>
>
>
> Let's start at the top ..... at the White House. The
> President feels it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
> at any gun show without a background check. (A terrorists'
> dream!)
An AK-47 purchased legally at a gun show is no different than a hunting
rifle or a any other semi-auto rifle that isn't emblazoned with the
utterly meaningless and hysterical moniker "assault weapon".
The fully-auto AK-47's are still just as illegal now as they have ever
been.
| |
| Scott en Aztlán 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:54:44 -0500, Barry S.
<beerisforpussys@shoveit.com> wrote:
>poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>After reading the room temperature IQ responses to your proposal the
>conclusion is your post is either a thinly disguised troll to stir the
>local moron pot (Dave maybe being an exception) who have for years
>populated these groups
Welcome to "Troll, Counter-Troll."
--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
| |
| 223rem 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Let's start at the top ..... at the White House. The
> President feels it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
> at any gun show without a background check. (A terrorists'
> dream!)
Are you a whining, hysterical soccermom by any chance?
First you want the govrment to put kill switches in
our vehicles. Now you babble about AK-47s --the fearsome
"assault rifles"...what a moron you are.
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| 223rem wrote:
>
> poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Are you a whining, hysterical soccermom by any chance?
> First you want the govrment to put kill switches in
> our vehicles. Now you babble about AK-47s --the fearsome
> "assault rifles"...what a moron you are.
I'm a moron now?
Do you hunt with an AK-47? Do you hunt at all?
KM
| |
| Bernard Farquart 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
|
<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416EB9C6.446DB4F1@ix.netcom.com...
> 223rem wrote:
>
> I'm a moron now?
I am sure you have been one for a long time.
>
> Do you hunt with an AK-47? Do you hunt at all?
Is that what it says? the right to bear arms shall not
be infringed *for hunting?*; I don't remember that part.
Can you tell me what the differance is between a 7.62 x 39mm
shell firing from my (perfectly legal under the ban) SKS and
one being fired from your fearsome AK47?
Or do you just like sound bites and jerking your knee?
Bernard
BTW did you figure out how many 9-11 terrorists
used assault weapons yet?
| |
| Bernard Farquart 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
|
<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416EB9C6.446DB4F1@ix.netcom.com...
> I'm a moron now?
>
> Do you hunt with an AK-47? Do you hunt at all?
>
>
I checked
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.
I can't find the "hunting" restriction. Can you please point it out?
Bernard
| |
| 223rem 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
|
poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I'm a moron now?
A useful idiot in any case. Useful for the government
that is
>
> Do you hunt with an AK-47?
No, of course.
> Do you hunt at all?
No. But I love plinking.
Was there a point you were trying to make
by asking these questions?
| |
|
|
From what I can comprehend from your posts
you would not make a nery good detective.
CR
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:58:50 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>CR wrote:
>
>
>You really can't help yourself, can you? Still a woman hating non-hacker
>who couldn't manage a good cop putdown if your life depended on it.
>Still seeing Sorroche?
>
>Steve
|
| |
|
|