JohnRich 4 #1 March 29, 2004 In the news: Giant X-ray used in drugs search "A 7ft-tall X-ray machine was used for the first time by police who arrested 35 people during a raid on two pubs in London. More than 400 officers took part in the operation to scan suspects for drugs and weapons... "Equipment was brought in on articulated lorries on Friday night, and suspects had the choice of being strip-searched or scanned. "The machine shows a 'graphic' image of the suspect minus their clothes. It's very graphic and it doesn't leave much to the imagination. It shows up anything hidden under the clothes, including metal, plastic or ceramic guns, wooden clubs and coshes, explosives or drugs..." Full Story So, what's your preference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TribalTalon 0 #2 March 29, 2004 hmm all i know is they need to shrink that thing from a 7 foot tall monster to a pair of sunglasses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #3 March 29, 2004 asking or offering!? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #4 March 29, 2004 QuoteSo, what's your preference? If I feel that the search isn't justified and I have nothing to hide? Part of me says "Stand up to The Man and refuse the search", but I'd probably just do the x-ray because potential days in jail, legal fees, etc. aren't worth it to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lizard 0 #5 March 30, 2004 Is the thing safe? I mean has it been proven not to be harmful to those being x-rayed? I would probably fight that one, not just for a concern of safety but the principle of the whole thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 March 30, 2004 QuoteI'd probably just do the x-ray because potential days in jail, legal fees, etc. aren't worth it to me. That's why the police can get away with these things - because people let them. If I'm sitting in a bar minding my own business, not breaking any laws, and policemen roll up and announce that there are only two ways out of the bar: strip search, or x-ray search. Well, I'm going to refuse both, and fight the battle in court, representing myself if necessary. I shouldn't have to prove myself innocent of illegal activity, just for sitting in a public place. It's the responsibility of the police to catch people doing something wrong, not go on fishing expeditions amongst the general public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 March 30, 2004 QuoteIs the thing safe? I mean has it been proven not to be harmful to those being x-rayed? I would probably fight that one, not just for a concern of safety but the principle of the whole thing. X-rays are radiation - they are harmful if you get too much. No police force should require anyone to submit to such treatment, nor to a degrading strip search, absent any probable cause to believe that you are violating the law. Sitting in a bar and having a drink does not constitute such probable cause. P.S.: Who is the sick puppy that voted for a strip search? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
payback462 0 #8 March 30, 2004 can i take a shit on their hand if i vote for strip search? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #9 March 30, 2004 The Police didn't just pop along on the spur of the moment because they had nothing better to do. They had 'probable cause' the people scanned had been arested and were 35 out of 200 that had been drinking in the two pubs. 'Scotland Yard said the arrests were for offences which included possession with intent to supply drugs, possession of an offensive weapon, handling stolen goods and immigration offences.' Never thought I'd see the day when you stood up for the rights of illegal imigrants As for the safety aspect, I'd be happy to get in it. A typical 4 view scan (Using the system mentioned) averages less than 3 microREM of x-ray exposure to the person being scanned. In comparison, a person may be exposed to 500 microREM of radiation per hour of watching television.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #10 March 30, 2004 Quoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. If they pulled that crap here in the states what would I do? Damn straight I'd tell them to go to hell and ask what fucktard authorized it. I can think of a few lawyers who'd be lining up to take that one, from the ACLU to the NRA. And they don't agree on much. If it happened while I was in London? I'd bitch and moan about it then go through the machine. It's the difference between citizens and subjects.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #11 March 30, 2004 Actualy its invented and developed by an American called Steve Smith. Its passed by the FDA under Section 201(h) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the safety of the product is addressed by the provisions of Subchapter C – Electronic Product Radiation Control. Its in use in the US already. Better get phoning ! When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 March 30, 2004 QuoteA typical 4 view scan (Using the system mentioned) averages less than 3 microREM of x-ray exposure to the person being scanned. In comparison, a person may be exposed to 500 microREM of radiation per hour of watching television. Thankfully some science when talking about radiation. THANKS (I have a masters in nuclear eng and appreciate keeping away from groundless hysteria) walking through scanners is a nit ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #13 March 30, 2004 QuoteThe Police didn't just pop along on the spur of the moment because they had nothing better to do. They had 'probable cause' the people scanned had been arested and were 35 out of 200 that had been drinking in the two pubs. "35 out of 200" means that 165 innocent people were wrongfully forced to submit to a search without probable cause. That's only a 17.5% success rate. I don't think it's worth mistreating 82.5% of the public, in order to snare a few criminals. They can accomplish the same thing with other types of police work, and respect the rights of the innocent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #14 March 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. . What makes you think that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #15 March 30, 2004 Sounds like something they’d do in the UK. Americans wouldn’t put up with that shit, that’s why we kicked the Birts out of North America in the first place. Our constitution prohibits such, although the way things have been going over here for the last 70 years or so, the constitution doesn’t mean shit in many cases. Seems it’s a “living document” open to interpretation form any egg sucking liberal judge that chooses to do so. Oh, if I’m doing the searching I’d prefer to do the strip/cavity search but only as long as I get to choose who gets searched! Yeah Baby!!!Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #16 March 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe Police didn't just pop along on the spur of the moment because they had nothing better to do. They had 'probable cause' the people scanned had been arested and were 35 out of 200 that had been drinking in the two pubs. "35 out of 200" means that 165 innocent people were wrongfully forced to submit to a search without probable cause. That's only a 17.5% success rate. I don't think it's worth mistreating 82.5% of the public, in order to snare a few criminals. They can accomplish the same thing with other types of police work, and respect the rights of the innocent. Next we'll be having these machines at the airports! (Hey, maybe they're there already). After all, going through an airport you have relinqished your rights already. 1984 arrived 20 years late, but it arrived nevertheless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmacro 0 #17 March 30, 2004 The reason that they can get away with it at the airports, if I remember correctly, has something to do with the fact that you get searched before your technically on "U.S. soil" (the Customs area) and a different set of rules can be applied. That's why they can detaine you without probable cause and a lawyer. Women have been detained coming from latin america countries and not given any of the regular rights offered once they pass Customs control. I don't care that an American invented it. Good for him. And there are times that it would be good to use; court buildings, police stations etc... But I agree that without probable cause it's unethical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #18 March 30, 2004 QuoteThe reason that they can get away with it at the airports, if I remember correctly, has something to do with the fact that you get searched before your technically on "U.S. soil" (the Customs area) and a different set of rules can be applied. That's why they can detaine you without probable cause and a lawyer. Women have been detained coming from latin america countries and not given any of the regular rights offered once they pass Customs control. I don't care that an American invented it. Good for him. And there are times that it would be good to use; court buildings, police stations etc... But I agree that without probable cause it's unethical. Internal flights don't pass through customs, though. Still you relinquish your rights for the privilege of traveling on a commercial airplane.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #19 March 30, 2004 Quote ... Seems it’s a “living document” open to interpretation form any egg sucking liberal judge that chooses to do so. Quote Ahem - the biggest assault on Constitutional freedoms since WWII has happened in the last three years under a so-called "conservative" administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #20 March 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. . What makes you think that? I dare you to prove me wrong. Show me that they do exist.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #21 April 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. . What makes you think that? I dare you to prove me wrong. Show me that they do exist. They do exist, if I can get a pic of one I'll post it. As far as the x-ray thing. I can't imagine any set of circumstances where LE official in the US could make patrons of a bar submit to a search in order to leave the place._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #22 April 5, 2004 As long as you don't post something like this, I won't lose all respect for you QuoteThis is a Glock plastic gun.....witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #23 April 5, 2004 How did we get back onto guns??????? When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gmanpilot 0 #24 April 5, 2004 The thread is about the validity/eficasy of x-ray searches, the gun thing is an aside._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #25 April 5, 2004 Cool. My time moving a thread to the Speaker's Corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Kennedy 0 #20 March 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. . What makes you think that? I dare you to prove me wrong. Show me that they do exist.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #21 April 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteplastic or ceramic guns Haven't we been through this before? The damn things don't exist. . What makes you think that? I dare you to prove me wrong. Show me that they do exist. They do exist, if I can get a pic of one I'll post it. As far as the x-ray thing. I can't imagine any set of circumstances where LE official in the US could make patrons of a bar submit to a search in order to leave the place._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #22 April 5, 2004 As long as you don't post something like this, I won't lose all respect for you QuoteThis is a Glock plastic gun.....witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #23 April 5, 2004 How did we get back onto guns??????? When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #24 April 5, 2004 The thread is about the validity/eficasy of x-ray searches, the gun thing is an aside._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #25 April 5, 2004 Cool. My time moving a thread to the Speaker's Corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
