- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Infrared cameras on Bourbon st to detect concealed guns??
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:17 am to Mr Wonderful
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:17 am to Mr Wonderful
quote:
Scenario 1: cops use infrared technology to detect you are likely carrying a gun. They approach, ask you if you are, you say yes. They ask to see your CC permit. You provide it. Cops says thanks, enjoy your evening. The whole "stop" takes under 30 seconds. Go about your business (although if you're on Bourbon there's a 90% chance you're going into bars which is a no no).
This whole point is erroneous. No probable cause = No stop. What if I politely told the cop I wasn't interested in having a conversation and tried to walk away?
quote:
Scenario 2: cops asks you if you are carrying a gun. In the case of a true criminal, he attempts to flee and is arrested and charged. Or he attempts to pull out said gun and cops shoots him. Either way, mission accomplished
I am not willing to give up my right to privacy to increase the odds of someone else getting pinched.
quote:
I'm not saying I'm all in favor of this new FQ plan, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea to be honest.
Perhaps this tech has it's place, but it's certainly not on a public street. Especially if it can see through clothes. The slope is just way too slippery. If cops think their job so difficult and dangerous that they need the ability to see through peoples clothes, including your wives and daughters, then they should consider a different career path.
2
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:23 am to theenemy
I'm not sure how the law would fall on this but considering this a public street, and there are children walking up and down the street it is predictable that the cameras will see through the outer garments to the under garments of children.
The only way to protect the camera owner operator from any action taken based on what is seen on the camera is for the camera to record the images.
So if you combine those two apparent realities, you essentially have state sanctioned recording images of children in their underwear against their consent. Does this constitute child porn?
What happens when these IR images of attractive women and sickeningly young children are collected and reposted on porn sites? Because you know it is going to happen.
The only way to protect the camera owner operator from any action taken based on what is seen on the camera is for the camera to record the images.
So if you combine those two apparent realities, you essentially have state sanctioned recording images of children in their underwear against their consent. Does this constitute child porn?
What happens when these IR images of attractive women and sickeningly young children are collected and reposted on porn sites? Because you know it is going to happen.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:37 am to Bleeding purple
Well put. You did a much better job of articulating your concerns than I did. 
Posted on 1/12/17 at 12:14 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
So if you combine those two apparent realities, you essentially have state sanctioned recording images of children in their underwear against their consent. Does this constitute child porn?
I think that is kind of a stretch.
How clear are these images?
If that is the case then shouldn't we ban FLIR from the public.
What keeps private individuals from recording children and women in public?
Do you support making FLIR devices illegal for the public?
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 1/12/17 at 12:35 pm to Barf
quote:
What if I politely told the cop I wasn't interested in having a conversation and tried to walk away?
Although you have the right to do so, in that case you're just being a dick. He's there to make the streets safer. I'm not saying walk around and help him do his job but why make it more difficult?
Also, probable cause is arguable. He knows or thinks you have a weapon and he can likely find probable cause. Again, just show him the permit and go back to whatever you were doing... on Bourbon Street with a gun.
quote:
If cops think their job so difficult and dangerous that they need the ability to see through peoples clothes, including your wives and daughters, then they should consider a different career path.
I get your point. Just think if you were on Bourbon (or any street for that matter) and someone started shooting and your wife or daughter was injured or killed. Wouldn't it have been nice to potentially catch the dude beforehand.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 1:06 pm to Barf
Kinda surprised to see infrared cameras being argued to be illegal on the Outdoor Board.
Lol.
Lol.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 1:14 pm to Mr Wonderful
This technology will not work as intended, I own a rather expensive FLIR camera and anyone who thinks these things can detect a firearm under clothing is a moron. Also, just because a technology isn't intrusive doesn't mean it can be used by the police. A GPS transceiver isn't intrusive but police can't just tag your car with one without a court order.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 1:28 pm to Clames
quote:
This technology will not work as intended, I own a rather expensive FLIR camera and anyone who thinks these things can detect a firearm under clothing is a moron.
That's kinda what I was thinking.
quote:
Also, just because a technology isn't intrusive doesn't mean it can be used by the police.
True
But intrusiveness and presumption of privacy are the major factors in the law.
quote:
own a rather expensive FLIR camera
Peeping Tom?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 2:11 pm to theenemy
quote:
Again, if the public can look at you through thermal image device than the police can too. You would need to ban citizens from the use of thermal imagery to also ban police.
Police can legally use the devices IMO, the question is how they use the information gained from the device.
If the device indicates that a person may be carrying a concealed firearm, I contend that this does not satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirements for a stop. I believe this has come up with open carry before all over the country - the act of open carry does not, on its own, give officers reasonable suspicion of illegal carry if there's no other indication that the person is actually open carrying illegally. Seeing a thermal image that could be a gun on a person that may be concealing the gun without a permit seems like shaky grounds for a stop.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 2:20 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:
I get your point. Just think if you were on Bourbon (or any street for that matter) and someone started shooting and your wife or daughter was injured or killed. Wouldn't it have been nice to potentially catch the dude beforehand.
I get what you're saying, but it's one of those 'if you aunt had a dick she would be your uncle' scenarios.
The short answer is no, it would not have been worth someone giving up their privacy to stop even a single shooting.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 2:34 pm to Clames
quote:
This technology will not work as intended, I own a rather expensive FLIR camera and anyone who thinks these things can detect a firearm under clothing is a moron
Maybe. I know nothing about the technology itself.
quote:
A GPS transceiver isn't intrusive but police can't just tag your car with one without a court order
True but technically they are "trespassing" when they place the receiver on your car. In theory an infrared camera could detect something without touching you or anything you own. Whether it actually would work is a separate issue.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 2:39 pm to Huey Lewis
Question:
If a police officer sees the imprint of your weapon under your shirt....can he/she stop and ask for your concealed carry permit?
If a police officer sees the imprint of your weapon under your shirt....can he/she stop and ask for your concealed carry permit?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:09 pm to theenemy
Based solely on the presumption that the imprint is a weapon and with no other articulated circumstances giving reasonable suspicion of a crime, IMO an officer does not have legal grounds to detain a person and investigate whether or not a gun is being carried illegally.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:25 pm to Huey Lewis
quote:
Based solely on the presumption that the imprint is a weapon and with no other articulated circumstances giving reasonable suspicion of a crime, IMO an officer does not have legal grounds to detain a person and investigate whether or not a gun is being carried illegally.
Then we will agree to disagree then.
I think an officer could easily articulate that he had reasonable suspicion to believe the person was illegally carrying a weapon and had grounds to investigate.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:28 pm to theenemy
quote:
Peeping Tom?
This is the kind of technological ignorance that will have our taxes paying for these cameras. No genius, FLIR cameras can only see heat differentials on the surfaces of the objects they are pointed at. A firearm concealed within a holster and under clothing will be masked by said clothing. Since firearms are mostly steel and polymers that absorb heat, they become better masked the longer a person wears one close to their body. I know of nobody that intentionally heats or cools their concealed firearms prior to wearing them either.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:35 pm to Clames
quote:
No genius, FLIR cameras can only see heat differentials on the surfaces of the objects they are pointed at.
Relax.
It was a joke. I was just poking fun at the notion a couple other posters had claiming that it would be misused for child porno.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:48 pm to Clames
I mean you got to admit...its pretty provocative.
and am I the only one who chills his weapons before going out?
and am I the only one who chills his weapons before going out?
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:57 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
What happens when these IR images of attractive women and sickeningly young children are collected and reposted on porn sites?
I'm guessing the porn site goes out of business due to the lack of interest?
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 2:26 am to Bleeding purple
As I said earlier, I have no idea of about the state of the technology. But I think the legal issues alone will stop the city from installing them in public spaces.
I don't think they can stop private property owners (like bars) from installing them. I can picture signs with language saying "By entering these premises you consent to body scans" - or something like that.
If the thugs can't enter bars, there will be less reason for them to go down Bourbon Street. This wouldn't eliminate all the chances of shootings, but I can see where some of the folks down there might think it's worth a try.(Notice I didn't say "worth a shot")
I doubt if this would really be a deterrent. But I think they're pretty desperate. N.O. runs on tourism (hotels, bars, restaurants). They're gonna try something.
I don't think they can stop private property owners (like bars) from installing them. I can picture signs with language saying "By entering these premises you consent to body scans" - or something like that.
If the thugs can't enter bars, there will be less reason for them to go down Bourbon Street. This wouldn't eliminate all the chances of shootings, but I can see where some of the folks down there might think it's worth a try.(Notice I didn't say "worth a shot"
) I doubt if this would really be a deterrent. But I think they're pretty desperate. N.O. runs on tourism (hotels, bars, restaurants). They're gonna try something.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:09 am to theenemy
quote:
It was a joke. I was just poking fun at the notion a couple other posters had claiming that it would be misused for child porno.
Do you have information we do not? The Article only says 'infrared type cameras." It gives no other specific information. How do you know what camera they are considering or how the images will appear?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News