BART Disables Cell Service To Disrupt Protests

1729 writes "Yesterday, in an effort to disrupt rumored protests at Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, BART officials disabled cell phone and internet access within most of the BART system by shutting down the antennas that enable reception in the underground stations."

Comments

Stupid slope

[White Flame]

How long will it be before they just gas a place with knock-out gas in order to "keep the peace"?

Re:Stupid slope

[capnkr]

Come at me threateningly with a couple of knives and a broken glass bottle, throwing one of the knives at me when I am telling you to stand down, and I'll shoot yer ass, too, center mass or wherever I can, to protect myself. No accident at all, with intention; the intent to stop you from hurting me. If it kills your dumb ass, that is just too effing bad for you, and not my fault. Justifiable kill, IMO. There is no need to disparage the officer by calling him a "Pig".

Re:Stupid slope

[capnkr]

This:

I would shoot you in the leg.

You'd better be a damned good shot with that pistol. Most people aren't. Not enough to intentionally hit the smaller parts of an advancing target in a threatening situation, when adrenaline is pouring through your bloodstream and you have absolutely no control over the situation or the actions of the person who's coming at you with a weapon fast, and noise and stress and recoil are playing hell with your careful, gun-range shooting practice skills and he's almost on you...

Your plan sounds all good and idealistic and I'd also like to think that it can happen that way, but remember Moltke: "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." Try to kill me, and I'll try to kill you right back.

Re:Stupid slope

[Grekan]

Not to mention if you're going to use a tool designed to kill people, you should be fearing for your life. If you fear for your life you aim for center of mass. If you're really fancy you do 2 in the chest and 1 in the head. When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.

Re:Stupid slope

[type40]

When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You shoot to end the threat.
If when all is said and done they are no longer metabolizing oxygen, fine. But if you plant a round center mass and they drop their weapon, turn tail, and run. You better cease fire, the threat has been stopped, cuz the next shot you fire they are the victim.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.

Re:Stupid slope

[iggymanz]

Educate yourself, multiple center of mass hits that are the *only way* pistol defence is taught, because that is the only correct way. It is taught to police that way, it is taught to grandmas that way. you can't reliably hit moving arms or legs with a handgun, you'll mostly miss. You will not reliably stop nor incapacitate an attacker with a handgun hit in the arm or leg, they will keep on coming. you will not reliably stop an attacker with a single shot either. if you must use a gun to defend yourself, you must aim at center of mass. you must fire until the threat stops. This is what is taught, it is how handgun self-defence works. there is no other way that will protect you from a threat of severe or lethal harm. If there was not a threat of severe or lethal harm, you had no business pointing your gun at someone, let alone firing your gun.

Do you have some hollywood nonsensical idea that handguns lift people up and throw them back, or open them up, or remove entrails, or that a single shot always stops someone? those are all rubbish, fantasy.

Re:Won't BART be financially liable

[dmacleod808]

in my city (Chicago) this is a "Value Added" type of service, for most of my life there was no cell reception down there, they even rolled them out one carrier at a time, I doubt they would be liable on a system that is not guaranteed to work since it is underground in a difficult place to get wireless communications.

Safety Hazard?

[abyssalson]

Blocking calls to 911 and other emergency calls people might have to make seems like it could cause some problems.

Re:Welcome to Fascism

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Fascist! Turn from the left
Fascist! Turn to the right
Oooh, fascist!
We are the goon squad
and we're coming to town
Beep-beep
Beep-beep

Re:Won't make too much difference

[Mal-2]

Further, the only thing shut off was BART's own equipment. They were transparent enough to say "we shut off our gear rather than let you use it to organize against us", rather than blaming the outage on some sort of convenient hardware failure (or vandalism, which probably would have passed the sniff test under the circumstances). I can't imagine the cell sites outside the paid platform (which were left on) have zero spillover, so those who absolutely needed it could stand at the periphery while waiting for the next train.

Re:Solidarity

[pizzach]

The irony is that the communist government likely in many instances uses the same reasoning to explain to the people their reasons for doing what they do. (Papers please!) When you flip a coin over, it may have a different picture to appease you into thinking it is something different, but in reality it is only the other side of the same thing.

Re:Interesting, yet scary.

[artor3]

It's not that it's a requirement. If they took it down because it was too expensive, or it needed lengthy repairs, or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But when they cut off a mode of communication specifically to prevent people from communicating, that's when it becomes a problem. I expect that in Syria or Iran, not in the US.