Slashdot Mirror
Robbery Suspect Tracked By GPS and Killed
New submitter Lew Lorton notes a NY Times story about a thief in New York City who was tracked and located using a GPS device inside a decoy pill bottle he had stolen (along with other pill bottles) from a pharmacy. When police confronted the thief, he raised a gun to shoot at an officer, and was killed
"The decoy bottles were introduced last year by the police commissioner at the time, Raymond W. Kelly, who announced that the department would begin to stock pharmacy shelves with decoy bottles of painkillers containing GPS devices. The initiative was in response to a sharp increase of armed and often deadly pharmacy robberies across the state, frequently by people addicted to painkillers. ... The bottles are designed to be weighted and to rattle when shaken, so a thief does not initially realize they do not contain pills. Each of the decoy bottles sits atop a special base, and when the bottle is lifted from the base, it begins to emit a tracking signal."
[n/t]
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
OK let's get this out of the way...
He didn't deserve to die for stealing the pills... ... but soon as he chose to put the life of an officer in danger instead of surrendering, then he did.
The usual story burglary victims hear is that they'll likely never get their stuff back. I can install a GPS transmitter inside one of my computers or my guitar. As a ham radio operator, I can use APRS which is trackable almost anywhere. Very interesting.
The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
People are becoming addicted to prescription painkillers. They cannot just buy these products. Therefore they (or others) have to rob them. Men worry about "erectile disfunction" because of advertising. Robbers steal the same products that are advertised for this. Guns are widely available in the US. Guns are used to commit these robberies. Police shoot the suspect because he's carrying a gun.
The decoy pill bottle is just a symptom in all this.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
The pill bottle is an example of the coming Internet or things.
Much like drones and big data, there's lots of policy to abuse, and much ethics to be discussed... Much like the last boom with wireless and content (rights management).
Yeah, if there's one time when lethal force is justified, it's this. Doesn't excuse scumbags tazing grannies, but kudos to this officer for handling a dangerous situation optimally.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
For all you statists here who want to government to decide what you can and can't put into your own body, I hope you're happy. This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
One could do that. Another common method of avoiding decoys is to avoid committing robbery and burglary. Felony crime as a career path doesn't tend to attract the brightest and most careful practitioners.
In Britain, the regular patrolmen are not tracking GPS devices in pill bottles. That would be the special police forces, who do carry weapons.
Generally, people don't shoot at them. Strange concept relating to NOT HAVING SO MANY F***ING GUNS.
Maybe it's an outlandish concept to some, but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society. They tend to expect society to work WITH them, not AGAINST them.
Of course, it's usually different in dictatorships.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not all of us on the left have a problem with this.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
the criminals are not aware of what is being done. Good job NYT for letting the cat out of the bag.
True. This is a technology that gets less useful the more it is used. Even if you're an idiot crook, you don't have to be a genius to understand when your crook buddy says, "Hey, I got popped for taking the drugs that are on the special holder. Don't take those."
Hmm. You left out the 16-year prison sentence the guy already had behind him for "sexual abuse and robbery convictions", which seems odd for someone genuinely defending the police here. You also jump to the rather ridiculous conclusion that there's a "PC leftist crowd" ready to condemn the police for shooting an armed nutcase who pulled a gun on them. Are you simply a troll hoping to initiate a left-right tribal battle over what seems a pretty clear case of a violent career criminal making his final mistake?
That said, we could once again blame the War on Drugs, which makes it profitable to rob damn painkillers at gunpoint. If people who want high could get high legally, and people who want to get completely messed up could do so in licensed places with medical and security staff, we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of shit. Nor would places like Mexico need to deal with their derived problems.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It rarely happens. A beat officer is unlikely to ever find themselves facing a suspect armed with a firearm in the UK. Most gun crime in the UK is gang-on-gang, they seldom use guns against the police. Which isn't to say that it never happens, but when it does it's noteworthy simply because of its rarity. The other times you get armed suspect will be hostage type situations, at which point armed officers automatically get deployed anyway.
The only place you'll find routinely armed police officers in the UK are at airports, MOD plods (civilian police responsible for policing MOD property), and the CNC (Civil Nuclear Constabulary - responsible for policing nuclear establishments in the UK).
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
The difference comes from the fact that when this happens in the USA the cops shoot to kill. When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)..or they don't shoot at all and instead take cover and negotiate the guy into dropping the gun.
It's an escalation thing. Due to the relative scarcity of guns in the UK, if criminals started to carry them as standard kit they'd be up against a lot of unfriendly cops who are generally better trained with better hardware. It would end badly in a country where the average unarmed robbery will get you a few years at worst and a kiss on the cheek and community service at least, if not acquittal on a technicality. Using a gun can up your sentence to something unpleasant, so most sane robbers don't carry them. Where nutjobs are concerned, anything goes and most of the rest of the criminal fraternity tend to avoid them. Killing a cop is just as bad here as in the US so you have to be *way* past desperate to go that route. And really stupid.
No. Race has nothing to do with it. The fact that not only do you think it might, but that it is foremost, indicates that bigotry and prejudice are alive and well in your heart.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
There is the problem.
Not enough guns.
If you had more guns then you would need more guns.
Because more guns is the answer to all gun related issues.
When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)...
If a person was leveling a gun at me, and known to be in possession of pain killers, I probably wouldn't shoot him in the leg.
I forgot to add this to a different reply of mine: more transparency from police should be a hot button issue in the U.S. I'd vote for just about anyone who campaigned for third-party investigations of police shootings. Looks like there's at least one bill, but not in my state.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Sounds like suicide by cop. Maybe the idiot didn't want to go to jail.
but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society.
Only if you define 'civilized' as 'most police don't carry guns'. Most police in Europe carry guns. Most police around the world carry guns. The UK and Norway don't get to dominate the stats.
I'm not saying that we don't have problems, I'd LOVE to reform our police and justice systems here in the USA, but routine carrying of arms isn't one of them. My view is if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted to be an officer.
I don't read AC A human right
Do you happen to have a source on Finnish officers shooting 'to incapacitate'? Much less in the leg? Because my self-defense and military training is that a leg shot is both potentially fatal(big arteries there, fast bleedout) and not likely to be incapacitating(if you don't hit the artery they can still fight).
By my training 'Center of Mass' shots, IE to the chest, is both an easier shot to hit with, is more likely to actually incapacitate, and given prompt medical attention not actually all that more likely to be fatal.
I shoot to 'stop', not to 'wound' or 'kill'.
That being said, I'm all for officers using negotiation instead of gunfire were possible. But if that trigger has to be pulled, it needs to be pulled in the most effective manner possible.
I don't read AC A human right
traffic = other people = witnesses
"The police official said the GPS device helped lead the police to the man, who was confronted as his 2007 Jeep was stuck in traffic on a service road beneath the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive at East 96th Street. "
"He served about 16 years in prison during two stints between 1990 and 2008 for sexual abuse and robbery convictions, according to state records."
If people who want high could get high legally, and people who want to get completely messed up could do so in licensed places with medical and security staff, we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of shit. Nor would places like Mexico need to deal with their derived problems.
Sigh. We'd end up with less crime, less harm to society and lesser insurance premiums; people might even begin to feel safe again.
"Yes, yes, but how will these policies further enrich the 1%? What, It won't? Oh. Forget it then."
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Seriously, the patrolmen don't have guns? What if someone shoots at them?
Due to strict gun control in the UK, very few criminals have guns, so police officers almost never have the risk of confronting an armed perpetrator. The criminals in the UK who *do* have guns are not petty thieves who are robbing pharmacies for narcotics.
The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
Do you have a source for that? According to the site linked below (which includes citations), "In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009, a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000. Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12, a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm." I couldn't find similar statistics for police officers, but you're obviously pretty sure of your facts so I thought I'd ask. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
E pluribus unum
There are several instances where Finnish police have shot a threatening person in the leg to solve the situation. Since it has been mostly reported in only Finnish media I can't give you English sources. But here's one in Finnish. The thing is, they don't shoot in the thigh where the big arteries are. They shoot below the knee so the biggest damage can be avoided.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/poliisi_...
Nope. Probably because we don't discriminate against them.
Ya know, people are more willing to accept your rules if they feel you accept them, too. It's kinda a mutual thing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not that they don't trust the officers with a gun, it's that everybody knows that patrolmen don't have guns. Why spend money to get a gun when you know that you're not at risk of being shot at to start? And then why shoot at an officer who you know won't shoot at you?
The idea is that it lowers the stakes all around.
Just to clarify, I think the war on drugs is stupid and the guy should never have had monetary incentives to steal painkillers. I think it's sad that our police state initiative for funding criminals caused yet another death.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
You only shoot someone if your life is in danger. If you purposely only shoot them in the leg, obviously, your life wasn't in danger.
This is a problem. When you legitimize shooting a person for reasons other then stopping them from seriously harming or killing you or someone else, you end up with bullets flying around unnecessarily that can stray and kill and unintended victim.
You don't aim for the leg, you aim to stop the threat and only do it when the threat is to the life or serious bodily harm that could end the life to you or another person. Guns are not toys, they are not batons used to subdue criminals. They are a means to protect life by taking life and need to be taken seriously when used by people we employ for our protection.
Strict gun laws in the UK didn't prevent that one guy from going on a rampage for half a day and killing and injuring a whole bunch of people, including police.
Of course there will always be edge cases, but the facts speak for themselves -
USA Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 10.3
UK Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 0.25
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Well the US is fairly unique as the rights and privileges of sovereignty are granted to the Government by the Governed, where in European Countries the opposite is true, soveignty is granted by God, throught the Church to the King and the people were chattle. The Monarchs didn't have to say "you're not allowed to have guns" because the default is all rights and privileges are deigned unless specifically allowed by the Sovereign; which in Europe is the Government, and in the US is the people.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You could get statistics by scrapping this page list of British police officers killed in the line of duty. I think it is roughly 71/248 or about 30%. I would not be surprised if the GP was correct and the percentage of British police officers killed by guns is greater than the percentage of US police officers. This could be due to the fact that British police don't have guns.
But the percentages are terribly misleading if you don't look at the absolute numbers or per capita numbers. In the US, 500 people per year are killed by the police while in Britain only 30 people total have been killed by the police (up until 2005). Since Britain has 1/5th the population of the US, the total (over all years) per capita number of people killed in Britain by police is less than 1/3rd of the per capita killed in the US every year.
Over 100 US police officers are killed in the line of duty each year while according to the page linked to above, the number of British police officers killed in the line of duty is 2 per year (this century). So on a per capita basis ten times as many US police officers get killed on duty than British police officers. If, as the GP states, roughly 30% of US police deaths on duty are due to firearms then it is 10 times more likely for a person in the US to gun down a police officer than someone in Britain.
Whatever the exact numbers are, it is clear that the amount of police related gun violence in Britain is drastically lower than police related gun violence in the US on a per capita basis.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
True. People have no responsibility for their actions. I should be able to steal peoples shit and use guns to commit violent crimes, because it's all someone elses fault. The government should be giving this guy tax-payer funded heroin!
THL phish sticks
The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
Do you have a source for that? According to the site linked below (which includes citations), "In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009, a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000. Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12, a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm." I couldn't find similar statistics for police officers, but you're obviously pretty sure of your facts so I thought I'd ask. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
Unlike the U.S., the island states of Japan and Great Britain have had centuries of unilateral culturalism--only a century or so for Canada and the island continent of Australia; their populations being about 20 million caucasians each. Otoh, there are over 200 million homes of different cultures in the U.S containing firearms.
Of the gun deaths in the States, most (about 65%) were suicides; others were related to self defense; and then there darwinian accidents.
Here's an incomplete list (incomplete due to issues with authorities and the dissemination information) of an interactive breakdown of gun deaths for 75 of the 200 countries in 2014; interactive, because you can reorder a column by clicking on the column's header to see the countries with the most deaths by accident, suicide, murder or overall total.
Here's a reordering based on the ones with the highest homicide rate:
Honduras
El Salvador
Jamaica
Venezuela
Swaziland
Guatemala
Colombia
Brazil
South Africa
Panama
Mexico
Paraguay
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
and finally next: United States
Yes, I guess we could take the guns from the people in the U.S. (that everyone likes to illegally immigrate to) except for the police and their friends or family, but it'll probably mean that we will become more like the rest of "gunless" Latin America.
A lot of these deaths are planned executions, staged to look like self defense. Afterall isn't it alright to kill someone if the victim deserves it; think about human nature and how one would react if someone with a thug-like demeanor came at them in everyday wear. Maybe this one wasn't a setup, there's no way of knowing since employees of the police department don't respect the idea of humanity; instead a self-serving professionalism that lacks accountability to the community.
Enjoy the future of a living hell for the powerless unable to have anything that can be used for self defense. If you're randomly searched and found with a pair of scissors, screwdriver or pen knife, it'll be decreed you were going to use it as a weapon. (This happened to myself . This one was about having fun harassing someone they mistakenly thought was gay due a nearby event I was unaware of. It was okay, since they thought I was a victim that deserved it.)
The same thing can and will happen when firearm ownership are illegal and are conveniently found in a raid on politically problematic people and decreed that it was being used a weapon. Killing a deserving victim is insatiable feeling that becomes a hobby that will never end.
In the end it's cheaper to give drugs away than deal with the crime that street drugs cause. People who want to do drugs will do whatever it takes to do drugs. This includes robbery and murder. Maybe it would be better to provide them free.
Yes, that's pretty much how it works. As others have noted, it works because guns are the exception rather than the rule. But another advantage: when a gun is in the picture, the beat cops back off and call the professional shooting-people cops, who're actually trained in the art of shooting people, as opposed to the American beat cops who will shoot kids with water pistols, black men reaching for their wallets, miss and shoot bystanders, shoot themselves in the foot, etc.
That is definitely not true. However, the conviction rate is well above 90%, so it would not make a whole lot of difference if it was true.
I do not deny that it occasionally takes 30 years to find the offender, but mostly its less than a year.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Only if you ignore the fact that most of those are self-inflicted deaths, and most of the rest are criminal-on-criminal.
They're SO-15, they're a specialist armed unit (formed when they combined SO-13 with Special Branch). They only get deployed when they explicitly need armed officers.
Also we don't have "metro police", that would British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing railways nationally, railway property, London Underground, and various other things. They're not routinely armed.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
What you suggest has not been the case for a long time: "Magna Carta (1215ad) was the first document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
You can argue about suicides until you're blue in the face, but the facts remain: In the USA, more than any other western country, more kids shoot their siblings. More kids shoot themselves. More drunks shoot either other, widowing mothers and orphaning kids. More men shoot their wives. More criminals shoot 7-11 clerks, taxicab drivers and people in movie theatres. More cops shoot teenagers because the cops think their iPod is a gun.
The USA has said this is fine and this is the society they want to live in, but to the rest of us it is batshit crazy and we want no part of it. Handguns do not belong in a civilized society. Full stop.