Third version of the title, the first two weren't too nice.

I was in a larger city in the South this weekend and saw this...could anyone shed some light. I have a few guesses, but I thought someone in the law enforcement field might know. I will take it to the GD if a definitive answer is not found.



-and-




ByteTheBullet  (-:

Isnt that like a fleir system.  Something that can see at night or through walls using infra-red?  

Robocop...

Assclown detector, was it beeping?

Looks like FLIR to me.

its so they can sit outside ones house and watch porn.  

FLIR

Just wondering why you would cover up the license plate and other ID marking on a government vehicle?

FLIR, We have them on Helos here.  Saw one once mounted to a car like that.

My agency has one mounted on a Chevy truck.

Quoted: Just wondering why you would cover up the license plate and other ID marking on a government vehicle?

Just paranoid. Hey, that's the first step, isn't it?!? It's not like any members living there cannot recognize the car.

Now for the next question...what is the application on a car? I assume Forward Looking Infra Red....though it is clearly facing backwards...

What can this really be used for. I truly do not know.

Thanks for all the answers...yes, ALL the answers. Robocop...sheesh.


ByteTheBullet  (-:

Nothing catches two kids making out in the car, or two gay guys having sex in the car better than IR.

Wow, your tax dollars being used real wisely.

it faces backwards to protect the lens.  Im sure there is a remote in the car to control it.  


did anyone read that story were a FBI guy pulled over a car thinking it was a bank robery suspect.  The guy was asked to step out of his car.  He went to take the seatbelt off and the officer shot him in the face with a M4.  It turns out that it was the wrong guy.  The guy lives and sues the FBI.  Come to find out that the court and the FBI are saying that federal officers can not be sued.  If this plays out the way I herd it, that would make the FBI or other officials above the law.  Where do I sign.  I know a few that need to be removed.

Quoted: Nothing catches two kids making out in the car, or two gay guys having sex in the car better than IR. Wow, your tax dollars being used real wisely.

Reject watch out they can see you!

It could be mounted on the car as an equipment test. Looks like the patrol car doesn't have any emergency lights mounted. The mount is remote controlled alowing 360* movment. It could be very useful in catching suspects hiding in dark areas (bushes, woods, dark alleys etc.)as well a locating lost persons. FLIR is most commonly mounted on helos where it's best suited.  

BTW, fire departments use them to locate hot spots in building fires.  Our state police helo has assisted many FDs using it's FLIR.

did anyone read that story were a FBI guy pulled over a car thinking it was a bank robery suspect.  The guy was asked to step out of his car.  He went to take the seatbelt off and the officer shot him in the face with a M4.  It turns out that it was the wrong guy.  The guy lives and sues the FBI.  Come to find out that the court and the FBI are saying that federal officers can not be sued.  If this plays out the way I herd it, that would make the FBI or other officials above the law.  Where do I sign.  I know a few that need to be removed.

Yup, happened right down the street from me.

Bastards!

Quoted: Quoted: Nothing catches two kids making out in the car, or two gay guys having sex in the car better than IR. Wow, your tax dollars being used real wisely. Reject watch out they can see you!

Nah, Donna and I know better than to fuck in front of the po-po.

Vedubin01,
     Regarding the FBI incident, you have most of the story correct.  The FBI stopped a car of similar description to one that was used in a armed robbery.  The agents used the high risk felony vehicle stop procedures.  The agents each approached the vehicle, one on each side. The one agent ordered the driver out of the vehicle.  While the driver was getting out, the passenger, who was being covered by the agent with the M4, started to get out also.  The first thing the passenger did was reach into the console area to release the seatbelt with his right hand.  When he did this, he turned his shoulder and part of his back to the agent. The agent covering the passenger from alongside the passenger side car door saw the movement, saw the hands disappear into the console area and interpreted it as going for a weapon in the center console and fired one round.  It entered the right cheek and exited the left cheek.  I'm not sure if he lost some teeth, but for the most part it was a clean through and through shot.  There are some other details I'm not positive about, but I think there may have been shots fired during the robbery, but I don't know for sure.  If there were, it would certainly cause the agents to predispose a great potential for violence.  There was also some descrepancy about the voice commands the agents were giving, but in the end the agents were wrong.  
    As far as being sued goes, the agents themselves can only be sued personally if they were acting outside the scope of their employment. Without getting into a whole legal discussion, given the situation, what the agents were told or knew, and the actions of the defendants, was the behavior so far outside the scope of their employment as to be unreasonable?  Did the FBI agent get on the trigger a little quick? He sure did, but taking the situation as a whole, did he act outside his authority? I don't think he did. The passenger can and should sue the FBI as a whole, but the agents are protected from being sued personally.