Random Bag Searches on the Horizon

The major technology for random scanning is called back-scatter. The general principle is like radar. The devices are set up, and everybody walks past it on their way into the subway, etc.

The radar picks up the reflection from the body, the clothing, the semtex, the leather shoes, etc. Semtex has its own reflected signature, which triggers a response from security.

The man ran from the police in a time where London was on alert looking for the bombers from the previous two incidents. I don't think the officers did anything wrong by shooting him. He ran into a train away from police, that would be enough for them to suspect that something was wrong. Maybe the shooting would not be justified if it happened during any other time.

arrow wrote:The man ran from the police in a time where London was on alert looking for the bombers from the previous two incidents. I don't think the officers did anything wrong by shooting him. He ran into a train away from police, that would be enough for them to suspect that something was wrong. Maybe the shooting would not be justified if it happened during any other time.

I like the way a friend of mine described the situation.

however, to the officers credit, they had intel that made them believe he did
bad intel, but intel nonetheless.
and if they successfully identified themselves, clearly communicating that they were indeed, despite their plain clothes, officers of the law, then he shouldn't have run
although, still, even if they clearly announced "I am a police officer, stop." all he would have to go on was their word, and a possibly fake badge

Ok, he looked suspicious, and he ran away from police and onto a train. I think that's more than enough reason to stop and start questioning him. If he got on the train, what do you? You call in to have the train held, go on it, and pull him out, and no one dies.
While I don't know if it applied in this case, it's very possible not to hear an officer yelling over the noise in a subway station. Here's a hypothetical: I'm out one day in early/mid fall, and the day is much warmer than I was dressed for (expecting a colder temperature; perhaps it's just an unseasonably warm winter day, and I've got a bulky coat on because it's all I've got). I'm on way back home from school, so I've got a backpack full of books and a laptop, and I'min a bit of rush since I've got a doctor's appointment, so I'm trying to weave in and out of people to get through and to the train before it leaves. Maybe at this point an officer yells "Stop," but I don't look up because I don't think it's directed at me, or I don't hear it.
Should the police shoot first and ask questions later? The only thing I may have done wrong was not turn around and respond to the officer yelling "Stop," but assuming I heard it, how was I supposed to know it was directed at me and not one of the people in the crowd?

You're assuming way too much. It comes down to a simple situation:

London has had two attacks in the last few days. A guy comes down that for whatever reason the police think looks suspicious. They tell him to stop, he does not. He instead runs away from the police and runs onto a train that's about to leave. The man should have stopped.

Now given the situation, do you think that the police officer would calmly say ok, let's call the train dispatcher and have him stop the train. I don't think so. There's been two attacks already and who knows what in the future. I think they acted quickly in an attempt to prevent another incident.

If he actually didn't hear the police then it's a different story. If the police knew somehow that he was intentionally running from them then I think their actions were justified, otherwise I agree that it should have been handled differently, but I'm going by what I heard about it and they sure made it sound like the man was intentionally running from them.

I hope this doesn't happen again, of course, and it's unfortunate if it's true that he had nothing to do with the bombing.

I've also heard, but can't confirm, that the man tripped, and was then shot. I do know that he was shot as point-blank range, which makes me wonder why the police could not simply have apprehended him, instead of putting five bullets into him. Certainly, in that situation, there's more to be gained by capturing him alive. If he wasn't involved, he gets to keep living, and if we was involved, the police have the potential to learn something about the operation; even if he doesn't talk, they haven't learned any less than by killing him.

It appears to have been an overreaction by the police, which to some extent, I can understand, given the situtation there. But, given a chance to take him alive, or to kill him, with no appreciable difference in difficulty between the two, it seems to make more sense to take him alive. I hope the same thing does not happen over here.

From a news report I just saw, the police officers performing the searches don't think the searches will make any difference. Most of have not gone through any training and even the ones who did have no clue how to spot a bomb. They know what a gun and knife look like but not an explosive devise or some other device.

One thing about the explosives in London, they are not plastics but homemade from pharmaceuticals that are readily available. That's what makes this so scary. Can you detect everything? No. Are the dogs trained to sniff this out? Maybe.

If he did in fact trip (which I do recall hearing as well), then I agree with you that they should have just captured him there instead of shooting him. They must have had only a split second decision to think about this, and they made their decision in that split second.

On another note,
Have any of you visited Disney World since 9/11? I've been there several times and they check through your bags before you can enter any of their parks. The trouble is that they literally just look inside for maybe one or two seconds and that's it. Now if I really wanted to hide something in there it wouldn't be hard at all.

If they come to search my bag on the train, are they going to open every little compartment in it? I have some places in my bag that I actually found by accident, and I have a regular messenger bag...it's not a large bag. Even if they do search the bags thoroughly (which is near impossible), whoever would like to do something bad will find another way to hide the explosives or whatever it is they are trying to hide.

London has had two attacks in the last few days. A guy comes down that for whatever reason the police think looks suspicious. They tell him to stop, he does not. He instead runs away from the police and runs onto a train that's about to leave. The man should have stopped.

When it comes to police killing people I believe the rule should be that if you're right, you're right, but if you're wrong you're fired/jailed/sued. If you give police leeway they'll shoot first and not care later. These cops were wrong, they should be fired. Maybe the next officer in this situation will aim for the leg if he's not 100% sure.

I don't know what NJT's policy is, but:

if the guy has a bomb, the key is to prevent him from detonating it. You don't want him in a zone, on the train, etc where he can do serious damage. If you shoot him in the leg, arm, etc you still give him (her?) the ability to detonate it.

If you believe he has the bomb, you kill him. Before he kills you. and everybody else.

Lackawanna484 wrote:If you believe he has the bomb, you kill him. Before he kills you. and everybody else.

Perhaps that was the orders they received as well, none of us know for sure.

Lackawanna484 wrote:In NJ, at least, the legal framework has already been established with random drunk driver checkpoints. The police supervisor must establish a protocol (every third driver, every fifth, all drivers) which may be combined with another protocol (plus all vehicles with a visible violation like a headlight not functioning). The protocol must be written and given to the officers.

Not exactly the same. In a DWI checkpoint, the officer merely walks up to the car window and engages the driver in conversation, while observing behavior, etc. There is NO SEARCH of the vehicle without probable cause.

Idiot Railfan wrote:This may offer reassurance to people, and that's very reason it is wrong. Random searches, aside from being a violation of the Bill of Rights, are a waste of time and resources. In fact, I believe it is counter productive. Our enemy will just use other methods or, as in the case of the second wave of bombings in London, will simply elude detection. It was only the poor construction of the bombs that saved lives, not cameras, searches, etc.

During the 1990s we were so obsessed with protecting ourselves from surface attacks (concrete barriers, searching Yellow Ryder trucks) that we failed notice the enemy was taking flying lessons and planning to attack from above.

A false sense of security is worse than no security.

Would you also suggest that the airport searches don't pass Consitutional muster and airport security checks should be terminated? If not, why are trains different with respect to random searches?

arrow wrote:The man ran from the police in a time where London was on alert looking for the bombers from the previous two incidents. I don't think the officers did anything wrong by shooting him. He ran into a train away from police, that would be enough for them to suspect that something was wrong. Maybe the shooting would not be justified if it happened during any other time.

And subsequent reports indicate that the man was an associate, but not one of, the second group of bombers. There are probably additional facts not being released for security reasons.

SCB2525 wrote:Do they have walkthrough bombsniffers (do they exist)? If so, I'd say implement them. But then I know that those types of devices are extremely expensive.

Yes, they were used by Amtrak as a pilot at a suburban station on the NEC just north of Washington, DC. They work by sending several puffs of air towards the examinee who must remain still for about 7 or 8 seconds. Not practical for a busy rail station.

arrow wrote:So, will I get a refund of my fare if I choose not to have my bags searched and already have an unlimited MetroCard?

Seriously, when you stop and think common sense, this really doesn't do anything for anybody. It will not make me feel good because:

• they are not going to be doing thorough checks of everyone they stop. I doubt they will search through every little pocket and space in everyone's bag.
• someone that wants to bomb somewhere will know how they can get away with it. obviously, if bags are being checked..then they will do something else with it. what's next, we have to take off our shoes to enter the train?

An individual may get through with a bomb, true. But recall that the hallmark of the efficient highly organized terrorist organizations, is that they do very careful planning and observation to determine routines and actvities of the candidate target. Their planning depends on being very certain of exactly what occurs at the target. The random nature of the searches of rail and bus passengers introduces an element of uncertainly which means that the highly organized terrorist group will likley be deterred. There is logic to the searches.

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's unreasonable to have agents of the state search your person or papers without you're having done anything wrong.

That used to happen a lot in East Germany and the Soviet Union. It still happens in Cuba and Burma. Oh yeah, the Taliban got a kick out of that kind of stuff too.

Isn't it interesting how 8 screw-ups in London can convince a good portion of us to willingly give up our rights.

It's a dangerous world -- get used to it. There is no such thing as security in these times. So why sacrifice our most important national treasure -- the Constitution -- in poor trade for something that doesn't exist?

Yeah this all sucks and its goingf to get annoying, but personally I would rather have my stuff randomly selected knowing I have nothing they wouldnt agree with. Yeah it might be against the constitution but if the TSA can cunduct a random full inspection at the airport whats going to stop NJt from doing the same on their system. Plus, your only going to look more suspicious by causing a scene telling a transit officer to f**k off when they want to see what you have.

Bel-Del-er wrote:Call me old fashioned, but I think it's unreasonable to have agents of the state search your person or papers without you're having done anything wrong.

How do you feel about airline passenger boarding screening? Or, checking for pressure sensitive, etc bombs in luggage?

There have been nine aircraft bombings since 1995, plus another four US hijackings in 2001. Your logic would seem to dictate no checking there, either. I disagree with that, too.

I think Chertoff had it right last week, in his much criticized comment. You can do a lot more damage and kill many more people with a hijacked 767 than you can with a a hijacked bus.