6 ms·

Prediction: the NYPD is never going to actually use this thing. Maybe some vastly improved future iteration, but not this one. > the NYPD has invested $19,500

Prediction: the NYPD is never going to actually use this thing. Maybe some vastly improved future iteration, but not this one. > the NYPD has invested $19,500 on the Guardian-HX venture. That's pocket change to the NYPD. It's not clear from the article what "invested" means, but they probably bought and handed out a small number of launchers to a few officers to see if they prove useful. I'm skeptical that they will. > That projectile travels at a claimed 37 miles per hour, and has a straight-forward range of 35 feet — though the company claims that, with an arc, it can theoretically reach 60 feet. Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that. It's not like police already doesn't care about accuracy when shooting at vehicles.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roarcher 3y ago
  The only thing this seems likely to hit is the ground.
redeux 3y ago
I think you’re probably right about them not actually using this but the implications of the capability are more interesting. There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well, but it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits.
- roarcher 3y ago
  > it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits. I agree that it does in concept, I just can't see them reliably tagging vehicles with a launcher as anemic as this one. The speed and range of the projectile is significantly less than an average healthy adult could achieve by throwing it. The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint. An officer could be standing next to the vehicle with the launcher, ready to fire as soon as it starts to move. Even then they'd better be quick about it.
  - tokai 3y ago
    The should get a launcher in the hood of a squad car instead. In pursuit they can tag following and then peal off.
    - Brybry 3y ago
      For anyone not aware, this does actually exist. If you look on youtube there are a few examples of police using vehicle-mounted launchers in real chases. [1][2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc [Florida State Police/Highway Patrol] [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA [Austin Police]
      - roarcher 3y ago
        Interesting, the devices in both those videos are made by the same company that makes the handheld launcher from the article.
    - wisnoskij 3y ago
      If NY is like some Toronto, I imagine traffic is so bad that vehicle chases dont really happen anywhere near the center/important parts of the city, which is why they are focusing on hand held devices.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint We don’t do those in America - you might catch someone actually important!
    - majormajor 3y ago
      You aren't going to the right party neighborhoods ;)
    - autoexec 3y ago
      I've seen them in the US (rarely). I think they just mostly just bury any record of it when someone important enough gets caught. More common are the checkpoints near the boarder where they stop people "just because"
- tivert 3y ago
  > There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well... Like what? This technique seems like it would be one of the least troubling, from a privacy perspective, since a tracking device that was shot at the exterior of your car will be one of the easiest to find and remove later. I'd be much more worried about tracking devices hidden under the car or in a wheel well.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I agree that this is better than the police breaking into people's property and installing GPS without the owner being aware of it. I imagine a lot of problems with this new tech will be on the backend, with GPS or the software passing that data on to officers giving incorrect or imprecise location data leading to innocent people being harassed or killed. "Shoot at it" seems to be the default response to everything for police in the US, and I could see this causing innocent people, innocent people's vehicles, or other property being hurt or damaged by poorly aimed or entirely unnecessary shots.
- nomy99 3y ago
  Just last week it was reported that police showed up at the wrong house for a domestic violence incident and killed the (armed) homeowner. So I can see a lot of accidental takedowns with this tech. Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-wrong-house-fatal-shooting-homeowner-new-mexico-rcna79848 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-wron...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well Under Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Antoine Jones (2012) [0], attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a search, and requires a warrant. A fancy delivery system doesn’t seem to change the Constitutional parameters. [0] https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10%2D1259)%2C%20a%20case,order%20to%20monitor%20its%20movements https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10%2D....
  - anfilt 3y ago
    Police generally need a warrant to enter someones house too for the same reasons. However, if they chasing someone or there imminent danger they can enter someones house not search it, but it is only to deal with chasing the person or preventing the imminent threat. The only reason I see police deploying this would be to avoid a high speed chase. Where that ends up constitutionally I don't know not a judge or lawyer, but it is one of those imminent danger/pursuit situations the courts have carved for other circumstances. Now I will say if the police follow someone they are chasing into an other persons house and in that house see drugs. Under most circumstances that could not be used as evidence against the person that lived in the house since they did not have a warrant to search for drugs in the house. Their only legal reason to be there was to catch someone, so anything unrelated to that narrow purpose generally can't be used in court.
  - runnerup 3y ago
    It could change them due to “hot pursuit”. You generally don’t need a warrant when you’re in hot pursuit.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      You don’t need a warrant to enter a home or similar property to effect an arrest when you are in hot pursuit of a subject who you have probable cause (in a situation not requiring a warrant) to arrest because, in that context, the entry is not a search. I don’t see how that helps here, because the whole point of putting a GPS tracker on a car is to allow abandoning hot pursuit in favor of (what has been determined to be) a search.
potmat 3y ago
It might work if you can get one officer ahead of the vehicle, waiting for when it goes by, and shoot as it's coming toward you or passing close by. This should be pretty easy if the suspect is driving down, say, an interstate. Call ahead and have someone waiting for him to pass by. Edit: By "easy" I mean easy to call ahead, not necessarily to hit with the tracker.
slowhand09 3y ago
Look for a coyote and a roadrunner nearby.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  All of the tools the coyote used tended to... explode...
Vecr 3y ago
Sounds like the PIAT in A Bridge Too Far. It clearly needs to go faster.

mschuster91 3y ago

> Good luck hitting a moving vehicle with that. It's not like police already doesn't care about accuracy when shooting at vehicles.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roarcher 3y ago
The only thing this seems likely to hit is the ground.

redeux 3y ago

I think you’re probably right about them not actually using this but the implications of the capability are more interesting. There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well, but it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits.

roarcher 3y ago
> it also has the potential to reduce the number of dangerous pursuits. I agree that it does in concept, I just can't see them reliably tagging vehicles with a launcher as anemic as this one. The speed and range of the projectile is significantly less than an average healthy adult could achieve by throwing it. The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint. An officer could be standing next to the vehicle with the launcher, ready to fire as soon as it starts to move. Even then they'd better be quick about it.
- tokai 3y ago
  The should get a launcher in the hood of a squad car instead. In pursuit they can tag following and then peal off.
  - Brybry 3y ago
    For anyone not aware, this does actually exist. If you look on youtube there are a few examples of police using vehicle-mounted launchers in real chases. [1][2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJTYQx5qMlc [Florida State Police/Highway Patrol] [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2H9A8kV-zA [Austin Police]
    - roarcher 3y ago
      Interesting, the devices in both those videos are made by the same company that makes the handheld launcher from the article.
  - wisnoskij 3y ago
    If NY is like some Toronto, I imagine traffic is so bad that vehicle chases dont really happen anywhere near the center/important parts of the city, which is why they are focusing on hand held devices.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  The only situation I can think of where it would maybe work is at a DUI checkpoint We don’t do those in America - you might catch someone actually important!
  - majormajor 3y ago
    You aren't going to the right party neighborhoods ;)
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I've seen them in the US (rarely). I think they just mostly just bury any record of it when someone important enough gets caught. More common are the checkpoints near the boarder where they stop people "just because"
tivert 3y ago
> There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well... Like what? This technique seems like it would be one of the least troubling, from a privacy perspective, since a tracking device that was shot at the exterior of your car will be one of the easiest to find and remove later. I'd be much more worried about tracking devices hidden under the car or in a wheel well.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I agree that this is better than the police breaking into people's property and installing GPS without the owner being aware of it. I imagine a lot of problems with this new tech will be on the backend, with GPS or the software passing that data on to officers giving incorrect or imprecise location data leading to innocent people being harassed or killed. "Shoot at it" seems to be the default response to everything for police in the US, and I could see this causing innocent people, innocent people's vehicles, or other property being hurt or damaged by poorly aimed or entirely unnecessary shots.
nomy99 3y ago
Just last week it was reported that police showed up at the wrong house for a domestic violence incident and killed the (armed) homeowner. So I can see a lot of accidental takedowns with this tech. Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-wrong-house-fatal-shooting-homeowner-new-mexico-rcna79848 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-wron...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> There are potential privacy issues that could be troubling if not managed well Under Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Antoine Jones (2012) [0], attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a search, and requires a warrant. A fancy delivery system doesn’t seem to change the Constitutional parameters. [0] https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10%2D1259)%2C%20a%20case,order%20to%20monitor%20its%20movements https://www.gps.gov/news/2012/01/supremecourt/#:~:text=10%2D....
- anfilt 3y ago
  Police generally need a warrant to enter someones house too for the same reasons. However, if they chasing someone or there imminent danger they can enter someones house not search it, but it is only to deal with chasing the person or preventing the imminent threat. The only reason I see police deploying this would be to avoid a high speed chase. Where that ends up constitutionally I don't know not a judge or lawyer, but it is one of those imminent danger/pursuit situations the courts have carved for other circumstances. Now I will say if the police follow someone they are chasing into an other persons house and in that house see drugs. Under most circumstances that could not be used as evidence against the person that lived in the house since they did not have a warrant to search for drugs in the house. Their only legal reason to be there was to catch someone, so anything unrelated to that narrow purpose generally can't be used in court.
- runnerup 3y ago
  It could change them due to “hot pursuit”. You generally don’t need a warrant when you’re in hot pursuit.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    You don’t need a warrant to enter a home or similar property to effect an arrest when you are in hot pursuit of a subject who you have probable cause (in a situation not requiring a warrant) to arrest because, in that context, the entry is not a search. I don’t see how that helps here, because the whole point of putting a GPS tracker on a car is to allow abandoning hot pursuit in favor of (what has been determined to be) a search.

potmat 3y ago

It might work if you can get one officer ahead of the vehicle, waiting for when it goes by, and shoot as it's coming toward you or passing close by. This should be pretty easy if the suspect is driving down, say, an interstate. Call ahead and have someone waiting for him to pass by. Edit: By "easy" I mean easy to call ahead, not necessarily to hit with the tracker.

slowhand09 3y ago

Look for a coyote and a roadrunner nearby.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
All of the tools the coyote used tended to... explode...

Vecr 3y ago

Sounds like the PIAT in A Bridge Too Far. It clearly needs to go faster.