Defensive Carry banner

NYPD seeks way to let guns 'talk' to one another

2K views 29 replies 25 participants last post by  agentmel 
#1 ·
Deseret News | NYPD seeks way to let guns 'talk' to one another

NYPD seeks way to let guns 'talk' to one another

By Colleen Long

Associated Press

Published: Friday, June 5, 2009 3:28 p.m. MDT

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department is looking into adapting futuristic technology that would allow officers' guns to recognize one another in an effort to avoid the type of friendly fire that left a cop dead last week.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly asked his inner circle to compile a list of department initiatives that would help prevent confrontations between fellow officers. Omar J. Edwards, 25, was killed May 28 as he chased a burglary suspect. Edwards had just left work and was dressed in street clothes and had his service weapon drawn. Three plainclothes detectives came upon the scene. When Edwards turned after Officer Andrew Dunton yelled for him to stop, he was shot, according to the NYPD.

On Friday, Paul Browne, the deputy commissioner for public information at the NYPD, said the department is talking with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory about the possibility of tailoring technology for the department.

One idea involves the use of radio frequency tags that would allow officers to pinpoint where other cops are in the city, Browne said. Another involves tags that would work gun-to-gun and use an infrared sensor: When a weapon is pulled from an officer's holster it would trigger a signal that would be sent to the gun of a nearby officer. The signal may be seen or heard.

The research is preliminary. A spokesman for the federal lab said some of the ideas floated by the department, like the use of radio frequency tags, may not work.

"We are scheduled to talk with the department next week," said Pacific Northwest National Laboratory spokesman Geoff Harvey. "Up for discussion will be ideas, capabilities and their limitations. ... 'Why won't this work?' will likely be part of the talk."

The suggestions were among a list sent to city leaders. It also included suggestions on training, such as updating the training video for officers, conducting a firearms refresher course and offering training specific to undercover officers.

Also, the department suggested having anti-crime officers visit and introduce themselves to officers. Officer Andrew Dunton, who fired the shots that killed Edwards, was a member of the anti-crime unit along with the two other officers at the scene.

Edwards, who was posthumously promoted to detective, was buried Thursday. The investigation into the incident is continuing. Dunton has been placed on administrative duty.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
I agree that more junk = more breakage. Couldn't this also lead to confusion should a criminal snatch a cops gun? Would the system be such that you could "update" the guns in the event that one is stolen (highly unlikely).

Could the system be spoofed? Both RFID and IR can be spoofed (this is why credit cards with RFID are bad).

Or you could wrap your tinfoil hat around it and block the signals... :tinhat2:
 
#6 ·
Deseret News | NYPD seeks way to let guns 'talk' to one another
Published: Friday, June 5, 2009 3:28 p.m. MDT
NEW YORK — The New York Police Department is looking into adapting futuristic technology that would allow officers' guns to recognize one another in an effort to avoid the type of friendly fire that left a cop dead last week.
Yup. Just another thing to break. And it'd be experimental, so it'd be that much more likely to break. And there'd be idiots relying on it.

I wonder how long it would take before the BGs could get their hands on both transmitters and receivers?

When Edwards turned after Officer Andrew Dunton yelled for him to stop, he was shot, according to the NYPD.
I often daydreamed about standing outside the legislative building up in Juneau and yelling "Stop! Police!" and seeing how many legislators would "make an aggressive move" by turning to see what the noise was all about.

Or outside some court house with the lawyers and judges on the sidewalk.
 
#7 ·
Just another political answer for real life problem that doesn't exist.:hand1:
 
#8 ·
yep and some whiz kid hacker/criminal genius figures out away to emulate the signal and supplies the criminal/gang element with a transponder and the police officers won't fire or will hesitate but the BG's won't...end result Open Season on LEO's equipped with the system.

Gotta Love it :twak:
 
#10 ·
I guess it's because their cops can't stop shooting one another? :blink:
 
#11 ·
Since NYC is such a safe city, and cop on cop shootings are such a problem, replace the guns with truncheons like in London. Have a reserve unit of firearms officers for when they are needed.

(Only half serious)
 
#17 ·
I know you are only "half serious" here but it still bothers me. I worry about any, even half serious, notion that the average person can't be trusted with guns. It's just a matter of training. IMHO
 
#12 ·
It's moronic, but I would expect nothing less. :rolleyes:

If this comes to pass, I only have a couple of questions. First, what about non-NYPD LEO's? There sure are a lot of them in the big city. Second, what about personally owned weapons? Do they get retrofitted at department exspense if they are authorized to be carried off duty or as a BUG?

This folly in to "guns talking to each other" is dangerous, as I think any person with common sense would realize. It places too much emphasis on technology and not enough on "Identify Your Target".

Biker
 
#13 ·
I would expect this kind of logic from New York,How about charging the officer that fired with manslaughter since I'm pretty sure the victim never pointed his weapon at them.It just poves if your holding a gun in New York and not in uniform the cops will shoot first and ask questions later
 
#14 ·
Sorry duk, but this is not a good idea either, IMHO.

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that both officers were in "plainclothes", one on duty and the other off. This is simply a case, although tragic, of mistaken identity. It is reasonable, at this point from the things I've read, to understand how this happened and you or I might have done the same thing in the same situation.

This is why I am such an advocate of not getting involved in stuff when I am off duty. My biggest two fears are shooting the wrong person and being shot off duty.

Biker
 
#15 ·
With the right know how, $10 and a trip to radio shack would make one effectively bullet proof in NYC if this were implemented.

Or one could also take advantage of the poor trigger discipline that such technology would probably create and make every signal a police officer is carrying become a potential kill order.
 
#16 ·
When will they learn that things like this are a matter of people and no new laws or devices can address this matter. If they want to spend money, spend it on proper training. And ultimately remember that to "Err Is Human" and this must be accepted. This is a terrible thing that happened. But it's prevention is in the hands of people, and no where else.
 
#18 ·
Actually in NYC average citizens are not trusted with guns except at home or as a business owner, only politicians and celebrities get carry permits, and there are very few murders there. So the argument can be made that NYC cops don't need guns.

I'm not making that argument, but someone else could certainly run with it.
 
#19 ·
IDK,

Maybe it is an idea worth looking into. You can always point out all the pitfalls of an idea, but you never know what could come from it. IMO, it is not the idea that is bad (or good) but what anti-gun might do with it. As long as it is not eating up millions in a budget, being applied to non-LEO firearms, a few out of the box ideas are fine.
 
#20 ·
I just tend to agree with others when they say that although tragic, it's a good example of poor muzzle discipline. Also, it shows how (again as someone mentioned) plain-clothed people with guns tend to be shot first, without a thought before-hand of who they are.
I wonder if when the first initial call went out, if there was a description of what the BG looked like and what he might've been wearing. Did the responding officers not pay attention to that little tid-bit of information if it was there??
 
#21 ·
the only solution to incidents like this is training and planning. train officers properly before you send them out. plan for the eventuality that the officers might encounter someone lawfuly armed thats not in the same uniform as them and train them for it repeatedly. otherwise thing like this will keep happening.
 
#22 ·
There are gun control laws in NYC so how could he be a criminal if he had a gun geeeeeezzzzzz

Seriously though, a undercover cop with RFID allows the criminals to see his RFID and you have 1 less undercover cop on duty. Yes most of their ideas would identify them to other cops but it would also identify them to criminals too. No technology can beat training. On a side note I saw an article somewhere whre a congressman wanted legislation for Biometric Sensors on all guns (swipe you fingerprint to shoot) these guys watch way too many movies.

One idea involves the use of radio frequency tags that would allow officers to pinpoint where other cops are in the city, Browne said. Another involves tags that would work gun-to-gun and use an infrared sensor: When a weapon is pulled from an officer's holster it would trigger a signal that would be sent to the gun of a nearby officer. The signal may be seen or heard.
 
#23 ·
Sounds like a bad idea to me, and that proper training is what is really needed. I'm not a fan of having an electronic control on my weapon, as it just adds one more thing that could fail when I need it.

I do know a way to make talking guns though, but that employs multiple belt fed fully automatic weapons, and I don't think its what they meant
 
#24 · (Edited)
If RFIDs or other technology is to be used, better for it to be attached to the officers, not the guns. (I am meaning something worn/carried, not implanted.) Perhaps, it could be something that the officer activates when he wants, and keeps shut off, when he wants. Having said that, I am against the idea, as it might create a climate of NYCPD officers shooting anyone who is not emitting the right signal. What about LEOs and other agents with overlapping jurisdiction or powers of arrest? What about out-of-state officers carrying under the provisions of the LEOSA? What about citizens who are legally armed? What about NYC police whose gadget's battery just died?

I work for a very large PD, in a major metropolitan area which includes several large and numerous small agencies with overlapping jurisdiction, with the regional offices of several federal agencies with armed special agents, plus Texas peace officers from all over the state coming here to conduct business or live some part of their lives. Then, there are LEOs and agents coming here from all over creation for extraditions and such, plus here for personal reasons and carrying under the provisions of LEOSA. There will be commissioned security guards, and personal protection officers. Then, there are armed citizens, from within Texas and from states with permits that Texas recognizes, and Texas allows private citizens to make arrests under a BROAD range of circumstances covered by the words "felony, breach of the peace, and to prevent the consequences of theft." That is LOTS of folks with guns, who may have a legally justifiable reason to deploy a firearm. I would imagine NYC to have a wider variety of categories of armed people, though fewer armed private citizens.
 
#25 ·
Blue Force Tracking, as the military calls it, greatly helped reduce the incidence of friendly-fire casualties from the first Gulf War to the second. The idea, at least, is a pretty good one to apply to Law Enforcement, I think.

The two main problems that come to mind, though, are staggering. First, if it is tied to the gun, then it makes LEO guns even more of a target to the bad guys---they will all want a "Don't Shoot Me" gun.

Second is that, if it can be used by LEOs to identify other LEOs, then the detection technology will almost assuredly make its way to the bad guys. Now the bad guys can avoid cops more easily, or target cops more easily.

So, I think it is a great concept, but I don't think we are anywhere near the technology necessary to do it in a way that provides any measurable improvement over the sort of doctrine and training improvements that can be made now or for the foreseeable future.
 
#26 ·
If I remember correctly from the previous thread the off duty cop turned around to face the on duty cop with gun in hand. That sounds like a training/common sense problem. I doubt any cop worth his salt would trust an electronic device telling him not to shoot, much less consult said device, in a situation like that. Here's an article about Blue Force Tracking. It's for vehicles, not individuals, has a 10 min refresh rate, and cost $1600/unit - don't think that would do much good in situations like this; even if a dept could afford it.
 
#28 ·
If I remember correctly from the previous thread the off duty cop turned around to face the on duty cop with gun in hand. That sounds like a training/common sense problem.
This action is a very, very natural response to a sudden stimulus. It is VERY difficult to train natural responses out of someone, especially someone who has been trained to move the whole upper body while handling a weapon. Keep in mind, too, that in addition to tunnel vision, auditory exclusion is at play here. When focused on a threat, extraneous sounds are simply not heard. Even if the officer who was shot did hear someone yelling "police" in a loud voice, he may well have thought it was a colleague there to help him pursue the bad guy. Keep in mind this happened RIGHT OUTSIDE A POLICE STATION.

I am putting MUCH of the responsibility for this tragedy on the officer who pulled the trigger. (Not pre-judging or MMQB'ing; hear me out.) I think he tunneled in, visually, on his brother officer, and acted, perhaps, too quickly for the circumstances. Just as a plainclothes LEO or citizen must be very careful when chasing a known bad guy, a plainclothes officer must consider, before acting, that an unfamiliar someone running with a gun may have an entirely justifiable reason to be doing so, and may be a brother officer, especially when RIGHT OUTSIDE A POLICE STATION! Moreover, the on-duty plainclothes officer MUST consider that he does NOT look like the police, and should NOT expect the same level of compliance that a uniformed officer would likely receive.

BOTH officers were, in effect, doing the same thing the night of the tragedy; trying to detain what they saw as suspects in crimes. The difference is that the first officer was pursuing someone he KNEW had committed a crime, whereas the second officer was challenging someone the THOUGHT had committed a crime. NYCPD and the NY legal system will, of course, have the final say.

FWIW, I have worn a big-city PD badge for 25+ years. I have worked temporary plainclothes details, mostly during a period from '85 to '89, when Texas had no legal CCW system in place, so anyone running around with a handgun was "probably" a bad guy, even more so than in today's NYC. I have "on-viewed" plainclothes armed officers and agents, both on and off the clock, pursuing or detaining suspects. Those of us who challenge armed persons MUST be EFFING careful not to make a tragic mistake! Yes, the plainclothes officer generally DOES have the responsibility to obey the commands of on-duty officers responding to the scene, but if the responding officers are themselves in plainclothes, it really complicates things.

Now, whether the actions of the on-duty plainclothes officer rise to the level of negligence or recklessness, sufficient for a manslaughter type of charge, or it was simply a "perfect storm" chain of events with an unfortunate outcome, is for the legal system to determine.

One thing I do wonder about is whether the on-duty officer had a radio. If so, why could he not have called for the uniformed cavalry, and just kept the "suspect" in sight? I know that if I am able to get the cavalry there quickly, and am not in a uniform, I WILL let them make the actual takedown. Acting alone to make the arrest looks good on TV, but may not be the best practice in reality.
 
#27 ·
Another problem with guns that talk to each other is that, tragic as it may sound, an officer may just have to shoot another member of his agency. Agencies have been infiltrated by spies and moles for hundreds of years, and many larger agencies, and some smaller ones, have had to arrest their own for various things, especially drug offenses, including dealing and transporting while on the clock. How do we know the next major terrorist incident may not include a turncoat LEO, whether a religious convert to radical Islam, or a right-wing nut?
 
#29 ·
It sounds like a variation on the "soldier as sensor" project that is part of the Army's Future Combat Systems project going on as we speak. So far, participants from the Army and USMC have been fairly positive on the value of understanding where all of the other blue forces are and their status
 
#30 ·
Wait! Wait! I got it! Let's make it illegal for cops to carry guns! That way they can't shoot each other (or innocent bystanders) anymore.

Seriously though, why don't these officers WEAR THEIR UNIFORMS?!?!?!?!?! Seems to me that if you don't want to be mistaken for a bad guy, quit looking like (or even pretending to be) one (undercover).

Mel
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top