This truly scares me… Tick tock...

Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
9,073
Likes
8,945
Location
Breathing free in Tennessee!
Feedback: 115 / 0 / 0
NYPD can knock down PLANES???

WTF???

<snip>

" 'The New York Police Department could take down a plane if necessary', Commissioner Ray Kelly said Sunday, describing the counter-terror measures he implemented after the Sept. 11 attacks."

Entire article here
 
No no, its ok. They would never ever abuse that, or any other capabilities or powers they have. They're from the government, and they're here to help. Trust them. They're the only ones purfeshinnuul enuf anyway.
 
NYPD really need to consider acquiring a nuclear deterrent as well. I mean, what is more effective against a nuclear attack threat than the ability to respond with global reach?

[thinking]
 
I wonder if the NYPD also has their own radar system so they can monitor air traffic and find the planes to shoot down.
 
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?

Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.

There are people on this Forum who legally own weapons systems capable of taking out aircraft, so what's the big deal if the NYPD has a few shoulder propelled SAMs? We gave 'em away to the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) by the crate load.

I don't know what I am missing here, as NYC is one of two US Cities that have actually been under air attack.

It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.
 
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?

Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.
You raise a good point, but at least in my sarcastic response this was already considered and weighed against the demonstrated incompetence, corruption and abuse of power in that particular police force in the past. [thinking]
 
Oh, my issue isn't that they can do it, or that we know about it, or that it is something that may one day need to be done. My issue is that it seems that there are more and more powerful weapons in the hands of more and more people whose motives may be questionable. I don't really think having SA 7's in the hands of street cops is an unrealistic progression, nor an especially good idea. Nor for that matter do I really thinks Sherrif's (Arpaio ring a bell) should necessarily have TANKS either.
 
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?

Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.

There are people on this Forum who legally own weapons systems capable of taking out aircraft, so what's the big deal if the NYPD has a few shoulder propelled SAMs? We gave 'em away to the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) by the crate load.

I don't know what I am missing here, as NYC is one of two US Cities that have actually been under air attack.

It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.

The difference I do not have unfettered access to buys guns, let alone APCs or ground to air missiles. If I could buy them I'd have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is I'm already out gunned and we're just getting further in the hole.

Also, I can't [STRIKE]steal money from other[/STRIKE] tax people to pay for my own defense. I first have to fund the police, then jump through red tape hoops to purchase inferior firepower to defend myself from the people I just armed.
 
Last edited:
Oh, my issue isn't that they can do it, or that we know about it, or that it is something that may one day need to be done. My issue is that it seems that there are more and more powerful weapons in the hands of more and more people whose motives may be questionable. I don't really think having SA 7's in the hands of street cops is an unrealistic progression, nor an especially good idea. Nor for that matter do I really thinks Sherrif's (Arpaio ring a bell) should necessarily have TANKS either.

Okay...so you would restrict weapons for the police, and not the citizenry? It would appear that you are advocating some type of gun control?

For the record, I deplore the militarization of the police, but there is a dynamic to this whole situation that needs to be at least investigated. This is, should state and local entities rely on the Federal Government to provide protection? For the hardcore libertarians out there, the answer is probably that the armed forces are one of the few legitimate organs of government, backed by a citizen militia. We have long pushed the line that state and local law enforcement is getting in bed more and more with the Feds to create a de facto national police force (I have articulated this point many times on this Forum)...but let's look at it from another perspective: Does Sheriff Joe need tanks? (probably not) Does the NYPD need an anti-aircraft capability? NYC was attacked by the air...the Federal Govt knew that something was going down, but were they able to respond in time? The answer of course is no. Historically, then the Feds have proven themselves incapable of providing NYC with a AA capability, the traditional state military force: The New York Air National Guard was incapable as well. Who does that leave, and who according to law has the duty to collectively protect society against threats? Well in NYC it is the NYPD.

Now if the Rapid City, SD PD wanted to purchase a bunch of Stingers to protect against aerial threats, I'd balk...there is no precedence for having those weapon systems and no historical precedence. Back in the Cold War Rapid City was a high payoff target, but of limited value to Al Qadea.

So in effect, what I am gathering is that the NYPD's motives are questionable which would put you in the anti-cop crowd and your objection is therefore more ideological than pragmatic. Would you deny any person, or group the right to defend itself against real threats? To me that is the essence of the question. If an armored division of the Mexican Army headed north and was attacking Phoenix maybe Sheriff Joe would be justified in having tanks, but that is an unlikely scenario, and although the Mexican Army or members of it may actually be conducting operations in southern Arizona, with or without the approval of the Mexican Government and in conjunction with or not in conjunction with drug cartels is immaterial and moot. Tanks and other armored vehicles would not be an appropriate response by either Federal, local or state law enforcement to that type of threat.

Any organization (or individual) who has a perceived threat should have the weapons systems at hand to counter that threat.
 
Last edited:
If I recall they used 4lbs of C4 and dropped it from a helicopter onto a building. Ones would ask how a city police department got a hold of 4lbs of C4 on short notice....

Who said it was short notice? They'd been wanting to "clean them out" for a long time, and made no secret about it. Wasn't just C4 they dropped either, there was an incendiary component as well.
 
If I recall they used 4lbs of C4 and dropped it from a helicopter onto a building. Ones would ask how a city police department got a hold of 4lbs of C4 on short notice....

They are always finding some and taking it out of evidence lockers....in the movies.
 
Assuming the NYPD is competent to use these anti-aircraft weapons, I'm sure it will make New Yorkers safer from another air attack, compared with not having the weapons. But wouldn't a rational terrorist increase his probability of success by choosing some other large city where the local PD doesn't have these defenses? It seems to me that the NYPD's capabilities won't prevent an attack, but just shift the location.


It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.

The government is not the people. There's no gun rights issue here.
 
NYPD can knock down PLANES???

WTF???

<snip>

" 'The New York Police Department could take down a plane if necessary', Commissioner Ray Kelly said Sunday, describing the counter-terror measures he implemented after the Sept. 11 attacks."

Entire article here

They probably just have some of those .50 cal sniper rifles that can shoot down planes.
 
Okay...so you would restrict weapons for the police, and not the citizenry? It would appear that you are advocating some type of gun control?

For the record, I deplore the militarization of the police, but there is a dynamic to this whole situation that needs to be at least investigated. This is, should state and local entities rely on the Federal Government to provide protection? For the hardcore libertarians out there, the answer is probably that the armed forces are one of the few legitimate organs of government, backed by a citizen militia. We have long pushed the line that state and local law enforcement is getting in bed more and more with the Feds to create a de facto national police force (I have articulated this point many times on this Forum)...but let's look at it from another perspective: Does Sheriff Joe need tanks? (probably not) Does the NYPD need an anti-aircraft capability? NYC was attacked by the air...the Federal Govt knew that something was going down, but were they able to respond in time? The answer of course is no. Historically, then the Feds have proven themselves incapable of providing NYC with a AA capability, the traditional state military force: The New York Air National Guard was incapable as well. Who does that leave, and who according to law has the duty to collectively protect society against threats? Well in NYC it is the NYPD.

Now if the Rapid City, SD PD wanted to purchase a bunch of Stingers to protect against aerial threats, I'd balk...there is no precedence for having those weapon systems and no historical precedence.

So in effect, what I am gathering is that the NYPD's motives are questionable which would put you in the anti-cop crowd and your objection is therefore more ideological than pragmatic. Would you deny any person, or group the right to defend itself against real threats? To me that is the essence of the question. If an armored division of the Mexican Army headed north and was attacking Phoenix maybe Sheriff Joe would be justified in having tanks, but that is an unlikely scenario, and although the Mexican Army or members of it may actually be conducting operations in southern Arizona, with or with the approval of the Mexican Government and in conjunction with or not in conjunction with drug cartels is immaterial and moot. Tanks and other armored vehicles would not be an appropriate response by either Federal, local or state law enforcement to that type of threat.

Any organization (or individual) who has a perceived threat should have the weapons systems at hand to counter that threat.

I'd say the real problem here is that the fed gov't does suck so bad at protecting us from things they should be good at, i.e. shooting planes down. If this move had something to do with eliminating homeland security and the FAA in exchange for a local controlled protection I'd have no problem with it. The problem is we now have both, which means we're paying for both.

Also who gets to give the order? The mayor doesn't have FAA access and is federally prohibited from interfering with flight communication/logistics so how does he know what planes to shoot down? Where does one mount such a system where it would have complete coverage? How can you say the missiles wouldn't hit a building and cause more loss of life, rather than preventing it?

Lets face it, in a city the only way you know a plane is a threat is that it's already hit a building. There is no way for them to know what planes are threats, which makes this whole situation a retarded waste of time and money.
 
Last edited:
Lets face it, in a city the only way you know a plane is a threat is that it's already hit a building. There is no way for them to know what planes are threats.

Yep

Unless they can get to the plane while its still far out over the water, shooting down a plane that plans to crash there anyways is probably not the best solution. But the .gov isn't known for well thought out plans
 
I agree the communication and response time of the Fed certainly lends itself to a state making their own preparations but did anyone read this part of the article:
"The commissioner also told "60 Minutes" that the NYPD has intelligence officers stationed in cities around the world, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Montreal, Toronto, Singapore and Paris. "

Seems a little overkill for a state to be doing this. Do they now have the "New York Intelligence Agency"? Were the NY taxpayers informed that their higher state tax dollars were being spent for overseas intelligence gathering that they already pay Federal taxes for?
 
Why not just let me carry my gun?

I'm going to bolster this statement with words out of the Comissioner's own mouth.
"We couldn't rely on the federal government alone. I believed that we had to create our own counter-terrorism capacity, indeed our own counter-terrorism division. And, that plan was put into effect fairly rapidly," he added.

So, as a police force, you can't depend on your own .gov. Well, ain't that something? As a civilian population, "We can't rely on the local or federal gov't, alone. I believe that we will create our own couter-terrorism capacity, indeed our own CT home-division. And we will put that plan into effect farily rapidly"

Don't complain Chief, just using your own words, here.
 
I agree the communication and response time of the Fed certainly lends itself to a state making their own preparations but did anyone read this part of the article:
"The commissioner also told "60 Minutes" that the NYPD has intelligence officers stationed in cities around the world, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Montreal, Toronto, Singapore and Paris. "

Seems a little overkill for a state to be doing this. Do they now have the "New York Intelligence Agency"? Were the NY taxpayers informed that their higher state tax dollars were being spent for overseas intelligence gathering that they already pay Federal taxes for?
NYPD has long had such operations going - before 9/11...
 
Mark,

GUN control, no. Military-grade weapons, over and above what they already have, like full auto, APC's, that kinda stuff. Yeah, I have a problem with that. That's what is leading down the road to the "Militarization of the PD" we all dislike so much, and the first stirrings of a "National Police Force".

One day, maybe the NYC Police Commissioner, or a Chief, or even a Lieutenant or Patrol Sergeant has one of these SA 7's in his car, doesn't like the way a helicopter is hovering or flying, feels they have a "Terroristic Appearance" and lets fly. Oops, turns out it was a Medevac chopper, or news chopper, or Donald Trump for all it matters. Like it or not, the military has better training, and (I think) a higher level of competence with that kind of weapon.

Oh, and how do you, I, or ANYONE know that the next attack WON'T be on say the new FB stadium in Dallas, or Phoenix, or "Mall of America"? Anybody remember the book "Black Sunday" Late 60's, early 70's, terrorists hijack a blimp and almost blow it up over the Super Bowl… So why SHOULDN'T Rapid City have the same protection you think NYC and Washington deserve?

Personally, I doubt the next attack will be a civilian aircraft crashing into a building. I'm not psychic, so I have no idea what it will be, but there are HUNDREDS of softer types of targets than planes…

Anyway, I'm going to bed, it's past my bedtime and my contacts feel like corn flakes… Smarter heads than mine can thrash this out:)
 
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?

Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.

There are people on this Forum who legally own weapons systems capable of taking out aircraft, so what's the big deal if the NYPD has a few shoulder propelled SAMs? We gave 'em away to the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) by the crate load.

I don't know what I am missing here, as NYC is one of two US Cities that have actually been under air attack.

It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.

With this guy's grin, would you trust him with a tank?
6a00c2251dbe888fdb00fad68f08630005.jpg


/sarcasm
 
I agree the communication and response time of the Fed certainly lends itself to a state making their own preparations but did anyone read this part of the article:
"The commissioner also told "60 Minutes" that the NYPD has intelligence officers stationed in cities around the world, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Montreal, Toronto, Singapore and Paris. "

Seems a little overkill for a state to be doing this. Do they now have the "New York Intelligence Agency"? Were the NY taxpayers informed that their higher state tax dollars were being spent for overseas intelligence gathering that they already pay Federal taxes for?

Well based on what comes out of the NYPD intelligence-wise, my only comment is that frequently they do it better than the national agencies for a lot less money. NYC is an international city which in other times and places could have been a city-state much like Athens or Venice.

I'm glad you have such a high confidence level in our National Intelligence Community...I do not share your optimism and my opinion is based on personal experience.
 
The difference I do not have unfettered access to buys guns, let alone APCs or ground to air missiles. If I could buy them I'd have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is I'm already out gunned and we're just getting further in the hole.

Also, I can't [STRIKE]steal money from other[/STRIKE] tax people to pay for my own defense. I first have to fund the police, then jump through red tape hoops to purchase inferior firepower to defend myself from the people I just armed.

This, if the Fed wants to limit what we can purchase we need to limit them
 
This, if the Fed wants to limit what we can purchase we need to limit them
Government is made up of people, if you don't want your crazy neighbor to have it, you should not allow government to have it.

To quote myself:
Government is far more dangerous than your crazy neighbor on the long timeline.
 
Back
Top Bottom