Fritter-Tuesday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YTCD

What you learned with fritter has no benifit to the community or you that we already didn't know or plain and simple actually be useful.

---

So we all knew that the LI, set up as Loloish's, was that vulnerable, given the engagement circumstances?

I'd say that just this one eye-popper was enough to "redeem" the entire event.

But honestly, I don't see any redemption as being necessary.

To me, the information is already out there.

Any enforcer with half a brain and enough dedication to try some things out - and who'd care enough to spend just a few hours on this website - will learn more than enough to put a hurt on all of us.

The Game is *always* evolving.

You can't hope to stalemate the other side simply by denying them information. That information is already out there - and what's not out there will leak soon enough.

The ONLY way forward is via proper education, and a part of that will come from a free exchange with the other side.

None of this stuff is top-secret, in the true sense of those words.

To think that holding out on just one enforcer will somehow make it so that the other side knows less - that's just too much hopeful thinking for me.

I'd rather learn, and in doing so, become a more educated, more aware, more alert - and ultimately, safer - driver.

Exactly. DJ, for all your wind-bagging on this topic, you still FAIL to name one thing that Fritter learned from us that he either didn't already know, or could not have learned from this forum. What exactly do you think we could have educated him about -- even if we wanted to -- that he would not have already known from this forum? Name one thing. You can't do it. He was busy shooting lidar all day long. He wasn't taking guided tours through our installations. I don't know wtf you think we educated him about, but it's a silly assumption to make, that you are just so much smarter than everyone else here, and that we need you to rescue us from our own naiveté.

Again, he learned nothing about our countermeasures that he did not already know, which is that they are out there, and that they usually don't work. I don't see the problem in that.

Azone and Allen get it. And if you weren't so myopic about this whole matter, you would too. The knowledge taken from that meet was beneficial to all who attended. And if you were smart, and actually looked at it, it would benefit you too. If you don't, that's your loss. But your FAIL is not our problem to fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

:popcorn:

(My God they're eating each other)

F

---

See another reason not to hang with LEO's, it turn us into canibals!!!:hairfire:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Exactly. DJ, for all your wind-bagging on this topic, you still FAIL to name one thing that Fritter learned from us that he either didn't already know, or could not have learned from this forum. What exactly do you think we could have educated him about -- even if we wanted to -- that he would not have already known from this forum? Name one thing. You can't do it. He was busy shooting lidar all day long. He wasn't taking guided tours through our installations. I don't know wtf you think we educated him about, but it's a silly assumption to make, that you are just so much smarter than everyone else here, and that we need you to rescue us from our own naiveté.

Again, he learned nothing about our countermeasures that he did not already know, which is that they are out there, and that they usually don't work. I don't see the problem in that.

---

I didn't assume anything. He learned more what to look for, just like he said. It was actually Fritter's comment that got me fired up about this whole thing. You guys will at some point cost some other laser jammer owner(s) his shot at a break, because as Fritter said himself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

It's all up to the descretion of the officer that initiated a stop. As I've said before however, if I pull you over for speeding and I see "counter measures" then that is an automatic cite.

And now I know more about what to look for after meeting up with some of you guys, Thanks...:D

F

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Azone and Allen get it. And if you weren't so myopic about this whole matter, you would too. The knowledge taken from that meet was beneficial to all who attended. And if you were smart, and actually looked at it, it would benefit you too. If you don't, that's your loss. But your FAIL is not our problem to fix.

---

I think that Allen is wrong and obviously, so do alot of people that agree with me in this thread. Fritter, like almost every LEO that we hear of, think the stuff we use is worthless. They are taught this by the manufacturer of their products. They share stories about drivers they caught with this or that. Fritter didn't come here to learn anything. He came here to mock us and his complete lack of knowledge at that point was exactly on par with most LEOs. This guy has now been educated, BY US!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

Issued a citation to a motorist with an escort mounted on his dash.


I used a LASER.

I have never been defeated by a detector/jammer

F

---

I understand both sides of this I personly don't want any LEO knowing how my stuff works, but I would love to know exactly how they use theirs. I just hate that we get that information at the expense of giving up some of ours. But we are all guilty of posting here how we mount it, how we use it, how effective it is. But at least they have to do their home work in order to find it here. I'm betting not that many do.

I doubt that Fritter or any other LEO is going to look to hard for jamers, I don't know of anyone that does not use a RD with a jammer. They will see that first and if having countermeasures is the deciding factor in giving the ticket or not, you already failed with having the RD.

Oh and Dj, that cat is giving me epileptic fits dude!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

I understand both sides of this I personly don't want any LEO knowing how my stuff works, but I would love to know exactly how they use theirs. I just hate that we get that information at the expense of giving up some of ours. But we are all guilty of posting here how we mount it, how we use it, how effective it is. But at least they have to do their home work in order to find it here. I'm betting not that many do.

---

I think this is the key point here. Make them work for their info, as opposed to giving it to them. Most LEOs are not into research, or they would have furthered their education to land a higher paying career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

I doubt that Fritter or any other LEO is going to look to hard for jamers, I don't know of anyone that does not use a RD with a jammer. They will see that first and if having countermeasures is the deciding factor in giving the ticket or not, you already failed with having the RD.

---

I am positive that the last time I got a ticket, the LEO that pulled me over did a countermeasure scan of my car, because I had jammed on the brakes the moment I was tagged. Since the SRX is stealthy, she found nothing, but she looked. I'm sure the officer would have brought up the fact that I had a RD in court if I had not had such a stealthy setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Oh and Dj, that cat is giving me epileptic fits dude!!

---

I stole that from a guy on the UCLA Bruin board, because it cracked me up every time he posted. :D Sorry if it is causing you psychological type problems. :D

Sure, Fritter may now have a better idea of what to look for, but on the other hand he does seem to be a very fair and good dude. He even tells us how fast over the PSL you have to be going before he will cite. And his speeding tolerance is very reasonable in my opinion, unlike officers in some states and jusrisdictions who will cite for just a couple of mph over the PSL. Pretty much any cop upon spotting a radar detector or other types of countermeasures is going to cite because they have been erroneously taught that radar detectors have only one purpose -- to break the law. Yet I can think of seven other good reasons why drivers should use radar detectors, and I've got them listed now on my web site at mem-tek.com.

More than anything, Fritter is a gadget fanatic like the rest of us. He had a blast seeing some of our countermeasures and also seeing how well or not so well that they worked. Regardless, Fritter proved that he is extremely talented and accurate with a laser gun -- far more so than the average cop it seems. So, Fritter walked away with some additional knowledge about our countermeasures. Yet the forum members at the event also walked away realizing that their countermeasures setups needed some improvement or tweaking.

On an interesting note while at SML one of the officers wanted to know which radar detector models I recommended because, after seeing how well they were performing, he had made up his mind to get one himself. And one of the other officers had an X50 was malfunctioning and asked me what the problem might be. So, surprisingly, a lot of cops use radar detectors in their personal vehicles since they can be cited just like the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEM-TEK

So, surprisingly, a lot of cops use radar detectors in their personal vehicles since they can be cited just like the rest of us.

---

Right, everyone knows that could happen but it never or rarely does. Being in the brotherhood is the best excuse you can have when stopped for speeding.

Now for a family member I might buy it but they tend to get off to with some name dropping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I stole that from a guy on the UCLA Bruin board, because it cracked me up every time he posted. :D Sorry if it is causing you psychological type problems. :D

---

Could you give it back? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Could you give it back? :D

---

Sorry. I've needed a happy cat around here to counteract the total depression of my cat, Sandy, who has been confined to the house due to the torrential rain of the last 24 hours. :(

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9103/p1010001rm3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I think that Allen and Azonehits are wrong and obviously, so do alot of people that agree with me in this thread.

---

I don't know what you're talking about here DJ. I don't even know what Stealth Stalker was talking about when he stated that me and Allen got it.

Honestly, I didn't learn anything from this particular meet other than seeing some misuse and improper traffic enforcement. No offense to Fritter, my gut feeling is, he is not certified based on his statements, answers to questions and some videos provided. Fritter, I am entitled to my opinion and should not be taken personal. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azonehits

I don't know what you're talking about here DJ. I don't even know what Stealth Stalker was talking about when he stated that me and Allen got it.

Honestly, I didn't learn anything from this particular meet other than seeing some misuse and improper traffic enforcement. No offense to Fritter, my gut feeling is, he is not certified based on his statements, answers to questions and some videos provided. Fritter, I am entitled to my opinion and should not be taken personal. ;)

---

Sorry there bud! No offense intended. I was just going off what he said and didn't really check on it. My bad! :( Original post edited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Could you give it back? :D

---

ROFL! :lol: I like the cat! But it is a little freaky, lol. Looks more like a cheetah to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azonehits

I surely learned some from Fritter, citing motorist with just one speed reading. :lol: You'll never know what LEO's do until you watch them do it.

---

A... that's what I was referring to when I said that you "get it". You seemed to be suggesting that you understood the value of observing, learning, and knowing the tactics of LEOs, and how they may vary wildly in the real world, as opposed to the preconceived notions we have. And that really is my main point.

Dj... you've been on this forum for nearly 14 months now. You've seen multiple tests done with LEOs not only present, but invited to actively participate in the process, doing much more than just shooting a gun, like Fritter did. Yet, in all this time, you've never said a word about it. Never bothered to tell Jimbonzzz, or Happya$$, or Roy that they were idiots who were screwing everything up for everyone. Now all of a sudden, you've "always" been against this and you're outraged. (or were you for it before you were against it, like John Kerry?) Give me a break with your false outrage. Either you're lying about having always been against it, or your just too big a pussy to mouth off to anyone else about it except the Texas group. Which is it?

You're obviously not concerned enough about OPSEC to stop constantly posting the detailed map of your grille installation for every cop on the board to see. You are no less guilty than anyone else on this forum of educating LEOs. And I can guarantee you that Fritter learned a lot more from your photos posted here than he could ever learn sitting on the side of the road and shooting lidar for us. He's jacking with your head with his comments, and you're too dumb to even realise it. Get a life, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Dj... you've been on this forum for nearly 14 months now. You've seen multiple tests done with LEOs not only present, but invited to actively participate in the process, doing much more than just shooting a gun, like Fritter did. Yet, in all this time, you've never said a word about it. Never bothered to tell Jimbonzzz, or Happya$$, or Roy that they were idiots who were screwing everything up for everyone. Now all of a sudden, you've "always" been against this and you're outraged. (or were you for it before you were against it, like John Kerry?) Give me a break with your false outrage. Either you're lying about having always been against it, or your just too big a pussy to mouth off to anyone else about it except the Texas group. Which is it?

---

Since you apparently are having trouble reading, I'll quote myself so you can read it again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I don't approve of anyone educating LEOs about our equipment. What part of that is hypocritical? What do you want me to do? Call Roy, Jim and Steve and yell at them? I didn't do that here. As always, your views are extreme and unreasonable.

Do I have to call out SML also? They used LEOs. I don't know any of them, but I guess I have to hammer them also. Wait a minute, MEM-TEK was part of that! If you are reading this Michael, you suck for being part of a testing event that used LEOs to shoot the guns. Is that good enough?

If you want to continue the distraction of attacking my credibility on this matter, have at it. The point still stands. What you guys did there is counterproductive to this community as a whole, for years to come. Me criticizing or not critcizing everyone else that has done the same thing does not change that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

You're obviously not concerned enough about OPSEC to stop constantly posting the detailed map of your grille installation for every cop on the board to see. You are no less guilty than anyone else on this forum of educating LEOs. And I can guarantee you that Fritter learned a lot more from your photos posted here than he could ever learn sitting on the side of the road and shooting lidar for us. He's jacking with your head with his comments, and you're too dumb to even realise it. Get a life, dude.

---

And again.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I think this is the key point here. Make them work for their info, as opposed to giving it to them. Most LEOs are not into research, or they would have furthered their education to land a higher paying career.

---

Since you seem to want to ask the same questions over and over again, I guess I'll just keep answering these questions by quoting myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

A... that's what I was referring to when I said that you "get it". You seemed to be suggesting that you understood the value of observing, learning, and knowing the tactics of LEOs, and how they may vary wildly in the real world, as opposed to the preconceived notions we have. And that really is my main point.

---

Got you Stealth. After reading the NHTSA manual and watching the lidar instruction video, there was nothing new to this and was not really surprised. Once you learn the basic principles of lidar and radar operation, it just makes things easier to understand plus applying it into practice with real world testing/operation based on NHTSA instruction and done testing and operation thinking outside the box - methods that are not legally acceptable.

Azone, got the NHTSA Manual in front of me, what page do you see this on, I'm not finding it. And to tell you the truth, I've never heard that we needed more than one "hit" to verify speed. And it's never come up in court.

F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

Since you seem to want to ask the same questions over and over again, I guess I'll just keep answering these questions by quoting myself.

---

Quoting yourself not answering the question is just further evasion of the question. And that question is, why is the Texas group the only people you single out for your self-righteous outrage after all this time?

Do I want you to publicly and privately denounce GOL for doing the same thing we did? YES! It would boost your credibility on the matter, even if only forced and belatedly. Have a little consistency. Don't be a hypocrite. Don't go throwing stones from your glass house, and then stand here and act like you are somehow the saviour of the community when you have done nothing less than we have to "jeopardise" it.

I'll tell you what point stands. The point stands that you have a personal, political axe to grind with me, and so you manufactured this nonsense issue just as a way to take another shot at me. However, your past history and behaviour shows you to be just as guilty as anyone else at "educating" LEOs about the hobby, so both your agenda and your hypocrisy are transparent.

You do a lot of good things for the community. I'll be the first to stand up and say that. You and Allen are the first guys to stand up and help someone out here with technical advice that is always spot-on, and I, along with everyone else, truly appreciate that commitment. But seriously, dude, you're just being silly now with this Fritter nonsense. It's a non-issue.

So you are saying Fritter you don't do any tracking history by at least getting 3 speed measurements to confirm your first reading? How are you sure that that single reading was the correct reading? Don't you think that's one of the reasons why you have to do a tracking history? You should be able to read it from the manual specially in the part were officers are told what to prepare for court appearance. This is not just you as an officer as far as integrity is concerned. Per NHTSA, your integrity as an officer is not a basis of defending your case. It has to do with having proper certification, proper usage and doing technical data's required to operate a functional device.

Quote:

---

And to tell you the truth, I've never heard that we needed more than one "hit" to verify speed. And it's never come up in court.

---

That is true Fritter only when other factors are weighed in. I'll quote from the manual.

" Lidar measurement accuracy requires answering 4 specific questions:"

1. How do we know that the operating principles of Lidar are valid?

2. How do we know that the Lidar instrument was working properly at the time of the alleged violation?

3. How do we know that the operator has the necessary qualifications and performed properly at the time of the alleged violation?

4. How do we know that the speed measurement came from the vehicle driven by the accused?

On top of these questions, there certainly can be followup questions. As you can see Fritter, I'm just fishing out answers and check your skill level. No offense. Just purely having a good discussion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quoting yourself not answering the question is just further evasion of the question. And that question is, why is the Texas group the only people you single out for your self-righteous outrage after all this time?

Do I want you to publicly and privately denounce GOL for doing the same thing we did? YES! It would boost your credibility on the matter, even if only forced and belatedly. Have a little consistency. Don't be a hypocrite. Don't go throwing stones from your glass house, and then stand here and act like you are somehow the saviour of the community when you have done nothing less than we have to "jeopardise" it.

---

Sigh.... I answered that question already...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I don't approve of anyone educating LEOs about our equipment. What part of that is hypocritical? What do you want me to do? Call Roy, Jim and Steve and yell at them? I didn't do that here. As always, your views are extreme and unreasonable.

Do I have to call out SML also? They used LEOs. I don't know any of them, but I guess I have to hammer them also. Wait a minute, MEM-TEK was part of that! If you are reading this Michael, you suck for being part of a testing event that used LEOs to shoot the guns. Is that good enough?

If you want to continue the distraction of attacking my credibility on this matter, have at it. The point still stands. What you guys did there is counterproductive to this community as a whole, for years to come. Me criticizing or not critcizing everyone else that has done the same thing does not change that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

I'll tell you what point stands. The point stands that you have a personal, political axe to grind with me, and so you manufactured this nonsense issue just as a way to take another shot at me. However, your past history and behaviour shows you to be just as guilty as anyone else at "educating" LEOs about the hobby, so both your agenda and your hypocrisy are transparent.

---

And this one too......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

You give yourself credit for being the reason I criticized this behavior. You have absolutely nothing to do with my disapproval of educating LEOs about our equipment. Erick, who is one of my favorite people on here, was also part of this. The people involved have no bearing on me disliking this behavior.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

You do a lot of good things for the community. I'll be the first to stand up and say that. You and Allen are the first guys to stand up and help someone out here with technical advice that is always spot-on, and I, along with everyone else, truly appreciate that commitment. But seriously, dude, you're just being silly now with this Fritter nonsense. It's a non-issue.

---

This was my original post on this issue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

:uponsoapbox:
Everything in this statement is 100% true. I do not understand why anyone would want to show a LEO, any LEO, friend or foe, how this stuff works. He might be your friend, but he will tell other LEOs what he's seen, guaranteed. All this stuff is contrary to the overall cause.

Someone on this forum was asking me a while back if I would show his buddy, a LEO how my stuff works. I never did, for this very reason. They'll figure it all out eventually and when they do, they do. We'll have to adjust at that point. But all this stuff just speeds up that process.

The whole Fritter meeting annoyed the heck out of me. All you guys out there educating a LEO about our countermeasures is a totally bad idea. I just don't get it. :dontknow:

---

Which was immediately preceeded by Fritter's post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

It's all up to the descretion of the officer that initiated a stop. As I've said before however, if I pull you over for speeding and I see "counter measures" then that is an automatic cite.

And now I know more about what to look for after meeting up with some of you guys, Thanks...:D

F

---

It was never about you. It's about this community and helping each other avoid tickets and keeping our stuff legal in the most places possible for the longest time possible. That's it. Stop posting distractions about my character and me needing to yell at Roy or whatever. That's just dumb.

It's not a non-issue. Of the forum members that have posted in this thread, more of them have agreed with me than you. Do they all have a personal axe to grind with you also? Ever since this whole Fritter meetup happened, it has annoyed me, but I didn't say anything. But it was Fritter's own post that pushed me over the edge of keeping quiet about it and saying something. As I said earlier, I treated this like I treat every genius that JTGs a LEO for the exact same reason. It wasn't personal against you. Stop making it personal about me and attacking my character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azonehits

So you are saying Fritter you don't do any tracking history by at least getting 3 speed measurements to confirm your first reading?

---

To be quite honest, in over a decade in law enforcement, I don't think I ever saw an officer do that. And I never saw it addressed in court either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

It was never about you. It's about this community and helping each other avoid tickets and keeping our stuff legal in the most places possible for the longest time possible. That's it. Stop posting distractions about my character and me needing to yell at Roy or whatever. That's just dumb.

---

I respect that sentiment, because I know you are truly committed to the hobby and the community at large. No question about that whatsoever. And I have always been the first one to stand beside you against the JTG madness. But it is my honest belief that -- regardless of your belief on the matter -- you would not have come out and made a public issue of this had it been GOL or Roy doing it again. You haven't done so in over a year, so it is undeniably suspicious that you choose to suddenly get all religious on us when the target is one you don't mind offending. It smacks of hypocrisy and personal vendetta. If that is not the case, you still have to admit that it can appear that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

I respect that sentiment, because I know you are truly committed to the hobby and the community at large. No question about that whatsoever. And I have always been the first one to stand beside you against the JTG madness. But it is my honest belief that -- regardless of your belief on the matter -- you would not have come out and made a public issue of this had it been GOL or Roy doing it again. You haven't done so in over a year, so it is undeniably suspicious that you choose to suddenly get all religious on us when the target is one you don't mind offending. It smacks of hypocrisy and personal vendetta. If that is not the case, you still have to admit that it can appear that way.

---

Remember, I never said anything about this Fritter stuff either, until Fritter came in bragging about now know more what to look for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

To be quite honest, in over a decade in law enforcement, I don't think I ever saw an officer do that. And I never saw it addressed in court either.

---

Stealth, added some comments in my previous post and answered Fritter's previous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azonehits

Stealth, added some comments in my previous post and answered Fritter's previous statement.

---

Yeah, I see what you are saying, and I totally agree. It's just that in actual practice, you'd search a very long time trying to find an experienced officer that is doing any of that "tracking" stuff. Not saying the are right or wrong. It's just what it is. It's like any other technical endeavour. People learn one thing in school, then find shortcuts when they get to the field. And those shortcuts become habit in no time at all.

I, first of all, agree with Rob/TSi. There is enough public info on this interweb of ours that would give a dedicated LEO more than enough information about our jamming capabilities and RADAR tactics (rabbit, etc.). You are being just as naive as the LEO's thinking that these devices don't work if you believe that this info is secret.

On the other hand, I do want to say that if Rob is right about LEO's being present and DJ not making a peep, maybe this is the first time DJ has had a 'personal encounter' with a LEO, and not just in passing? Maybe if DJ was at the tests with LEO's present, he didn't feel like getting into an argument right then and there about it and kept quiet. Maybe DJ didn't know unitl 3 days later that that Bill guy was a LEO Monday thru Friday.

I'm not making excuses, but I am willing to see other reasons, why DJ would start a ruckus only about Fritter.

Two cents poorer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolishOne

I, first of all, agree with Rob/TSi. There is enough public info on this interweb of ours that would give a dedicated LEO more than enough information about our jamming capabilities and RADAR tactics (rabbit, etc.). You are being just as naive as the LEO's thinking that these devices don't work if you believe that this info is secret.

---

I guess I'll restate my opinions on this matter, since you are new to this discussion.

I am not making the argument that this info is secret by any means. But LEOs, in general, don't think any of our equipment works. Why? Because that's what they tell each other. That's what the radar and laser equipment manufacturers tell them. It's what they're taught. Fritter himself said that he has never been beaten by a RD or laser jammer in one of his first few posts, which we all know is almost certainly not true. But, this is what they believe, for the most part. It's my opinion that they, in general, are not big on internet research, or they would certainly have a better understanding of how well our stuff works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolishOne

On the other hand, I do want to say that if Rob is right about LEO's being present and DJ not making a peep, maybe this is the first time DJ has had a 'personal encounter' with a LEO, and not just in passing? Maybe if DJ was at the tests with LEO's present, he didn't feel like getting into an argument right then and there about it and kept quiet. Maybe DJ didn't know unitl 3 days later that that Bill guy was a LEO Monday thru Friday.

I'm not making excuses, but I am willing to see other reasons, why DJ would start a ruckus only about Fritter.

Two cents poorer...

---

Since this has seemed to degrade into a discussion of my credibility, as opposed to the issue at hand, I guess I'll go over each testing event that I know of that had a LEO(s) involved.

1. GOL 2007 - Elvis, a LEO at the time, was the shooter. While I do have a problem with that, I wasn't a member here at that time. I didn't know any of these people at the time. I do not know why Elvis was the shooter at that event. My guess is(and it's a total guess) that Elvis is/was a friend of Roy's. I can also only assume that Roy, because he is a former LEO, has mostly LEO friends.

2. SML(s) - SML uses LEOs to shoot the laser guns at their events. Lots of them. I have a total problem with that, but who can I complain to about that? I don't know any of them.

3. Forum member PMed me - A forum member PMed me several times asking me if I would show his LEO friend that my equipment could beat their laser gun, which I never did. This forum member had previously showed his LEO friend and a buddy of his that his RD could easily detect their radar guns, which they thought was not true, since the radar manufacturer had told them otherwise.

4. Fritter - I had a problem from the getgo about this, but I never said anything. My feelings about this are everywhere in this thread. What made me snap was this comment by Fritter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

It's all up to the descretion of the officer that initiated a stop. As I've said before however, if I pull you over for speeding and I see "counter measures" then that is an automatic cite.

And now I know more about what to look for after meeting up with some of you guys, Thanks...:D

F

---

It pissed me off, so I then voiced my opinion. Stealth Stalker took it as a personal attack against him, because of our argumentative past, but it wasn't that at all. I just want our equipment to stay legal in as many places as possible, for as long as possible. That's it. I think meetings like this are extremely counterproductive to that cause and will eventually be a big part of the undoing of all of this. I criticize everyone that JTGs a LEO in the very same manner, for the exact same reason, so I don't see how I'm being anyhting but totally consistent on these matters.

I'm done defending my honor on this subject. I know what my motivation is and have stated it here several times. If you guys don't want to believe me, there's nothing I can do about that. If you guys want to continue attacking me, have at it. I feel my cause is noble and is definitely genuine. I can't stop you guys from doing what you are doing, but I 100% feel it is to the detriment of this community as a whole.

Point taken DJ!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolishOne

Point taken DJ!

---

x2.

Dj, my intention was never to attack you. My intention was clearly stated: to defend myself from the accusation (read: attack) that I was doing something harmful to the countermeasure community. Unfortunately, that naturally calls the credibility of both the accusation and the accuser into question. When you attack someone, you have to expect that they are going to fight back. And it is incorrect to label that response as an "attack".

I understand your points here, and I understand where you are coming from. And likewise, I respect your passion on the issues. I have always been right by your side on the JTG issue, as well as the guy(s) who want to prove something to LEOs, so I do "get it". I just believe that you are mistaken in your assessment of this particular meet and it's implications. No one who was actually there would agree that we did any significant technical education of Fritter there. Again, all he did was shoot the gun and have lunch with us. The conversation the entire time was either of a personal nature or about his tactics, which he was quite open in discussing with us. Again, I understand how you would misinterpret the appearances of the meet, but the reality is that there was nothing transpiring there that we have to worry about, except the failure of the entire group to jam him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

. It's just that in actual practice, you'd search a very long time trying to find an xperienced officer that is doing any of that "tracking" stuff. Not saying the are right or wrong. It's just what it is. It's like any other technical endeavour. People learn one thing in school, then find shortcuts when they get to the field. And those shortcuts become habit in no time at all.

---

A single reading is admissible as stated earlier in my previous post and agreed to what Fritter stated only when the other factors are weighed in and they should be able to answer and pass 4 specific questions.


" Lidar measurement accuracy requires answering 4 specific questions:"

Edited.........................

4. How do we know that the speed measurement came from the vehicle driven by the accused?

Per manual, "The enforcement action cannot be based solely on the Lidar speed measurement." It gives you a clear cut on what to do other than the lidar speed measurement. My questioning on Fritter was mainly on fishing out for some answers from modified questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azonehits

So you are saying Fritter you don't do any tracking history by at least getting 3 speed measurements to confirm your first reading? How are you sure that that single reading was the correct reading? Don't you think that's one of the reasons why you have to do a tracking history? You should be able to read it from the manual specially in the part were officers are told what to prepare for court appearance. This is not just you as an officer as far as integrity is concerned. Per NHTSA, your integrity as an officer is not a basis of defending your case. It has to do with having proper certification, proper usage and doing technical data's required to operate a functional device.

That is true Fritter only when other factors are weighed in. I'll quote from the manual.

" Lidar measurement accuracy requires answering 4 specific questions:"

1. How do we know that the operating principles of Lidar are valid?

2. How do we know that the Lidar instrument was working properly at the time of the alleged violation?

3. How do we know that the operator has the necessary qualifications and performed properly at the time of the alleged violation?

4. How do we know that the speed measurement came from the vehicle driven by the accused?

On top of these questions, there certainly can be followup questions. As you can see Fritter, I'm just fishing out answers and check your skill level. No offense. Just purely having a good discussion. :)

---

None taken, I'm not finding it that's all. I'm looking at the manual that I had in the academy. And the above questions all have to do with the operators integrity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

None taken, I'm not finding it that's all. I'm looking at the manual that I had in the academy. And the above questions all have to do with the operators integrity.

---

I'll scan you a copy. ;) My understanding is, the training you get in the academy is just basic and is your diploma to get in the police force. Lidar certification is more intense which covers the basic principles and proper use of Lidar. My manual is a NHTSA Lidar course manual and covers just Lidar operations, it's legality, and covers some case laws regarding use and proper prosecution. No other topics are being discussed other than laser or lidar operation and training. This course manual is used for Lidar certification and comes with some pre and post tests for the students.

BTW, do you mind showing what's in your manual for comparison? I'd like to see it too.

I embarrassed to say that it is 4 pages stapled together. I'll see if I can scan it. It covers the whole angle and placement stuff as well as he "perceived speed" that is verified by the radar/laser operator.

I did go to the NHTSA websight and they had information on testing and certification of the instrument but nothing that really pertains to operation in the feild. It seems rather redundant to me that you have to hit a moving target that may be heading at you or away from you at high speed 2, 3 and 4 times. By the time you get done screwing around the dude either sees you and slows down(so you lose the original speed lock) or you can' get a 2nd and 3rd reading so some clown gets away doing 80 because you only have one reading. Sounds like the cops are getting bogged down with policy again. Most officers I know when they get a good target hit only get the one. Especially with the laser because of the accuacy.

I'll see what I can do.

Remember I agreed with you as far as just having 1 reading with the following factors weighed in and i'm not disputing that fact that you have to get 3-4 readings. Although I've seen the video that you have to shoot for a few sec. and that should get you at least a couple locks. At the right distance, I can get at least 2-3 locks with my lidar guns. So it is possible. Here is a sentence that I have stated before and I quote. BTW, the instruction manual is about 1 1/4 in. thick.

" Long range target acquisition for speed enforcement puposes is not recommended. This tends to make a proper "Tracking History" difficult to support."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

I understand both sides of this I personly don't want any LEO knowing how my stuff works, but I would love to know exactly how they use theirs. I just hate that we get that information at the expense of giving up some of ours. But we are all guilty of posting here how we mount it, how we use it, how effective it is. But at least they have to do their home work in order to find it here. I'm betting not that many do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

I think this is the key point here. Make them work for their info, as opposed to giving it to them. Most LEOs are not into research, or they would have furthered their education to land a higher paying career.

---

^ I don't think that last statement is fair. I have a lot of LEO/Mil friends for whom their profession is a "calling."

And to be quite honest, many LEOs make much more than I do, in basic-science research. :p

For the record, I think that yes, as category4 said above, most do not care to do their research here - it's just like anything else. There will be few who are that dedicated. Most will simply go with what they "heard" from X or Y or simply follow convention.

I think that although Fritter came here distinctly uneducated with respect to current laser jammers, it really would have taken only a few days of true sit-and-read for him to have gathered all the information that he needed, and this was even apparent by his later posts, chronologically.

dj, I can respect your views, and I can agree, certainly, with the tactical validity of your argument - I just disagree that all that much was "given away" at the Fritter meet. :p

The information is all here, all it would take is a specialized "Informational Officer" or a dedicated enforcer to research this stuff....and it's not even true "research," but rather, just sitting down with a cup of coffee, and a couple of hours of good reading.

Granted, there's much, much more information to digest, now, but when I came back to this hobby (when I actively started posting - see my "join date" to the left), it was at a time when AL and LPP were the hot ticket. I came back because my ZR3 had finally, after more than 3 years of service, malfunctioned, and I thought it was good time that I upgraded.

I spent less than two days, total, just browsing the Forums here and digging through the past posts, before I understood enough so that I could carry-on an intelligent conversation with the old-hands, such as cVr.

A person of average intelligence, with a decent high-school education, should have no problem sorting through this information.

It's not "Top Secret." :)

^ It's also the videos from meets that get us in 'trouble' also, especially the HUD ones, where they are filmed through the eye piece.

Watching a couple dozen of those on YouTube and it just might pique a LEO's interest.

^ Exactly.

There's more than plenty on YouTube - and it's not just from members of our small community here, but rather, world-over.

Very recently, just one such hobbyist contacted me, in-private, to ask whether or not he should post his videos, for precisely this fear, that it would "teach" the enforcers what to do.

My answer was the same as it is here....that although his testing elicited specific concerns that were definitive showcases, it also was not something that is either unknown or will remain secret for much longer.

As a result, one has to balance this need for secrecy - to keep the other side in-the-dark, so to speak - with the need to help educate our fellow countermeasures users as to what works and what doesn't, and what to look out for.

It's always been a cat-and-mouse game, and it always will evolve, regardless of how much information we decide to release to the other side.

Unless this hobby goes totally dark, and becomes true underground, this kind of information exchange and diffusion simply will not be able to be controlled.

It is specifically towards that end that I believe that a good-faith exchange between the enthusiast parties will further BOTH sides' agendas. We each leave something at the table, and take something away. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

I embarrassed to say that it is 4 pages stapled together. I'll see if I can scan it. It covers the whole angle and placement stuff as well as he "perceived speed" that is verified by the radar/laser operator.

I did go to the NHTSA websight and they had information on testing and certification of the instrument but nothing that really pertains to operation in the feild. It seems rather redundant to me that you have to hit a moving target that may be heading at you or away from you at high speed 2, 3 and 4 times. By the time you get done screwing around the dude either sees you and slows down(so you lose the original speed lock) or you can' get a 2nd and 3rd reading so some clown gets away doing 80 because you only have one reading. Sounds like the cops are getting bogged down with policy again. Most officers I know when they get a good target hit only get the one. Especially with the laser because of the accuacy.

I'll see what I can do.

---

Just out of curiosity,
when you're shooting laser, where do you aim or what do you target in the vehicle?
thx

The first and most logical place is the front license plate. Cars that are slopped in the front(camaros) that do not have a front plate are harder to get a lock on. Failing that I shoot for a flat surface. I have "walked" the laser down and caught the trim on the widow or the rear veiw mirror.

Basically the laser needs a surface that can reflect the light back into the source. LP's are the best because of the reflective paint.
F

F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

The first and most logical place is the front license plate. Cars that are slopped in the front(camaros) that do not have a front plate are harder to get a lock on. Failing that I shoot for a flat surface. I have "walked" the laser down and caught the trim on the widow or the rear veiw mirror.

Basically the laser needs a surface that can reflect the light back into the source. LP's are the best because of the reflective paint.
F

F

---

Whats the hardest vehicle(s) you target with laser without a LJ? A corvette?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritter

The first and most logical place is the front license plate. Cars that are slopped in the front(camaros) that do not have a front plate are harder to get a lock on. Failing that I shoot for a flat surface. I have "walked" the laser down and caught the trim on the widow or the rear veiw mirror.

Basically the laser needs a surface that can reflect the light back into the source. LP's are the best because of the reflective paint.
F

F

---

what about a trans am?

say in a silver color? where would you aim at? no front plate