Fritter-Tuesday

[Stealth Stalker]

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.

[djrams80]

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.

[KnightHawk]

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.

[Stealth Stalker]

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.

[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.

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...

[djrams80]

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.

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:

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...

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.

[FoolishOne]

Point taken DJ!

[Stealth Stalker]

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.

[KnightHawk]

. 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.

[Fritter]

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.