It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Hell.. It's funny to ruin other people's stuff tho! WooHoo!
A drone was apparently monitoring the crowd—the video claims it was an LAPD drone—but they weren’t having it. In this Instagram video, you can see the drone buzzing around, as L.A. Kings fans throw things at it.
“Someone get it,” a voice rings out.
A drone was apparently monitoring the crowd—the video claims it was an LAPD drone—but they weren’t having it. In this Instagram video, you can see the drone buzzing around, as L.A. Kings fans throw things at it.
“Someone get it,” a voice rings out.
When someone finally knocks it out of the air with a t-shirt, the response is jubilant. They’ve scored one for freedom and privacy.
originally posted by: Arnie123
Criminal Mischief???
Why did the drone go lower? if there was a camera on it, I wonder if it was LIVE and the operator was just plain ignorant, I would have just moved it away.
Not like this drone had hellfires armed beneath it......
originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Hell.. It's funny to ruin other people's stuff tho! WooHoo!
These surveillance drones don't bother you at all?
Last week, the Los Angeles police department announced a new acquisition: two Draganflyer X6 drones, small hexacopters about three feet wide and capable of being outfitted with a range of sophisticated cameras. This makes the LAPD the largest municipal police department in the country known to possess unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance or tactical uses.
Source
“They are currently in the custody of a Federal Law Enforcement Agency pending review by the LAPD and the Board of Police Commissioners, as well as the public," continued the statement, which referred not to drones but used the industry-preferred term, unmanned aerial vehicles. The review, it said, would only consider "narrow and prescribed uses" to prevent "imminent bodily harm, for example, a hostage situation or barricaded armed suspect.”