Christopher Dorner Manhunt : Bringin' Out the Drones

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
reply to post by adjensen

 

Very interesting link, I was digging for a fact check, you found the best article on it by far.

Sounds pretty ridiculous of a situation, a standoff over 3,000 cattle... They deployed a drone to make sure he didn't escape his own property.

They've used them in a number of other instances up here, not just that one, and it's not really considered a big deal. The Predators are patrolling the North Dakota / Manitoban border as part of the Border Patrol, so retasking them to find fugitives is, while not common, not rare, either.

Police Use Predator Drone To Nab North Dakota Suspects

(ETA: Better article is linked to in that one: Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front)

reply to post by adjensen


Thanks for that info, and in my opinion another eye opening link.

I've changed the title for accuracy, not trying to mislead anyone here.

Whether it is "common" or "rare" doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculous.

We are seeing an exponential increase in their usage, it's becoming a very controversial topic (as it should be) --- I see it as a huge violation of the fourth amendment (Or what's left of it) - Big Brother syndrome at it's finest.

Where does it end? GPS devices in our ID cards?

Yes, I am more concerned that they are being used *at all* --- It might be warranted sometimes, but this is going to be "policy enforcement made easy".
I can already see them replacing highway patrolmen, just as they use cameras to catch those who run stop lights; these things would be more feasible to digitally ticket anyone merely driving over the damn speed limit. (Not trying to give them any good ideas of course -_-)

reply to post by ThinkingCap


Drones for police are nothing more than cheaper alternatives to helicopters - they do not carry snipers so are actualy LESS LETHAL than existing police aviation!!

All the scaremongering is just people after flags and stars by pandering to the paranoid.

He is already marked for death, a shoot-to-kill, kill on sight target. Proof? The women in the truck in LA. This man has been tried and convicted in the court of popular opinion, otherwise known as The Media.

The judges and jury have spoken, he is guilty until proven innocent, and we will now witness his execution. And to top it all off, this is OK with a lot of people, because it doesn't affect them. It is complicating lives in LA, and they just want it over so they can get back to partying and shopping.

What is happening in LA is a microcosmic glimpse into what is happening in our country. Loss of freedom, loss of rights, panic, overpowered government. All neatly tied up in a pretty little package and playing out right in front of you.

Someone in another thread said NY was the frontrunner for gun control. Well, then LA is the front runner for drone usage.

Also, don't believe everything you read about "drone capability". For heavens sake, use some critical thinking skills here. There is nothing saying they could not, do not, have not, weaponized drones. To think otherwise would be foolhardy. There is also nothing saying they have to disclose that fact to you.

If they feel this man is so "dangerous" they need drones to find him, what good locating him, if they are too afraid of him to get close enough to take him out? Seriously?

reply to post by ThinkingCap

Where does it end? GPS devices in our ID cards?

Close!...GPS devices in US, would be the end game.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Drones for police are nothing more than cheaper alternatives to helicopters - they do not carry snipers so are actualy LESS LETHAL than existing police aviation!!

All the scaremongering is just people after flags and stars by pandering to the paranoid.

Oh come on. Right now they are using drones to assist in an ongoing manhunt.

But these drones are not going anywhere.

Do you really think these inexpensive eyes in the sky will not be abused in the future?

Our beloved government doesn't have our freedom in mind. That is why our fourth amendment is dragged across the coals in the name of security.

When I see things like this happening, I don't look at the specific act, I look at what kind of precedent this sets... How can anyone be conditioned to think drones are A-okay, when the very reason this alleged murderer is pulling a rambo... is because of police abuse of power.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Where does it end? GPS devices in our ID cards?

Close!...GPS devices in US, would be the end game.....

Are they not already using said devices in new passports?

And let me add, not in response to you personally, but the thread in general, that I find it reprehensible that not one person has connected to the dots to the news this week that Obama's admin has declared that they do not need proof or evidence to justify droning someone. As long as they have been declared an "enemy of the state", a US Citizen is killable.

How neatly this has played out, no? Just in the nick of time, for rationalization of the administrations decision. The timing could not have been more perfect, the case more illustrative to prove Obama is smarter than everyone else in the room.

Don't question authority, you may be a terrorist. Don't question the official story, you may be a terrorist.

By all means, believe the multiple edited versions spoon fed to you from the state run media, because the Grammy's are what matters. Don't ask questions, because to quote the Van Halen video "Right Now", "right now, you may just find that your government is doing things you only thought other governments did".

And right now, this man no longer has any constitutional rights to a fair trial before a jury of his peers, based on factual evidence presented in an unbiased way, for a fair and just jury to decide.

And this, right now, is ok with at least 50% of the population of this country.

God help us all.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
I see it as a huge violation of the fourth amendment (Or what's left of it) - Big Brother syndrome at it's finest.

Actually, as noted in the articles, aerial surveillance has been upheld as not being a violation of the Fourth Amendment, in that a plane can only see things that are out in the open (as per the guys hiding in the field in North Dakota.) So if you see drones as a violation of that, you're many years too late -- helicopters have been allowed to conduct the same type of missions for a long time.

While drones are cheaper than manned aircraft to operate, they're still kind of expensive on an hourly basis, and not suitable for most inhabited locations, so I think we're a long way from the "Big Brother" environment where they're just flying around at random, looking for trouble, rather than being called in for specific situations, as they are now (in North Dakota, at least, as well as in the instance you've cited in the OP.)

Well i'll be looking up a lot more and see if i can spot one out.

The drones are not illegal.. There are satellites that can see a quarter in your hand in place... These drones are no different then a chopper going around with equipment looking for this innocent women murderer!! The government and local police county sheriffs use helicopters all the time, they are not attack helicopters!!! Same thing with the drones it will save TAX PAYERS money using the drone over time they have to pay out for fuel and every other cost with it... GET A GRIP people.. If Dorner was not being such a sick piece if crap there would be no drones out looking for him... SOOO where are the attack Helicopters????

reply to post by SpaDe_

And where did they exclusively state that option was not on the table? Oh, that's right, they didn't because they said "all options are being considered".

Please tell me you aren't that paranoid.

Where did they exclusively state that arming drones with nukes was not on the table?


I deal with facts, not paranoid speculation.

reply to post by ThinkingCap

Do you really think these inexpensive eyes in the sky will not be abused in the future?

And how will they be abused exactly? By enforcing the law? That is kind of their job.

I bet you don't like red light cams either...because if a police officer doesn't "see" you do it, it shouldn't be illegal...right?

Here's a thought...If Dorner is as highly skilled as the cops and media claim, this seems like a perfect "divide and conquer" scenario that he has devised...

While a large contingent of officers has taken to the hills, following the "trail" from his burned out truck, he could be back at home base, preparing to take his game to the next level!

I guess time will tell. But, then what happens if he surfaces back in population? Will the drone[s] be brought back to town?

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

And where did they exclusively state that option was not on the table? Oh, that's right, they didn't because they said "all options are being considered".

Please tell me you aren't that paranoid.

Where did they exclusively state that arming drones with nukes was not on the table?


I deal with facts, not paranoid speculation.

Typical deflection and straw man argument.

If you deal in facts then you would know that "all options are being considered" means exactly that. Not only that I never said they would arm them with nukes, because that is not what they use in strikes anyhow.

I guess time will tell. But, then what happens if he surfaces back in population? Will the drone[s] be brought back to town?

Oh noes....cameras....in town....say it ain't so.

The paranoia is ridiculous in this thread.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Do you really think these inexpensive eyes in the sky will not be abused in the future?

And how will they be abused exactly? By enforcing the law? That is kind of their job.

I bet you don't like red light cams either...because if a police officer doesn't "see" you do it, it shouldn't be illegal...right?

machines nor officers enforce the law.
they occasionally capture law-breakers, that's all.

as it is the right of the accused to confront their accuser ... how does one cross-examine a machine ??

reply to post by xedocodex

I bet you don't like red light cams either...because if a police officer doesn't "see" you do it, it shouldn't be illegal...right?

Some people don't like red light cameras because they like to keep their right to confront their accuser in court.

You can ask a red light camera questions all day, but they refuse to answer.

That, and the fact they do malfunction.... technology is like that.

ETA: Honor93 beat me to it....

reply to post by Honor93

machines nor officers enforce the law.
they occasionally capture law-breakers, that's all.

as it is the right of the accused to confront their accuser ... how does one cross-examine a machine ??

You do know that these are human controlled drones that have cameras that record everything.

These aren't AI robots that are out arresting people.

Scary how mis-informed some people are.

reply to post by SpaDe_

If you deal in facts then you would know that "all options are being considered" means exactly that. Not only that I never said they would arm them with nukes, because that is not what they use in strikes anyhow.

Hey...all options...right?

And the only thing police drones are used for are for cameras.

These aren't US Military drones.

Seriously, get your facts straight.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Do you really think these inexpensive eyes in the sky will not be abused in the future?

And how will they be abused exactly? By enforcing the law? That is kind of their job.

I bet you don't like red light cams either...because if a police officer doesn't "see" you do it, it shouldn't be illegal...right?

machines nor officers enforce the law.
they occasionally capture law-breakers, that's all.

as it is the right of the accused to confront their accuser ... how does one cross-examine a machine ??

Dead men tell no tales.

And lets say, for the sake of argument, he had been in that truck instead of the two innocent women. Executed in the street for allegations made against him, which thus far NO evidence has been presented. We would be sitting here discussing the OS a la Sandy Hook.

If more people would step back and ask why we are being bombarded with all this "information" instead, when there has been an obvious black out on such information since Aurora, people may begin to question the OS before the mans death, instead of after.

IF, and I say IF, because all we have been spoon fed is the Media's tripe on why he guilty, IF he did commit any crimes, he should be held accountable. Right now, I am not convinced this man did anything he is accused of.

Yet, the media, and even some of the alleged free thinking people on ATS have convicted him. It is telling, the bloodthirst almost begging for this to play out on televisions and youtube across America.

All this does is support the use of drones for killing. It isn't even apathy, it is excitement, acceptance, urgency to use it.

Disgusting.