Christopher Dorner Manhunt : Bringin' Out the Drones

page: 5
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


From the OPs article.


A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”



Like I said, I deal in facts...not paranoid speculation.


That's hilarious because this is also from the OP's article.


Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”


Seems you don't just deal in facts, but you also dabble in opinion as well. Keep on keeping on!


And does the Riverside Police department have predator drones armed with missles???

Didn't think so. This isn't my opinion...they said they are using drones with thermal cameras to search for him...that's it. Anything else is pure speculation on your part. Claiming they are going to strike at him with armed drones is pure paranoid fantasy speculation since police departments don't even have those.

And yes, I will still continue to deal with facts...not paranoid speculation.


Actually they do, all they have to do is request them through the proper channels. And no, you don't deal in facts since you just keep putting forth your opinion and try to pass it off as fact.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 





And yes, if I am on a jury I consider video tape and pictures to be some of the best evidence that can be provided.

Would you convict if there was only a single security camera photograph as evidence in a bank robbery?

As in a red light camera?

If so, that is sad.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lolwuttermelons
Only those who have something to hide are afraid of more drones in the sky. This is good news for all. We need more drones if anything. Too many crazies in this world. The military needs to monitor these people more. I feel a lot safer knowing drones are watching out for me. If you don't like it, you either are a criminal, were a criminal, want to be a criminal, or are harboring a criminal. And you need to be stopped, and hopefully the drones will stop you


Why then do you think we hear so many stories about cops trying to take citizens cameras away and trying to arrest them for filming them at work in public? What do these people have to hide? How many drones do you think we need to constantly monitor them so they don't go around kicking mentally ill people in the face, planting drugs, taking bribes, or executing innocent people with tazers who are simply driving home from work talking on their cell phones? Isn't it likely too that any cameras will simply conveniently fail like at Waco or the Pentagon when the story being told to the herd deosn't fit the details. I dunno, I'm a little sceptical that a government that claims it can murder it's own citizens on a whim with zero proof should get even more billion dollar opressive toys to further it's War on Privacy and Liberty.
edit on 10-2-2013 by Tecumte because: sp.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
posted this on my other thread which covers the drone thing. this is just to show you all that they CAN use military drones to find/locate/spy on US citizens on US soil. Enjoy the read.



Air Force components may, at times, require newly collected or archived domestic imagery to perform certain missions. Domestic imagery is defined as any imagery collected by satellite (national or commercial) and airborne platforms that cover the land areas of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the US, to a 12 nautical mile seaward limit of these land areas.
(end of Page 9)
Linkage to PDF

also middle of page 10 (This is becoming a good read!)


9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless ex pressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
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.

yes, your claim of paramount necessity for machine ops is scary

human controlled drones = what to the accused ??
is the drone operator sworn in and forced to testify ?? hardly.
can 'video' be manipulated ?? constantly.

and lastly, since 'sight' is the most deceiving of the 5 senses, why should we trust the 'manipulated' eye of a machine ??

who said anything about AI robots arresting people ??
exaggerate much ?

btw ... misinformed ppl can be corrected -- ill-informed people are too blind to notice the difference.
edit on 10-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


nope, that's called ... another fish to the fry pan ... and you jumped in willingly.
that is the game my friend and you clearly didn't read the rules.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 



Actually they do, all they have to do is request them through the proper channels. And no, you don't deal in facts since you just keep putting forth your opinion and try to pass it off as fact.


I'm sure you have proof to back that up with...right?

Please show us what armed drones the Riverside Police department has access to through the "proper channels".

FACT: They are using drones equiped with thermal cameras.

Yes...that is what I'm dealing with.

You on the other hand are just using pure illogical speculation.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
posted this on my other thread which covers the drone thing. this is just to show you all that they CAN use military drones to find/locate/spy on US citizens on US soil. Enjoy the read.

I'm not sure that you did read it. What you posted says:

a) The Air Force can acquire domestic aerial imagery

Whoop-dee-doo, they've been doing that since they first put planes up.

b) They can use aerial surveillance of specific people within the United States, if:


approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations

That seems like a no-brainer. If it's against the Constitution, they can't do it, so where's the complaint?

It sounds like there's just some generic freaking out at the mention of "drones" and "surveillance". This has been happening for at least three years, it's no different than previous aerial surveillance that's been happening for decades, and the courts have consistently said it's not against the Constitution.

If you have a complaint, it's seriously overdue, and has nothing to do with drones.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
"Feel Safer Yet?"

I don't think anyone but questionable ones, condone usage of drones any site online. No one wants fascism.

I for one question this man being hunted, and think its just another persecute the whistle blower, and Obama is the man who signed the most fascist type legislation on the planet putting him up there with Stalin, Hitler and the worst, kill anyone they want, detain without trial.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 





And yes, if I am on a jury I consider video tape and pictures to be some of the best evidence that can be provided.

Would you convict if there was only a single security camera photograph as evidence in a bank robbery?

As in a red light camera?

If so, that is sad.


If there were a clear picture of the accused clearly breaking the law, as is the case with a red light camera...yes I would.

Why do you have an issue with people being busted for breaking the law???



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


Scary stuff.

If they whack him with a missile, we will surely not stand for that... will we?


Only if they don't upload the video to YouTube in an epic fail compilation!

I want to see a GoPro HD strapped to the front of that drone..... Maybe they can give him a Muslim burial by flying a drone into him??

~CrzayFool



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by phantomjack
So let me throw this out there.

Is this a false flag event for the government to deploy the drones? Was the "manifesto" written by Dorner or by the government to stoke the flames of racism? To stoke the flames of the anti-gun movement?

I dont know. Something just doesn't seem right with the manifesto.


It does seem too coincidental that right in the middle of the senate debate on using drones to kill americans something like this happens and they pull out the drones to show us how well they will work.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


And yes, if I am on a jury I consider video tape and pictures to be some of the best evidence that can be provided

then i'm glad ppl like yourself don't get to decide cases like Ms Alfano's ... her ticket was promptly dismissed and she was thanked by the PD for her participation in the process.

www.heraldtribune.com...
a police officer had taken a look and confirmed that her story was true and advised the judge to dismiss the charge.
- snip -

The city has issued more than 13,000 of those tickets since the program began in 2010 and, Lake says, Alfano is now the only person who ever had a Sarasota red-light camera ticket dismissed in court.
- snip-

She says no one knows how many innocent people have just paid the fines, maybe because they could not get out of work to go to court.
gotta remember, there are an awful lot of fish in this sea of corruption ... some will get cooked, some won't.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. - Benjamin Franklin


SKYNET IS ACTIVE.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Gee.................i wonder if the guy is up for a few recruits?
You know........................................ to sort of help out?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by baddmove
This is a Police Drone..



One word.

Birdshot.


So in this case you don't want the technology used to help catch a violent murderer? Who has stated that he intends to kill innocent people?

So someone shoots down a drone... Dorner then kills another innocent person.

I guess you win, it's not tyranny that you should fear, it's the schizophrenic attitudes of people who think they live free, yet only if they say so.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
The bean bag and tasers version is all they have divulged that they have. If they exist then it is likely that they have them, just like some police forces have tanks. Tanks are for military use, but yet some police forces still have them.



Well can you show me a domestic drone that the police have, that is capable of firing any projectile that would have any impact? And not knock the drone out of the sky, rendering it's entire point moot?

No.

But hey, they might have super drones and just not tell anyone, and when they drop the mini nuke on Dorner, they'll blame muslims.

got it.

I really have to find out where the alex jones cool aid comes from. I'm obviously missing out.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The problem with red light cameras is they don't show who is driving the car.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

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


If somehow magically we'd lived in a world where computers did not exist, and someone arrived on earth and said "Look, I have this idea, I call it the internet." You'd call that ridiculous too.

I mean, a place where you freely give your personal details on a website called the face book, or where you tell everyone where yo are called tweeter.. and being able to send messages instantly to people across the world? Imagine the spy agencies being able to trap you anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye.

Oh the dramas.. Oh the intrusions..

And you have this in your own house? By your own free will? How ridiculous. Absurd. It'd never happen.

Almost every corner has camera. Almost every house has some sort of surveillance. Almost every shopping mall has cctv. your credit cards track your purchasing habbits, google tracks your porn. Your mobile phone tells everyone where you are, and allows you to speak to them anywhere you go.

And when something is used to actually catch a crook... Down with technology. It's ridiculous.

But no, it's not because they're trying to catch a crook, it's because the next logical step in using surveillance drones, is bombs on civilians. Collateral damage will be common place. Because when you really think about it, it's all so clear.





new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join