Police agencies in the United States to begin using drones in 90 days

Originally posted by smirkley

Originally posted by Hopechest
I'm sure the drones are not cheap to fly ....

I'm sure they are going to have to justify that cost to their superior who in turn has to account for it in his/her budget. ....

....at the cost of a thousand dollars or whatever the price is?

Let me quote you...

I'm sure,..
I'm sure...
at a cost of whatever the price is?

So basically you dont know how cheap it is to run a small hover drone with a cam on it?

I will tell you. They could fly them all day and it wouldnt equal the daily salary of one rookie.

Correct, I don't know how much they cost to fly and I thought I stated that.

Its good to know they aren't expensive since they will replace the costly use of helicopters and put our tax money to better use.

reply to post by Hopechest


Oh really? Let's see it (with evidence to back it up). How many? And unless you say zero you are moving the goal posts. Because it wasn't how many times it was abused, but rather was it abused?

And the NDAA probably hasn't been abused yet because it passed not long ago. But it's designed to be abused! It's designed to imprison American citizens with no trial.

And again you ignore renditions and the killing of American citizens abroad by drone strikes.

So you're whole "The government will keep itself in check" argument is absolute nonsense.

Originally posted by Hopechest


Its good to know they aren't expensive since they will replace the costly use of helicopters and put our tax money to better use.

Wow! You're kowtowing to the government is insane! First you acted like it was too expensive to fly them all the time and therefore then they wouldn't be abused. When it's pointed out that they aren't expensive to fly all day, you praise the government for being able to save tax payer money.

Absolutely amazing.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Oh really? Let's see it (with evidence to back it up). How many? And unless you say zero you are moving the goal posts. Because it wasn't how many times it was abused, but rather was it abused?

And the NDAA probably hasn't been abused yet because it passed not long ago. But it's designed to be abused! It's designed to imprison American citizens with no trial.

And again you ignore renditions and the killing of American citizens abroad by drone strikes.

So you're whole "The government will keep itself in check" argument is absolute nonsense.

Wait, so your invoking the patriot act and the ndaa as proof the government mis-uses power and then you ask me to prove it for you?

It was your point friend, not mine.

Ball is kinda in your court on this one. You don't make a statement then ask others to prove it for you. That's not really how a good debate works.

Originally posted by Hopechest


Wait, so your invoking the patriot act and the ndaa as proof the government mis-uses power and then you ask me to prove it for you?

Yes. Because you are about to make a claim to how many abuses there are. So if you are going to do it then back it up with evidence. You are the one who said you "know" how many times it's been abused. So if you "know" then I'd like to know what you "know." And I'd like to see your source for your claim of how many times it's been abused.

The Patriot Act and NDAA are designed to be abused! Warrantless wiretapping?! Indefinite detention of American citizens. You're kidding me, right?!

You don't make a statement then ask others to prove it for you. That's not really how a good debate works.

That's not what I did. Your comprehension skills are kind of lacking. Go back and read.

You know what, I'm done with your games. You are one of those people that just twists and turns and pushes people to frustration with your nonsense.

And we know the occasional rogue cop never goes on killing spree's or robs banks.

That was a sarcastic example and out of line and I apologize in advance,... but my two examples are true but extreme.
(just to make a point)

Originally posted by smirkley
And we know the occasional rogue cop never goes on killing spree's or robs banks.

That was a sarcastic example and out of line and I apologize in advance,... but my two examples are true but extreme.
(just to make a point)

Of course they do, I could list dozens of abuses committed by law enforcement just off the top of my head. My only point is that drones to have a significant advantage in many aspects, finding lost or abducted people, scouting out hostile situations before officers go in, detecting forest fires before they get too large....many many good examples.

I would hate to see us lose those opportunities because of a fear that drones may be mis-used. I will be one of the first to admit that potential is there and I'm hoping we can put enough safeguards in place to limit the occurences of this.

When they do happen, as abuse in other areas do, I believe we should prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. But simply saying we don't want drones because this or that may happen I believe is denying the public the advantages they offer.

Originally posted by Hopechest


When they do happen, as abuse in other areas do, I believe we should prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. But simply saying we don't want drones because this or that may happen I believe is denying the public the advantages they offer.

My God! Prosecute the government. I love it. Absolutely love it. Next you're gonna tell us that the Catholic Church is gonna be prosecuted.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr

Originally posted by Hopechest


When they do happen, as abuse in other areas do, I believe we should prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. But simply saying we don't want drones because this or that may happen I believe is denying the public the advantages they offer.

My God! Prosecute the government. I love it. Absolutely love it.

Next you're gonna tell us that the Catholic Church is gonna be prosecuted.

I was speaking about the officers who mis-use drones. We prosecute officers for mis-conduct all the time and this would be no different.

Originally posted by Hopechest
When they do happen, as abuse in other areas do, I believe we should prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. But simply saying we don't want guns because this or that may happen I believe is denying the public the advantages they offer.

I just changed ONE word in your quote.

I think I may send that quote to my congressman to show where I stand on gun ownership and on anti-regulation on firearm ownership.

reply to post by Hopechest


Except that the "misconduct" as you call it would be official policy. Unless you are still yapping on about "boob patrol" which is the least of our worries.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Except that the "misconduct" as you call it would be official policy. Unless you are still yapping on about "boob patrol" which is the least of our worries.

So you believe that police departments are going to make what exactly official policy?

Just randomly spying on people for no reason?

Originally posted by smirkley

Originally posted by Hopechest
When they do happen, as abuse in other areas do, I believe we should prosecute the offenders to the full extent of the law. But simply saying we don't want guns because this or that may happen I believe is denying the public the advantages they offer.

I just changed ONE word in your quote.

I think I may send that quote to my congressman to show where I stand on gun ownership and on anti-regulation on firearm ownership.

I saw what you changed but I'm not understanding your point?

Are you talking about all the current legislation to grab our guns?

Originally posted by Hopechest

Just randomly spying on people for no reason?

No. And I'm not gonna repeat myself refuting the same strawman arguments numerous times on one thread. Go back and find my response where I addressed your nonsensical "random spying" argument earlier.

Originally posted by nomnom

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Then how come Zimbabwe could not monetize forever?

Because they don't have the military might to hold the rest of the world hostage to trade policies propping up the USD.

Rome could not overcome the debasement of their own currency despite their large number of military forces and advanced military tactics, the US will be no different.

Sorry, I have been reading this and Hopechest is driving me mad. I understand [no not really] how you may want to play devil's advocate but you are not.
This is what it basically comes down to:

Drones are not needed, cameras are not needed. Surveillance is not needed. What is needed is for society to grow its backbone back and look out for each other.

Furthermore, as someone else has said, being observed doesn't equal a stop to the crime that is going on.
I'd rather have a couple of coppers [Police-people] on foot in my area who are there when you need them. Just like it used to be.
They are a deterrent, they are useful and make people feel safe. They used to be your 'friend' in need.
A drone is merely an eye in the sky, looking at places it shouldn't.

And that is the other thing. This bloomin' example of some kid lost in the woods. I mean what?
How many kids get lost in the woods where you live? Enough to warrant a spy in the sky? Jeez, maybe you should educate your kids a little ore about the dangers of walking off alone in the woods. Kids are good learners.

What you fail completely to see is that a drone isn't a car [you said that people were not happy when the police started to use cars]. Mainly because a car can't silently observe me in my own back yard, a car can't silently approach me when I am in town, a car can't shoot me out of the blue because someone, somewhere has fuc%ed up and thought I look like someone else.

With drones, there is no human [face to face] interaction. Some idiot dork, who is merely human is flying this remote controlled and to him it looks like a computer game.

Back to my original statement, we can do without all this 'modern technology' if we become a strong society that is looking out for each other, where we are allowed to apprehend muggers or violent thugs ourselves until the police arrives.
But we have been alienated from each other. Adults are not allowed to tell other people's kids off when they misbehave in public, we can't go and help anyone because we'll get arrested. The same for hurting a burglar. We are being programmed to believe that we are not 'allowed' to be adults.

We are not kids that need constant surveillance, we are adults that can look after themselves but this generation has lost that confidence and believes that Nanny Government has to be able to watch over us because we are obviously too stupid to be trusted. Sad really.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr

Originally posted by Hopechest

Absolutely, if the people demand it we can make it happen.

People have quite a loud voice when they want to be heard.

Such child-like hope and trust.

Such a condescending comment.

Given that most positive advances in human history have occured in democratic societies, I would suggest that the fundamental prerequisite of a democratic society - self-determination - supports Hopechest's comment.

Surveillance, state intervention and monitoring should not be required in a perfect society.

However, we do not live in a perfect society. We may wish that we do. We may believe that we can do. In the here and now though, we don't.

If all surveillance on Earth was removed tomorrow, there is no conceivable reason why crime or deviance would be reduced. There is a statistical possibility that crime figures would remain the same (though undobutedly conviction rates would drop as a central source of evidence would be gone). It is overwhelmingly likely that crime and deviance would increas, in lieu of surveillance as it is now.

Drones are an evolution of the technology underpinning our evolving society.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Surveillance, state intervention and monitoring should not be required in a perfect society.

However, we do not live in a perfect society. We may wish that we do. We may believe that we can do. In the here and now though, we don't.

If all surveillance on Earth was removed tomorrow, there is no conceivable reason why crime or deviance would be reduced. There is a statistical possibility that crime figures would remain the same (though undobutedly conviction rates would drop as a central source of evidence would be gone). It is overwhelmingly likely that crime and deviance would increas, in lieu of surveillance as it is now.

Drones are an evolution of the technology underpinning our evolving society.

You are kidding of course?
This is exactly what I am talking about. You think without surveillance we'd be living like cavemen? I actually have more trust in people than you. Also, 'crime' is totally undefinable. What is a crime?
If you hurt others and there are decent people around with a backbone, you'll get what you deserve [I am not talking vigilante, I am talking apprehension]. If you are not hurting anyone but somewhere in some book, some idiot made something illegal, I couldn't care less if it happened and nobody could observe it.
It is called privacy and freedom.

How on earth did we survive this long without drones? And how are we going to survive without being filmed in our own homes? I mean you could be up to no good, doing something that doesn't hurt anyone but is illegal, right?

I'd also like all people chipped and kids should have a camera implanted in their forehead in order to keep an eye on those pesky paedo-adults and in case gardening is being made illegal, stick a few cameras in your backyard as well, and in your bath-tub, in case you are going to do something illegal in there. Why not? Laws are changing all the time and you have absolutely nothing to hide.

Seriously.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Two compleyely different empires. The circumstances aren't even remotely the same.