HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Re: Dorner, choppers and ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:01 PM

Re: Dorner, choppers and drones

I see no difference in deciding to use a chopper to look for him or to use a drone to search for him. Dormer is dangerous fugitive who poses a genuine threat. If the drone is the better choice, I'm okay with that.

The ship has already sailed on our privacy. We are surveilled all the time. We subject ourselves to pat downs and starring roles in peep shows when we fly. We subject ourselves to metal detectors when we enter many (most?) public buildings. We show our ID to pretty much anyone who asks for it.

If a drone can find this nut job, I am all for it.

That now dead nut job in Alabama who kidnapped the little kid was stopped in part because of a drone used by what turns out to have been a very competent police force.

There is no practical ethical or moral difference between tracking Dorner with a chopper or a drone.



31 replies, 1840 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Re: Dorner, choppers and drones (Original post)
Stinky The Clown Feb 2013 OP
longship Feb 2013 #1
quinnox Feb 2013 #2
jeff47 Feb 2013 #5
Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #6
jeff47 Feb 2013 #10
quinnox Feb 2013 #7
jeff47 Feb 2013 #9
quinnox Feb 2013 #13
jeff47 Feb 2013 #24
treestar Feb 2013 #20
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #3
randome Feb 2013 #14
Stinky The Clown Feb 2013 #16
treestar Feb 2013 #21
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #23
treestar Feb 2013 #28
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #30
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #4
Electric Monk Feb 2013 #8
Tx4obama Feb 2013 #19
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #22
Bonobo Feb 2013 #11
Mr.Bill Feb 2013 #12
SpartanDem Feb 2013 #15
Stinky The Clown Feb 2013 #18
REP Feb 2013 #17
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #25
Son of Gob Feb 2013 #26
BeyondGeography Feb 2013 #27
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #29
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #31

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:11 PM

1. Drones are safer, too.

Choppers are big and difficult to manuver in cities. A small surveillance drone can even be very small and do the job. It it crashes, nobody's hurt.

Plus, they can cheaply have a fleet of them for the price of one chopper. Deploy them where needed.

This is saying nothing about the ethics in doing such a thing. But I think in this case anybody can see their advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:15 PM

2. then the next step, of course, is to arm the drone

 

with hellfire missiles. After all, it is for our own protection if this maniac is taken out, or so the argument will go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:18 PM

5. That might be a valid argument if the cops had attack helicopters

Yet they oddly never strapped missiles to their helicopters. Why would they suddenly strap them onto drones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:26 PM

6. Some Texas cops just blew away some people from a helicopter.

Men with gun is helicopter flown by men would be the better comparison to an armed drone for logical consistency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:35 PM

10. Except it's really, really, really, really easy to just arm the helicopter

no need for ad-hoc solutions like having a "marksman" ride in the helicopter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:29 PM

7. I think you have more faith in authority than I do

 

Let's just say I would not be surprised to see this next step happen. Drones are ready made to be armed, and I can see many of the citizens not objecting to it. They will, at first, probably use language like "in extreme circumstances, the drones will be armed, for the sake of public safety in order to take out dangerous criminals who are a threat to the public".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:34 PM

9. So why haven't the cops armed their helicopters? They've had about 50 years to do so.

If their authoritarian impulses are so strong, how come they haven't given in to them yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:40 PM

13. drones are a new toy in their arsenel

 

as I said, drones are ready made to be armed, whereas helicopters are different. There are attack helicopters, but the military has them. It would probably scare the citizens too much to see Black Hawks in the skies tracking criminals. But a drone is a different story.

Bookmark the thread and when a news story in the future says something like "Armed drones on the way to be used by police in special limited circumstances" or something, we will see if my prediction comes true, which I think is not so "out there" as you seem to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:33 AM

24. No, they bought military helicopters

It's only very recently that purpose-built police helicopters have been made. The Bell model most people think of when they hear "police helicopter" is a military scout helicopter. The military version is armed with 2-4 missiles.

The police had to specify "don't put the missiles racks on it" when they ordered these helicopters. They did so because.........?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:13 AM

20. Is it not the point to take out a dangerous

Fugitive alone without a crossfire that could accidentally take out bystanders? The newer the technology the more likely that is. The whole point is to minimize casualties. Here is a technology that does, yet people would rather go to the old way and put more people at risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:16 PM

3. A drone searching for him, or satellite reconnaissance is nothing compared to the

what appears to be determination to kill him on sight rather than making an attempt at a live capture and a trial. It's my sincere hope that the agencies involved do not seek to kill him with an armed aircraft of any kind.

The little township which holds my land uses satellite reconnaissance to monitor various aspects of code compliance. That is merely a change in technology that was long guaranteed as the right to visit my property that the township is already granted.
Searching for a fugitive from justice using a drone is similar application of changing technology to do aerial surveillance that t has for decades already been well accepted.

Yet, the decision to shoot to kill on sight, as indicated by multiple incidents of the LAPD shooting mistaken innocents, that's a horse of a different color. It suggests a very very much darker turn in the American character and our sense of fair and due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:41 PM

14. I think it suggests a darker turn in the LAPD, not the entire country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:48 PM

16. You've hit the pithy part of this issue

It isn't even about arming drones so much as the determination to shoot to kill. That's where the shivers start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:18 AM

21. Sometimes the cops do have to kill

Fugitives before they kill others. If they let th loose to kill as many as they could before capture, there would be complaining about that too. So we always have to wait until they go out in a blaze of glory. Some have no intention of ever being arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:45 AM

23. Yes, sometimes they have to kill.

But there is usually at least some pretense of attempting to capture the suspect alive. They're not even pretending now...they will execute him on the spot.
And also, there was in the past a great deal of care not to harm innocent citizens. Rarely are even bystanders hurt. Now, they are ramming people, opening up with a hail of bullets...absolutely no thought given to even positively IDing the target, whom in those cases bore not a shred of similarity with the suspect. Nor were their vehicles of similar make, model, or color. Are they not even competent enough to run a tag check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:24 PM

28. They are saying they will execute him on the spot?

I really doubt that.

Take Bonnie and Clyde. The cops knew they would not be taken alive. There are some that just aren't going to turn themselves over. Cops may know they have to give them the chance but at the same time realize it's very unlikely.

If they got it wrong, that happens to every body in every job or profession. The world is not a perfect place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:40 PM

30. Their actions speak louder than words.

116 shots fired at a vehicle without warning? They didn't even pause to notice it contained 2 petite Latinas, not a 300 lb black male? And the vehicle wasn't even the same make, model, or color as the suspect's? Did they not even run the tag number? That purely indicates they are going to shoot first, ask questions later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:17 PM

4. A drone may be able to cover more ground, and stay aloft longer.

But I don't think a camera is as good as a pair of eyes with binoculars.

And for now, the drones are unarmed. But for how long? At some point, a LE agency is going to decide arming the drones is a good idea. Let's hope it's not the LAPD. If they had attacked the latina newspaper deliverers with a drone, they would be dead...possibly the neighbors too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:33 PM

8. re: camera vs binoculars, camera technology keeps improving rapidly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2275106

What appears to be new are the details of a panoramic camera called Argus developed by Britain-based BAE Systems, the third-largest defense contractor in the world.

“Today we’ve developed sensors that can watch, with an all-seeing eye, and see an area about the size of a small city. All at one time,” said David Deptula, a lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force.

At 1.8 billion pixels, Argus is the world’s highest-resolution camera. For comparison, a quick Google search suggests that the next highest-resolution camera, available to professionals, is a Swedish-made Hasselblad, which clocks in at 200 million pixels.

...

From an altitude of 17,500 feet, Argus can see an object 6 inches off the ground, and automatically identifies everything that moves. Its recordings can be stored at a capacity equivalent to 5,000 hours of high-definition footage and are instantly retrievable at every level of magnification.

“NOVA” indicates these cameras could one day be mounted on a fleet of solar-powered craft capable of staying aloft for five years at a time. “We would like Argus to be over the same area 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” BAE designer Yannis Antoniadis said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:06 AM

19. There are 'thermal imaging' cameras on the drone. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:32 AM

22. There are also thermal imaging optics used like binoculars.

And thermal imaging is of limited use. Obviously it wouldn't pick him out of a crowd. It may detect presence of an unidentified human in a dwelling. It may not detect a human hiding in a cave. Under a space blanket? I don't know.

And of course, if he is spotted by chopper, they can land a ways away, and sneak in on foot to watch him, radio in information, and engage him if necessary. A drone is incapable of any of that.

Of course, a major advantage of a drone, is that even if a latina newspaper deliverer is misidentified as the fugitive, the drone can't shoot first and ask questions later. As long as it remains unarmed, that is. Don't know for how long that remains the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:35 PM

11. Drone to find? Sure.

Drone to kill on sight? Nope.

But why is he not killed for the same reasons given for killing other "imminent threats"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:36 PM

12. A lot of helicopter pilots are going to be put out of work

by drones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:48 PM

15. Disagree slightly

there are legitimate privacy concerns with drones, it's hard to miss a chopper following you. But this is nothing we haven't face before with any new technology, it's going take time flesh out limits. Obviously, searching for this guy is a legitimate use. But I do find some of the fear of drones absurd, like the idea that police one day are just going drop bombs on peoples home is FEMA camp level paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:54 PM

18. Actually, helicopters are not that easy to see

Flying low and slow they are surely easy to see. But flying higher, but still low enough to use their cameras, they are much harder to spot.

As hard to spot as a drone? Not even close. But easy? Only sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:51 PM

17. Except LAPD isn't competent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:34 AM

25. For some reason, the word "Drones" makes some people here completely freak the fuck out.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:02 AM

26. Hell, we have a nutjob here saying Obama staged this whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:08 AM

27. Keep government off your back: Don't go on a killing spree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:36 PM

29. Drones in an open air space are one thing

Helicopters have a better time of being handled in a busy corridor such as LA/etc.

Guidelines:
The pilot handling the drone must be able to see the small aircraft and cannot be within five miles of an airport or other aviation activity

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/02/11/12509/buzz-about-drones-dorner-manhunt-which-police-agen/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:42 PM

31. That makes sense to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread