A Wisconsin robbery and auto theft suspect was captured by police thanks to a borrowed drone on May 31, according to court papers filed yesterday in Middleton, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Journal reports that Marquis Phiffer, 21, stole a car and robbed a convenience store in Middleton, Wisconsin on May 31.
After allegedly stealing a car that had been left running outside a coffee shop and robbing the store at a BP gas station (he declared he had a gun, but the clerk never saw one), Phiffer was pursued by police. A chase that reached speeds of up to 70mph ended when Phiffer crashed into a parked car. He abandoned the car and ran into a marsh near Tiedemann's Pond, just a few blocks from Middleton's National Mustard Museum.
The Middleton Fire Department lent the police a rubber raft and a camera-equipped DJI Phantom quadrocopter drone used in search and rescue operations to locate Phiffer. He was hiding in the water, and when the police reached him "his shoes were floating away from him," along with a "large wad of cash," Wisconsin State Journal's Ed Trevelen reported. More cash and a hypodermic needle were found in his pocket.
Seems like the same thing as calling in a chopper, but a lot less expensive. Anyone know what the cost differential is?
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by C R Johnson on Monday July 06 2015, @02:00PM
That quadcopter goes for about $1300 on Amazon.
A bell 205 is about $1M not even counting fuel, maintenance, and pilot.
(Score: 2) by subs on Monday July 06 2015, @04:57PM
It's a false comparison, because while the drone is cheaper for surveillance, ahem, "search", it's worthless for the "rescue" (or "capture", whichever you prefer) part. Drones are at best an extra set of eyes in the sky. They are a powerful addition to your SAR equipment, but they can't do the same thing a helicopter can.
I bet even in this case, once they located the suspect, they went in with a helicopter to actually deliver boots to the ground.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by davester666 on Monday July 06 2015, @07:01PM
This kind of article is just straightup PR, to try to make the idea of drones flying around your neighbourhood more palatable.
Because terrorists are everywhere.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:05AM
You have no idea how police actually use helicopters, do you? They don't land the helicopter to start chasing after the fleeing suspect. Ever. A helicopter is there as a surveillance platform to lead ground units to the suspect's location. A drone is of course a near perfect substitute for a helicopter in all these scenarios.
Youtube and TV is even chock full of footage of these chases so how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling...
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by subs on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:22PM
You have no idea how police actually use helicopters, do you?
Aww, sweet, sweet troll. I do. But you seem to have gotten all of your knowledge about helicopter usage from TV.
They don't land the helicopter to start chasing after the fleeing suspect. Ever.
You mean, they usually don't. However, if the area to be deployed into is difficult to access, a helicopter can and will be used. Moreover, police helicopters are not only used for pursuit. Often times, it's SAR [youtube.com]. Of course, that rarely makes the news, so it's understandable you wouldn't know about it.
Youtube and TV is even chock full of footage of these chases so how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling...
And it's also chock full of the non-pursuit type footage where they rescue people, or deploy officers into hard to access locations, so "how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling" right back at you.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Sunday July 12 2015, @08:52AM
USian at his best as always...
No, police helicopters don't land to perform SAR here. We have, wait for it, SAR helicopters for that. You know, helicopters with actual equipment and personel trained for and practised in the SAR mission. But even so, the overwhelming majority of SAR is "S", i.e. "search". Any helicopter based search would end with the finding of the subject. In many parts of the world, (such as here) there wouldn't typically be any possibility of landing the helicopter anyway, and as police helicopters don't have winches, and you wouldn't use a winch with a lost kid or senile senior citizen anyway, that's the end of that. (A winch is only useful with someone who can go down with it. You know, like they have on proper SAR helicopters.)
Police helicopters do two things. Watch traffic, and watch traffic. In their spare time they do provide "eye in the sky" services to ground based units, and spot the odd forest fire (that's all they can do when it comes to forest fires as well, watch it). It's rare, as in "hens teeth" rare, occurrence when they land to actually perform a mission. (They only land for lunch, basically).
Watching traffic and providing overwatch could be equally well served by drones. The only mission you'd lose would be landing for lunch at the country inn, but that's hardly critical to the powers that be.
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday July 09 2015, @04:55AM
Yup, you're wrong. I had a police helicopter land in a clearing near me and 2 officers and a german shepard hopped out and charged into the woods. Came out with a guy in handcuffs a minute later. Think the dog gets most of the credit for the quick collar.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Sunday July 12 2015, @09:05AM
Not really. That's so rare that it made the local police quarterly. You don't think there are helicopter based K9 units, do you?
Look of course a helicopter can land and perform a mission. However its not done since it wouldn't be cost effective. For all the missions that the police helicopter are actually designed for (and by that I mean staffed etc.) a drone would do just as well.
Now, SAR, medevac, (and to a lesser extent) fire fighting, a helicopter still makes sense as you need people there anyway you might as well bring the pilot. Note that the pilot/pilots are there to do just that, and only that. If you need additional mission capability you need more people. A pilot is trained for one thing and one thing alone. To do otherwise would be too expensive, and hence a waste of resources as you could have better mission capability cheaper. (Yes, a police helicopter pilot is a "policeman" in the same way that an army cook is an "infantryman", i.e. in name only.) This is incidentally why army helicopter pilots in an air mobile unit don't park the helicopter, pick up their rifle and join the assault. That would be a complete waste of expensive resources.
And it would of course make more sense to put the K9 units back in their vehicles and provide the search capability with a drone. You would have a lot more drones covering a wider area on a much shorter notice. When the fugitive has gone to ground, the K9 unit, taken to the place by car, would already be well poised to take over and make the final arrest. There would be much less chance of escape as you could cover more angles from a much lower altitude with drones. You could for example fly below tree cover or other man made structure providing cover as well as covering all the exits as you'd have more units available. A helicopter K9 unit only makes sense of you can only afford one K9 unit and one helicopter...
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Sunday July 12 2015, @03:59PM
Ah well if you're talking about what would make the most sense and be cost-effective then you've nailed it. Also I'm in a pretty remote location, so I'd expect the helicopter to land and deploy resources brought in from the city. In LA throw the dogs in a minivan.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Monday July 13 2015, @07:43AM
Yes, in a very remote setting of course police via helicopter makes more sense, approaching as much sense as ambulance via helicopter. (That is; a lot of sense).
However, the powers that be don't see it that way, especially in the US where law enforcement is extremely decentralised and deregulated, so the money isn't there to pool for such resources. That said, you'll still see more helicopter ambulances than police helicopter "quick reaction forces" since ambulance work is "always" (for some version of "always") time critical. If you were injured five minutes ago, you're still going to be injured an hour from now. Most police work however (like 98% of it, excluding traffic monitoring), is showing up (long) after the fact and filling in the report. A guy in a cruiser can do that just as well and much more cheaply than several more guys in a helicopter (who all make more money to boot). Hell, even a guy on a horse could do that just as well. Especially in a rural setting, active chases are even fewer and farther between. Less crime per capita, much less population, and different types of crimes to boot.
For the once in a blue moon scenarios (Breivik in Norway comes to mind) quick access to a helicopter makes sense though. But having one on standby just for that is going to be money not well spent.)
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @02:23PM
Your civil rights and having drones watching everything 24/7 once this becomes commonplace, instead of an issue being significant enough to warrant helicopter support.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 06 2015, @02:32PM
"Ugh, why won't this genie fit in this bottle? I just had it in there a bit ago."
Small towns you could only get to with a long, difficult horse ride, that afford nigh infinite privacy as a result are also gone. Mostly so is not being reachable within 10 minutes thanks to cells.
By and large, technology hasn't been the friend of privacy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @02:44PM
Small towns you could only get to with a long, difficult horse ride
At least today's action flicks are in color.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 06 2015, @11:26PM
That doesn't make them better.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday July 06 2015, @02:42PM
Although I understand the point that you are making, it doesn't seem logical to me.
It's fine for us to enjoy having drones with cameras for fun, we can fly them where we wish and look at whatever we want - within legal guidelines - but if the police try to use them then it is bad. The logic behind you or I being able to look at the fleeing criminal with a drone and camera being OK, but when the police do it it is eroding our civil rights just doesn't make sense. The drone was supplied by the Fire Department who, I assume, use it to save lives (good!) but if the Police Department use it it is all wrong (bad!). Don't you want the police to catch criminals? Why are the Fire Department held to a different (lower) standard than the Police Department?
If the police abuse their use of drones then they should be held accountable for that, but to simply say that the police are wrong for using technology seems a little too broad-brush for me.
(Score: 1) by captnjohnny1618 on Monday July 06 2015, @03:27PM
That being said, I do think that we need to carefully consider how we adopt drones for use in law enforcement ( https://xkcd.com/1215/ [xkcd.com] ) ;-).
Here's some food for thought thought: I live in Los Angeles, and at any given point there are 4-5 LAPD helicopters just flying around "keeping an eye on things." Always. They probably have more in the air on nights like July 4th, or other potential high crime times. As far as I know, they don't ever land while they're on duty, so their real purpose is just to be up there watching. They also fly lower than other helicopters, so they're very loud, very annoying (they're always flying over someone's home, even at 3 and 4 AM).
Now, when I think of all of the costs associated with keeping these things in the air 24/7, how freaking loud they are, and effectively we already have what the OP is afraid of (and I think for a city this large, we realistically need some air support), a few $1000 drones start to look pretty good. Limit their numbers, limit the lowest altitude they're allowed to fly (to protect citizen privacy) and mandate a legal code of conduct, that if violated results in prosecution. If these things happened, I'd definitely be open to a trial run if it got some of the helicopters out of the air.
If nothing else they're a lot quieter!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tathra on Monday July 06 2015, @03:30PM
the difference is the same difference between a officers in person following a suspect or doing a stakeout, and cameras and license plate readers everywhere. its fine for officers to do their job in person because they're inherently limited because its in person, but with cameras, and similarly drones, its unlimited, everywhere, all the time.
red herring. have you seen the police-related news from the US on this very site? if you think this will only be used to catch criminals*, you're extremely naive. as for "they should be held accountable for abuses", that's exactly how the DEA/NSA pervasive surveillance has been handled, right? they're definitely not using it to spy on their exgirlfriends [theverge.com] and people they dislike and such, and they're definitely being caught and punished for such violations, so we can rest assured they never happen.
we know the police are corrupt, the "blue wall" [wikipedia.org] is literally a nation-wide criminal conspiracy, and the courts still give police carte-blanche to do whatever the fuck they want with no limits, always taking police at their word and even letting them off for murder. the last thing we want to do is give a criminal enterprise even more power to oppress us.
* oh, and lets not forget the fact that literaly everyone [theblaze.com] is a criminal.
(Score: 1) by captnjohnny1618 on Monday July 06 2015, @04:18PM
It looks like (from the -1 "disagree" moderation I got... aren't we a little better than that?) people interpreted my post as "pro drone." Let me clarify: I am in favor of testing drones as a replacement of the helicopters in Los Angeles. I AM NOT PRO DRONE. I also should have emphasized more that I favor strict limits on numbers of police drones (like, the same number as we keep of helicopters), and certainly mandating a human operator behind the controls at all times, preferable with others operators to keep them honest.
I still think that there is a way to do this, or at least try it out, without tumbling down the 1984 rabbit hole. It would probably save millions of tax dollars that I contribute to every year (probably to be wasted somewhere else, but hey, we can't solve all of problems at once), and shouldn't something that has that potential at least be investigated?
Maybe there isn't, but that's what EMPs are for! ;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Monday July 06 2015, @05:28PM
if they're already spending millions to keep helos in the air all the time, letting them replace helos with dones isn't going to save any money, they're just going to spend millions on drones instead. cost should be another limiting factor, but if its not already then they aren't going to spend less just because the new tech is cheaper, cheaper just means they can have more at the same cost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday July 06 2015, @06:07PM
So the problem you should be addressing is the accountability of your police and not whether they are using drones or not. If you think that technology can be abused, will you also prohibit the police from using radios and vehicles, you know, just in case they abuse how they use them? But of course the Fire Department and ambulances can use them because they are the good guys, right?
Perhaps you now see why I think this viewpoint is illogical - it does not address the true problem?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Monday July 06 2015, @11:59PM
fire departments and ambulances don't have government arrest authority, nor do they carry handcuffs or firearms as part of their normal duties, nor do they have a long history of corruption, or oppressing and murdering innocents, etc. your viewpoint is illogical because you're using a false analogy, comparing the police to any other governmental agency, thinking they're exactly the same as the guys who pick up my trash or file my paperwork at the BMV. as for not addressing the true problem, the true problem (human corruption and corruptibility) is basically impossible to solve, so the best solution is prevention, preventing them from having such abusable technologies in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:13AM
The logic behind you or I being able to look at the fleeing criminal with a drone and camera being OK, but when the police do it it is eroding our civil rights just doesn't make sense.
Sure it does; you just haven't given the issue one bit of thought. If you had, you'd realize the difference is scale. The government has nearly unlimited resources, so any surveillance is far more widespread, and all of the footage is used by one central source that can ruin your life far more easily than anyone else (the government).
I'm not a fan of personal drones everywhere, though.
but if the Police Department use it it is all wrong (bad!).
Because Fire Departments don't have nearly enough legal power to ruin people's lives; they essentially just put out fires, not arrest and harass innocent people and conduct illegal surveillance. Because Fire Departments haven't been shown to be completely corrupt like the police force has. Because the police force has routinely shown that it is willing to violate people's privacy unconstitutionally (Stringrays, stop-and-frisk, etc.). Because the police force is not only often racist, but it oppresses people in general.
Don't you want the police to catch criminals?
Not at the expense of our liberties. Having government-operated drones everywhere constitutes mass surveillance.
If the police abuse their use of drones then they should be held accountable for that, but to simply say that the police are wrong for using technology seems a little too broad-brush for me.
They won't be held accountable, and the technology will be abused. Only fools don't learn from history. Until we have a real system of accountability and harsh limits on the use of drones (very few allowed to be used at once) and the data they collect, we must reject these.
Some technology is simply more easily abused than other technology. Rejecting one technology in one context != rejecting them all.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:28AM
So fix the problem - and it is not the use of drones.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:09AM
But we need to stop the drones in the mean time to prevent their misuse. Solving the bigger issue will take much more time.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:27PM
I disagree - stopping the use of drones by 'some' people but not for others is exacerbating an already farcical situation. There is only one problem - fix it! Stop pussyfooting around and making excuses.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 07 2015, @01:35PM
I disagree - stopping the use of drones by 'some' people
You can't treat the government like a normal person.
There is only one problem - fix it! Stop pussyfooting around and making excuses.
Which I said everyone is trying to do. There are no excuses, but allowing them to abuse new technology to acquire unprecedented level of power until we can fix this much larger issue would be nonsensical.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:40PM
You only want to stop the police from using the drones - not the Government. You appear to have no objection to the fact that the Fire Department can use them, nor departments studying natural resources, or power companies carrying out inspections of cables, or anyone else for that matter. But only a handful of police were involved in this - perhaps 10, 20? - yet you seem to be blaming all police.
Your case isn't that they conducted illegal surveillance, because they didn't. There is no law prohibiting the use of drones in public places which is relevant to this story. Joe Public can do it, the Fire Department could have done it, but because it is the police you are throwing around your usual claims of infringement of civil liberties etc. You are concerned - or so it seems - with what might happen. But, as you lectured me only a few weeks ago, that is tantamount to thought crime. A handful of police officers used their common-sense to locate and apprehend a criminal in a public place. There was no peeping through windows, there was no need to apply for a warrant because they were only doing what anyone could have done - they used a drone.
If it was so terrible, why aren't there riots across America at what has taken place? Why aren't there crowds making their displeasure known about how the police are flouting the laws. Why aren't there demands for the police involved in this incident to appear in court to face a jury of their peers charged with - well, with what exactly? The fact that you don't like the police? That is not an offence. The fact is nothing illegal was done here. There aren't that many people who are outraged about what has happened and share you point of view. In fact, your fear is for what might happen. You, AP, are paranoid. But if I am wrong and this technology is abused, then punish those responsible and not all the other police who are not involved. And, of course, take the illegal technology away from everyone, the public, the Fire Department, in fact anyone who might use a drone in public.
In my opinion, this is an example of where the use of the technology might have actually been able to reduced the risk to the public - no need for speeding car chases, no armed confrontations close to crowds of innocent bystanders - and its use enabled a criminal to be apprehended when he might otherwise have escaped. It is exactly what a reasonable person would want the police to do.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:20PM
You only want to stop the police from using the drones
For reasons I've already explained. But I would not say it's limited to the police. Other parts of government with similar powers and missions should be limited too.
yet you seem to be blaming all police.
Because drones are relatively 'new' and it won't be long before many more will be used. The police have similarly abused countless other technologies that made it easy to violate people's privacy, and it always started with them not using it much.
Your case isn't that they conducted illegal surveillance, because they didn't.
Nice reading comprehension. I said there have been many cases where they have conducted illegal surveillance. Stingrays and stop-and-frisk are examples. There's no reason to believe they won't abuse drones.
You have a huge amount of blind faith in the police to believe otherwise, and that is outright poisonous for any free society.
You are concerned - or so it seems - with what might happen.
Yes, because I actually take into account history, which is apparently an amazing ability. It's not just "might"; there is a very high probability that they will be abused, and countless times at that.
But, as you lectured me only a few weeks ago, that is tantamount to thought crime.
It's not "thought crime" to say that the police can't use taxpayer dollars to buy and operate drones because they have a history of abusing technology to violate people's privacy illegally, among other abuses. Limitations on the government's power are something I support, and you seem to be unable to distinguish between the government oppressing people ("thought crime" as an example) and The People limiting the government.
The fact is nothing illegal was done here.
There's something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend my previous comments. I didn't allege anything about this specific case.
But if I am wrong and this technology is abused, then punish those responsible
Our system is set up from the ground up to make it nearly impossible to punish people with power; thug officers routinely get off even after blatantly murdering people in cold blood. That's why I suggest we reject their use of drones until we get that problem under control, because otherwise we're just giving them more power over The People; power which they will abuse, and likely use against anyone who challenges their power.
Also, I wouldn't call limiting their use of drones a punishment. Governments don't have rights; they have powers. Police are part of the government, and they're not entitled in any way to spend taxpayer money on drones, or to operate drones in any official capacity without our say. I hope others will realize this is a bad idea, despite the fact that it will sometimes be used legally.
And, of course, take the illegal technology away from everyone, the public, the Fire Department, in fact anyone who might use a drone in public.
It's like you have absolutely no ability to remember that I pointed out exactly why fire departments and police departments are different, and why fire departments having drones is not a cause for concern. It was only a few posts ago.
It is exactly what a reasonable person would want the police to do.
No, because physical safety from Bad Guys (spooky) isn't always the prime concern. Until we get the potential for abuse sorted out (which will take a long time), we need to reject these.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 08 2015, @07:13AM
So, I will reiterate for one last time - the problem is police accountability and is nothing to do with drones. So taking action to prevent police abuse of drones is completely irrelevant to the problem and this discussion.
When 1 US city has a major demonstration it hits the headlines around the world and things change. Why does it not happen for something like this? Why not 5, 10 or 50 cities demanding that they want full police accountability? Either you are wrong, and there simply isn't the support that you believe should be there (i.e. you are in the minority), or the 'Land of the Brave, and Home of the Free' is nothing more than a catchy line for a song. You didn't abolish slavery, the blacks weren't recognised as equals, nor was freedom ever won sitting on your backside discussing irrelevant issues.
Stop complaining about the use of drones and fix the real problem. It might take a long time - but it starts now.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 08 2015, @07:49AM
So, I will reiterate for one last time - the problem is police accountability and is nothing to do with drones.
And until the problems with accountability and proper drone restrictions are resolved, it is in our best interests to reject the use of technologies that are easily abused.
Some protesters are kicked or beaten by the police - what actions are being taken to ensure that the police only wear soft shoes and woolly gloves? None - it is irrelevant to the actual problem.
You can kill someone with hands or fists alone, and this would impact their ability to do anything at all. Restricting the usage of mass surveillance devices is different and the reasons are different.
Innocent civilians have been killed by police weapons. What action is being taken to disarm the police? None - it is irrelevant to the actual problem.
Wrong. The police are too militarized.
Innocent bystanders have been killed by police vehicles being driven at high speed in pursuit of criminals. What action is being taken to prevent the police from using cars to pursue criminals? None - it is irrelevant to the actual problem.
I would suspect that those are accidents, so not really an example of government abuse. Maybe negligence, at best. Irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 08 2015, @09:08AM
Exactly my point! Your whole argument is irrelevant. It is not the technology that is at fault but the user. You should punish those who misuse the technology, but you cannot do so until that point is reached. Up to now, nobody has - you are merely frightened of what you believe someone might be thinking of doing. So you feel that any advantages that drones might bring to the police - and the rest of society - should be thrown away because of what you believe someone might be tempted to do in the future? Should we have you arrested because you might, at some point, decide to kill someone or sell drugs or get behind the wheel of a car after drinking alcohol?
Only a week or two ago you were arguing the opposite of what you are now advocating. I suggested that some restrictions to prevent crime might be preferable to waiting until innocent lives are lost but you adamantly insisted that could never be acceptable. Only those who have actually committed a crime should have restrictions placed upon them. Yet now you want the opposite for the police and other LEO - but not for anyone else. How inconsistent can you get?
I suspect it is you who fears your own police, not the majority of Americans, but for whatever reason I cannot guess. However, you dare not try to correct the real problem. Perhaps it is time you reviewed the words of your own anthem.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 08 2015, @11:21AM
It is not the technology that is at fault but the user.
Then you can't be in favor of gun control. Or will you argue that it is not always that simple?
And you could apply this logic to anything in existence. Mass surveillance? Sure, it kills democracy and destroys privacy, but you can't ban it merely because it could be abused. Clearly the government should be allowed to use absolutely any technology to subjugate its citizens, no matter how likely it is that it will be abused.
Up to now, nobody has
That's absolutely absurd. How many times do I have to bring up the fact that they've already shown themselves to be completely corrupt and untrustworthy, and have abused other technologies like Stingrays to violate our privacy countless times? None of what I say is just some crazy and unlikely hypothetical; it's far more likely than not, unless the use of drones magically turns them into perfect beings.
Should we have you arrested because you might, at some point, decide to kill someone or sell drugs or get behind the wheel of a car after drinking alcohol?
When have I suggested that someone be personally arrested for using drones? The government simply should not be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to operate them.
Only a week or two ago you were arguing the opposite of what you are now advocating.
Let me guess: I was arguing against the government banning something entirely for reasons of safety, or something such as that. Now I'm yet again suggesting that the government should not have unlimited power by advocating that they not have technology that they will definitely abuse in significant ways. There is zero contradiction here. Or do you think I am arguing that we should ban the personal use of drones? That would be more of a contradiction, but that's not what is happening. You seemingly act like the government has some sort of fundamental right to use drones.
Only those who have actually committed a crime should have restrictions placed upon them.
Yet now you want the opposite for the police and other LEO - but not for anyone else. How inconsistent can you get?
Governments have powers, not rights. Despite what you seem to think, they are not entitled to keep their powers if they are found to be easily abused or harmful.
However, you dare not try to correct the real problem.
I've already said that it should be corrected. You can tackle more than one problem at once.
It seems to me like you care more about giving the government unlimited power than you do about actually protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry. You're defending the government as if it's just this sweet little individual person who couldn't harm a fly. Any restriction upon the government's power is seen almost as an encroachment on someone's personal liberties.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 08 2015, @01:42PM
But using your logic where a few have abused a technology and therefore whole organisations must therefore never be allowed to use it again, you will now be arguing for gun control? I can't think of a bigger group of people that have shown themselves unable to manage the power that the technology has given them. Or, to quote you:
Yes, and people often do. We haven't banned cars because a few were used in robberies, have we? We haven't banned matches simply because some were used to set fire to buildings. And I don't know why you think that I support the government when I am very much against the abuses carried out by the NSA and GCHQ.
No, but the government has been elected by us - you know, the people - to 'govern' the country for us. Your arguments fall apart when they don't follow your own personal views - you argue one case when it suits you, and then quickly change tack when it might inconvenience you personally but actually be of benefit to the wider community. You would prefer a government that follows your wishes rather than those of the majority.
I get it - you don't like the police. You make this abundantly clear. You have again referred to them in a childish manner ('government thugs') although many of the police that you come into contact with will be local forces - which suggests that you dislike any kind of authority that isn't supporting your own personal viewpoint. The only acceptable change you will ever see is when you are the authority or government. I look forward to seeing how well you do in the coming elections - you will be standing won't you, or is it all talk again? Don't bother replying to that - I think I already know the answer.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 08 2015, @02:13PM
Yes, and people often do. We haven't banned cars because a few were used in robberies, have we?
I'm done arguing with this line of reasoning, as I've already thoroughly debunked the notion that restricting the government's power is the same as restricting individual liberties.
And I don't know why you think that I support the government when I am very much against the abuses carried out by the NSA and GCHQ.
Well, why not? If you're going to say I'm being inconsistent based on extremely shallow logic, then surely the same sort of logic would apply to you.
Your arguments fall apart when they don't follow your own personal views - you argue one case when it suits you, and then quickly change tack when it might inconvenience you personally but actually be of benefit to the wider community.
It's just that you fail to understand the arguments at hand, and how they differ from other situations.
You would prefer a government that follows your wishes rather than those of the majority.
I prefer governments that respect our liberties and the law. And we don't have a direct democracy, which is a good thing.
I get it - you don't like the police.
I'm extremely cautious of the government in general, and for good reason; I actually read history. It's a necessary evil and nothing more.
You have again referred to them in a childish manner
That is not childish; when they act like thugs, they get called thugs. They have blatantly murdered people in cold blood; most stick up and lie for fellow thug officers who commit the most heinous abuses; the system fails to hold them accountable even for the worst abuses; they violate our privacy routinely and illegally; they steal innocent people's money and property through asset forfeiture; they are racist; and they just generally have a complete lack of respect for our liberties. The ones who are not like this and refuse to stand with the ones who are are worthy of the title of "police officer".
although many of the police that you come into contact with will be local forces
Local forces abuse people all the time. Not comforting.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Monday July 06 2015, @02:27PM
> Anyone know what the cost differential is?
Sure, it's the difference between two costs, but that's not important now.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 06 2015, @04:14PM
Rumack: You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.
Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?
Rumack: It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
###################################################
Randy: Excuse me sir, there's been a little problem in the cockpit…
Striker: The cockpit…what is it?
Randy: It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilots sit, but that's not important right now.
#################################################
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Monday July 06 2015, @03:12PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Monday July 06 2015, @03:21PM
Police or other government agencies actively looking for murderers, rapists, robbers, etc... Good
Police or other government agencies actively looking into citizens personal lives without a good reason (see above).... Bad
Police or other government agencies with a drone actively looking into citizens personal lives without a good reason .... Bad
Police or other government agencies with a drone actively looking for murderers, rapists, robbers, etc... Also bad????
WTF?
What we have here is just another "...with a" scenario. Supposedly reasonable freedom and privacy loving people hate it when the government passes a bunch of "... with a ..." laws such as all the "... with a computer" BS but then turns around and does the same thing in reverse "... with a drone"?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:07AM
That's because the situation can completely change depending on the technology. The reason people don't want the drones is because they'll inevitably be abused, and they are cost-effective ways of performing widespread surveillance (and also recording, which means faulty human memories aren't involved).
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Monday July 06 2015, @03:44PM
it was determined that the owner of the drone also managed to capture some footage of the police involved in the pursuit, which means he was engaged in filming he police. He was immediately had his drone and footage confiscated. He currently faces a fine of up to $1,000 and 30 days in jail for interfering with a police investigation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @05:33PM
Wait, are you serious or joking? Despite laws against filming the police being struck down as unconstitutional, there are still plenty of places that illegally enforce them, and too few people realize that "enforcement" of unconstitutional laws means the people 'arrested' under them are victims of kidnapping and illegal confinement, and can thus file lawsuits against the perpetrators.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday July 08 2015, @12:47PM
(Cool, I get to use my favourite phrase: )
"Ah, but that's different..."
Yay for selective enforcement!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 06 2015, @09:04PM
A lovely young Vancouver woman in the orime of her life claimed to have a gun when she demanded another woman hand over her purse.
She lead the VPD and Clark County Sheriff on a high speed chase, severely injuring a deputy when she collided with his patrol car.
She eluded oursuit at first but they obtained her home address from her license plates. Andvyes she went straight home. The SWAT team surrounded her for three hours until a negotistor convinced her to surrender.
She cited heroin as the reason.
There is quite a lot of heroin here in Vancouver and Portland. One of my very best friends is an addict. I gave him a login on my mac so he could sync his photos from icloud. mI looked through them all not long ago. In most of them he is far more muscular, many of those phitos have his friends, family and coworkers in them.
Now, when he is not in jail, he lives in a squat and dines at the portland rescue misdion.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 06 2015, @11:31PM
Yay, lets have drones everywhere, that way we can catch All of the Dissidents err...Criminals.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"