SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.