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: 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.