Weaponized Police Drones (Houston, Tejas)

[rambone]

I flat out oppose all federalization of local police, and I don't care how many lives it supposedly saves. Why should money from a Hoosier's paycheck be confiscated by the Federal government and then redistributed to the Houston police department for some high tech gadget? Why are the Feds bribing local departments anyways?

Real conservatives should be opposed to big, spend-crazy government... even if the money is funding agencies that you support. Get the Feds out of local police. Stand by your principles and turn down all stolen blood-money that comes from the Feds.

 

[gunowner930]

For everyone arguing that they might misuse the drone, why don't we just turn in all our guns.

You're comparing citizens to govt. law enforcement. Bad analogy. Maintaining the power of the people = expanding the power of the state???

Someone might misuse one and we just cant take that chance. They clearly stated their purpose for this, why can't anyone give it a chance before automatically acting their attempt to increase their ability to serve us.

Because some of us are skeptical of govt and don't believe every word that comes out of their mouths. I'm sure that the TSA is supposed to be professional too right? But but Big Sis says so. Afterall, the TSA wasn't supposed to abuse their fradulent powers of molesting citizens and saving images of naked body scans.

I know some of you have it out for all law enforcement you show it over and over again, but no matter what profession your in there are always bad apples but we don't single out every profession and the people who do their jobs as terrible people like some on here seem to do to law enforcement officers. If that drone could save one life, officer or civilian would it be worth the $300,000 then? What if it was someone in your family?

I do not have it out for law enforcement. There are many good LEOs, but regardless of how good they are, I don't support the ever-expanding powers and sometimes equipment they are being given. Specifically in regard to this post, I don't like the fact that they'll be able to spy on anyone they fly over.

Maybe we should just repeal the 4th Amendment, afterall if it saves JUST one life.

Responses in red

 

[gunman41mag]

a years salary for 5 policemen who might actually raise some revenue and solve a crime or two vs an overpriced RC chopper with a really expensive FLIR camera on board. If I shoot it down you reckon they'll let me have the camera?


There will definitely be film on youtube that's unauthorized. Having the capability and not using it is not something the government (or even most people) can resist indefinitely. This is the start of a slippery slope that could go horribly wrong in the hands of someone with less than stellar morals and ethics.

shoot it down, fix it, then use it for spotting deer

 

[hornadylnl]

shoot it down, fix it, then use it for spotting deer

I'm sure that would violate dnr regs and they'd then confiscate everything you own.

 

[vitamink]

So you have a smaller, way cheaper, unmanned version of the larger more costly money pit that is a helicopter that accomplishes the same goal...

I am outraged as a taxpayer. I'd much rather pay three times that, plus operating costs of between $200-$400 an hour. What about the cost to operate that little bastard? $4.00? I say not enough. If that little helicopter crashes chances are no one gets hurt...that pisses me off...I want a giant fireball and at least a family or two killed. For christ sake people according to the article this little helicopter can be armed...possibly with bottle rockets! have you ever had a bottle rocket go of near you? Its mildly annoying!!!


quote from police helicopter article:

"Police copters cost from $500,000 to $3million fully equipped. Flying costs range from $200 to $400 per hour. In Phoenix, the aviation budget for fiscal 2008 is $8.4million."

 

[hornadylnl]

Let's see. The same government who says I'm a potential terrorist for having served in the military expects my unbridled trust with drones.

 

[vitamink]

THe drone that does the EXACT same thing as the flying money pit? What is it that everyone thinks this small cheap version can do that the larger current version can't?

I don't get it.

As a side note, many police departments are switching to ultralights with FLIR instead of helicopters as they're cheaper as well. You may be able to weaponize them with roman candles.

Kids, get your tin foil hats ready as you can buy these all day long from brookstone at circle center mall. That's were i got mine for about $300. It has 2 cameras and is a blast to fly around. Parrot, the company that makes them, stated they've sold 1000's to kids

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwR9_2VRzwU[/ame]

 

[hornadylnl]

THe drone that does the EXACT same thing as the flying money pit? What is it that everyone thinks this small cheap version can do that the larger current version can't?

I don't get it.

As a side note, many police departments are switching to ultralights with FLIR instead of helicopters as they're cheaper as well. You may be able to weaponize them with roman candles.

Kids, get your tin foil hats ready as you can buy these all day long from brookstone at circle center mall. That's were i got mine for about $300. It has 2 cameras and is a blast to fly around. Parrot, the company that makes them, stated they've sold 1000's to kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwR9_2VRzwU

I'll use a gun analogy. Everyone gets into reloading to save money. They don't end up saving any money, they just shoot more for the same budget.

Since the constitution doesn't seem to provide much checks and balances on the police state, I'll settle for prohibitive costs for now.

 

[phylodog]

OK, I'll play. What would be a legitimate LE use for this? Taken a step further, you said you "might" have a problem with such a thing being armed. What reasons would you consider valid for a police agency to have (using your examples) "machine guns, stinger missles, and grenade launchers" on it (or the more likely, machine guns and some type of gas grenade vs. explosive ordnance, i.e. a bomb of some kind) I can't see a reason that LE needs to be remotely launching ordnance against citizens. This is not a war zone. I understand you guys want to go home at the end of the shift and I can respect and support that. What I cannot support is the violation of your oath of office to make it happen. I understand that whenever you have rules, those who don't will find a way to take advantage of your limitations. What I don't understand is where the line is drawn once you start exceeding those limitations.

It provides an aerial view of a situation. The uses mirror those of the full sized helicopters. Searching for lost children or elderly, following fleeing felons from a distance rather than traditional pursuit, gathering intelligence prior to serving a warrant, etc.. I don't see the need for weaponry attached to these, not for LE anyway. The entire point of my posts is to point out that because a reporter decided to make the article about the fact that this thing is capable of having weapons installed, some grab that ball and sprint like hell in full blown panic mode.

Example: You can search someone's car without a warrant because of the "plain sight" exception. If you can see something from someone's front door, you can act upon what you see. If you can smell something (or claim you can smell something) from within a car or house, you can act upon that claim. Right now, the line is drawn at a statement of "I smelled an odor consistent with (fill in blank here)".... and who can deny what you say you smelled? The potential for abuse is very high in this, even if you, as an honorable LEO do not abuse it yourself, if you think about it, you either know now or can recall someone you've met in your career who might have been less of a stickler on the practical applications of those rules. I am not asking you to confirm or deny that last supposition on my part. Just think about it, and I would be very surprised if you've never met someone meeting that description.

Sure, I'll admit there are some who cut the corners or even flat out lie. Fortunately they are the minority and I think I've made my position on those very clear over the years. I don't like dirty cops. I would think that anything and everything this drone is used for would be recorded. The video is going to have to be transmitted to the operator anyway. If LE wants to obtain a warrant for something observed with the drone I would hope the judge would want to see it for himself.

From what I've read of your posts, you're an ardent defender of your brethren and sisters in blue (or brown) and you stand on the principle of a man of honor. The down side to that, and the source of an old saying, "nice guys finish last" is that when you are a man of honor, it's hard to imagine someone in your same position who is not. It's offensive to think of someone treating in cavalier fashion those things so important to you... but as we all know, there are those people, even in positions of the highest trust. I've met medics I wouldn't trust with anything sharper than a Nerf ball. The one in particular I have in mind was drummed out when he administered unnecessary meds to a patient due to his own misdiagnosis. That was the last call I worked with him, and his last for our service (he is also no longer certified as even an EMT.) The relevant limitation on us is that we cannot knowingly incorrectly treat a patient. That is inviolable. So... Where's the line for LEOs? If your chief was to decide tomorrow that he wanted a drone.. wanted you as the operator, and was going to use it with a remote mic to spy on citizens not specifically suspected of any wrongdoing... Would you accept the assignment? Keep in mind that he's determined there is a legitimate use for it.. Someone, somewhere out there might be a terrorist, after all..

There are men of honor in every segment of society, there are also turds. You've never seen me defend a cop or anyone else who proves themselves to be a turd. Where you see my feathers ruffled is the constant assumptions that because some idiot with a badge somewhere does something stupid I can no longer be trusted. No one here would stand for it if the discussion were about white men, black men, men with brown hair, men with blonde hair or men in whatever profession they work in. But since it's cops, it's all good. Blanket statements and shotgun punishment all around. It's utterly ****ing ridiculous. People here ***** about "the government", I'd love to see what happens if some of their children grew up and decided to be LE. Gonna stop inviting them over for Thanksgiving dinner cause they can no longer be trusted?

What it comes down to for me is not what the good, honorable officers will do with toys like this, but rather what those without scruples or honor will do without proper oversight... in other words, how could this thing be abused and how do we prevent that? The issue is not with cops, it's with people. Some people are not honorable, ergo, some of any subset of people will also not be.

Looking forward to your thoughts and response.

Blessings,
Bill

All due respect Bill, this issue absolutely, 100% is with cops. If this were a thread created about some RC enthusiast in Idaho who had strapped a rifle to a RC helicopter and was using it to hunt antelope do you honestly believe any single person on INGO would have an issue with it? The answer is hell no.

As usual, it's an "all cops can't be trusted" BS thread, again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the government CAN abuse something, the government WILL abuse it. One loon in Idaho is not a threat to me and if he is prosecute him. A government who wants to weaponize my airspace is a threat and will not be prosecuted. It needs to be addressed politically. Citizens going to the city council and asking what the heck they are doing.

How long before the drones are armed and used to conduct animal cruelty raids? All it takes is a camera crew to show up and the gear will be misused.

Need anyone be reminded of the Chicken Crusher Raid?

We need to turn the government back from this path and back toward sanity--no more toys, ties, brown shoes and brown belts.

 

[vitamink]

I'll use a gun analogy. Everyone gets into reloading to save money. They don't end up saving any money, they just shoot more for the same budget.

Since the constitution doesn't seem to provide much checks and balances on the police state, I'll settle for prohibitive costs for now.

I'm trying to understand your argument as the ammo thing doesn't make sense. If the current budget is 1.5 million dollars a department can choose to either:
A. buy 1 helicopter and fly it for a year, or

B. buy a drone, fly it forever, and have a million left over

We've ascertained that both the drone and the helicopter do the exact same thing and have the exact same surveillance equipment.

Are you saying that you don't want the cheaper option because, as in the example, instead of them buying 1 drone and saving a million, they might be inclined to buy 5 drones?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It has 2 cameras and is a blast to fly around. Parrot, the company that makes them, stated they've sold 1000's to kids

Yes, but no one fears the kid down the block. The kid down the block is not authorized to shoot my dogs and run over my chickens.

If the kid down the block commits a crime with his toy then he will be prosecuted for doing so.

On what basis would we trust the government with this toy? Trust this until it is too late, or do we oppose the govnerment now when it does not have an air force?

Is there a definable test or standard for allowing the police toys?

 

[phylodog]

If the government CAN abuse something, the government WILL abuse it. One loon in Idaho is not a threat to me and if he is prosecute him. A government who wants to weaponize my airspace is a threat and will not be prosecuted. It needs to be addressed politically. Citizens going to the city council and asking what the heck they are doing.

How long before the drones are armed and used to conduct animal cruelty raids? All it takes is a camera crew to show up and the gear will be misused.

Need anyone be reminded of the Chicken Crusher Raid?

We need to turn the government back from this path and back toward sanity--no more toys, ties, brown shoes and brown belts.

I'm not 100% positive but I doubt the drone in Houston has the range to fly up here and chase your chickens around.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Houston has one and the next thing you know all the police will want one.

"But, mooommmmm, all the cool kids have that toy."

First, Los Angeles had a tank, now everyone has tanks and they are using them so wisely. Now another big city has a new toy and other cities will want them too.

 

[vitamink]

On what basis would we trust the government with this toy?

*****On the same basis that we trust them with helicopters.

Trust this until it is too late, or do we oppose the govnerment now when it does not have an air force?

******....they have HELICOPTERS now. This is an RC heli with FLIR attached.

Is there a definable test or standard for allowing the police toys?

*****Hopefully when it is proven to save taxpayer money while performing the exact same function as a million dollar aircraft with a $200 and hour operating cost.


I would understand your argument (even if i would still disagree) if you were against ALL forms of police helicoptery. It would make sense that if you don't want helicopters, you wouldn't want little ones either.

I would understand your argument, and completely agree, if you didn't want the police to have an apache gunship.

I would also understand the taxpayer money argument if these weren't to be used to replace helicopters.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

On the same basis that we trust them with helicopters.

No I don't.

So, say a city did not have a helicopter. What test should the department have to pass in order to receive their toy (assume proper funding)?

 

[vitamink]

No I don't.

So, say a city did not have a helicopter. What test should the department have to pass in order to receive their toy (assume proper funding)?

I understand that you don't want them to have helicopters, but can we agree that if they must have a helicopter or need to replace one, they buy this way cheaper RC option?

The CC council would have to vote on it. A general order would be created for it. Someone would have to prove proficiency with it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Unmanned drones were not truly ready for combat deployment when we started using them in the MILITARY...

The communication lines were not encrypted, the frequencies used were primitive (resulting in many crashes), and many accidents happened. Even before you take into account the risk of intended nefarious actions, remote control devices like this have a real hard time dealing with signal interference. The chance of this drone being involved in an accident is much higher than that of a manned aircraft.

Do you think this private company has learned all the lessons the military has through active deployment? Do you think the military shared their classified secrets with this private company?

I will go out on a limb and make an assumption... this drone has a primitive unencrypted communications channel that I could hack with your laptop and $100.

I highly doubt this unmanned drones is ready to be deployed in high population law enforcement scenarios.... let alone, in a weaponized format...

 

[vitamink]

THe first drone was used in 1973 by the israelis. Our military adopted the idea in 1990, they probably haven't figured it out in 40 years.

Regardless this isn't a "drone" its an RC helicopter with a FLIR camera on it. They're calling it a drone for all the call of duty MW3 types to get a boner over.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

THe first drone was used in 1973 by the israelis. Our military adopted the idea in 1990, they probably haven't figured it out in 40 years.

Regardless this isn't a "drone" its an RC helicopter with a FLIR camera on it. They're calling it a drone for all the call of duty MW3 types to get a boner over.

Which makes it even riskier, being primitive...

Now put it in the air in a place such as Houston, where signal interference is dense...

The fact that it was designed to hold weapons, being that primitively controlled, is a pretty ridiculous situation... thankfully they did not get any weapon systems installed, because that is a horrible idea...

And no, our military has not "figured it out" - military drones are constantly being developed... weaknesses are found, and new developments aim at fixing the issues... It requires huge investments... When military drones with much greater lengths of development time and field testing still require developments to secure, a RC helicopter without anything close to that level of security technology is not ready to be flying over US cities...

Civilians are not permitted to fly these in the city for a good reason....