Manhunt in SoCal, suspect is surrounded in a cabin, two officers down.

Can someone enlighten me please what the big difference is, between a remote controlled drone and a helicopter with the same equpment (besides that it's smaller and most likely cheaper to maintain)?
 
Can someone enlighten me please what the big difference is, between a remote controlled drone and a helicopter with the same equpment (besides that it's smaller and most likely cheaper to maintain)?

The fact that Police Helicopters are generally only called for pursuits of known suspects, where as the drones are for passive monitoring, which is quite a bit more invasive and Big Brother like.
 
Not only are police helicopters (and planes, for example over highways) circling over big cities constantly (even here in Germany), in this case we are talking about the search for an armed and dangerous suspect. To me at least, it makes sense to use a UAV for things like this.

I still remember how they used Tornado jets here in Germany, to look for a missing girl, because the thermal vision and other optical instruments were so good compared to other stuff back then.
 
Azuremen
The fact that Police Helicopters are generally only called for pursuits of known suspects, where as the drones are for passive monitoring, which is quite a bit more invasive and Big Brother like.

Wonder what happens if Big Bubba starts using thems for targit practice.
 
Not only are police helicopters (and planes, for example over highways) circling over big cities constantly (even here in Germany), in this case we are talking about the search for an armed and dangerous suspect. To me at least, it makes sense to use a UAV for things like this.

I still remember how they used Tornado jets here in Germany, to look for a missing girl, because the thermal vision and other optical instruments were so good compared to other stuff back then.

Using a UAV in suspect pursuit is fine, but the issue in the US is just passive monitoring in areas. Germany (and much of Europe) tends to care less about privacy when it is being balanced against the "greater" good. We are very touchy about surveillance in the US, though this seems to be changing with how Obama is running things :indiff:
 
To be honest, if the government really wants to monitor you, they don't need a UAV for that. ;)

When you own 100 acres of property, they kind of do. Acreage isn't really an uncommon thing here... Especially in states where you can shoot trespassers.
 
People have more privacy now then they ever have; that is a moot point.

Idiots plaster themselves all over facebook, checking in at every stop they make, their browsing/shopping data shared from here to kingdom-come.... and we whine about a camera in the sky when there is one at every intersection here in Dallas....

If you're not a criminal why are you worried? You really think you're that special for the big bad government to care about? Come on now.

If you're worried about privacy get off the internet.
 
People have more privacy now then they ever have; that is a moot point.

Idiots plaster themselves all over facebook, checking in at every stop they make, their browsing/shopping data shared from here to kingdom-come.... and we whine about a camera in the sky when there is one at every intersection here in Dallas....

If you're not a criminal why are you worried? You really think you're that special for the big bad government to care about? Come on now.

If you're worried about privacy get off the internet.

I see you don't get the distinction. I can choose to share my life all I want on Facebook or anywhere else, at my own discretion. That's my choice as a free citizen in a democracy. The government spying and snooping into my business in any way is not their discretion or at least in my opinion it shouldn't be, provided it's not within the bounds of a criminal investigation or some such thing. I choose to be on Facebook, the goverment can gather that info all they want because I put it out there for everyone to see. Do I want them hovering over my backyard watching what I'm doing in the private domain of my own property? Absolutely not.
 
People have more privacy now then they ever have; that is a moot point.

Idiots plaster themselves all over facebook, checking in at every stop they make, their browsing/shopping data shared from here to kingdom-come.... and we whine about a camera in the sky when there is one at every intersection here in Dallas....

If you're not a criminal why are you worried? You really think you're that special for the big bad government to care about? Come on now.

If you're worried about privacy get off the internet.

Bolded.

Why, do tell, do you think the government would waste resources to hover over your backyard?
Which by the way you do not own the airspace above your property.

Actually, that is incorrect to an extent. You own enough of the airspace above your house that can actually be used on land.
(not the greatest source http://mentalfloss.com/article/31018/do-you-own-space-above-your-house)


There is so much legislation protecting your right to privacy its absurd this is even an issue.


Satellites (Google Earth/street view?), jets with high resolution cameras, audio surveillance in public transportation, traffic cameras, etc etc.

The unknown is always the scariest.... for whatever reason people forget all the tools the government already has...
 
Last edited:
Can someone enlighten me please what the big difference is, between a remote controlled drone and a helicopter with the same equpment (besides that it's smaller and most likely cheaper to maintain)?

photo.jpg
 
There is so much legislation protecting your right to privacy its absurd this is even an issue.
Oddly, of the first ten most robust laws you have, four of them deal with your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, to maintain your own counsel, to have a trial by a jury of your peers and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. You have three branches of government (Congress, Supreme Court, President) whose job it is to keep these ten laws uppermost, each operating as a check for breaches of them by the other two.

Only nobody told them that was their job when they killed a man from New Mexico with a drone, without trial, because they thought he was a terrorist. Nor when they killed a 16 year old kid from Detroit, without trial, in another drone strike because they thought the guy he was with at the time was a terrorist - and it was the kid's own fault for hanging around with him (apparently).

Tell me more about how only criminals should be scared because legislation protects the innocent.
 
Only nobody told them that was their job when they killed a man from New Mexico with a drone, without trial, because they thought he was a terrorist. Nor when they killed a 16 year old kid from Detroit, without trial, in another drone strike because they thought the guy he was with at the time was a terrorist - and it was the kid's own fault for hanging around with him (apparently)

OMG Famine, now you're telling the other members what GTPlanet's banishment process is really about.

Take this pill.

Ladies and gentlemen, he said nothing.

He was just reading a science-fiction novel, that's all. Now continue with your lives while we figure out some known unknowns named McCown.
 
I'm hoping not, but as Famine said, we've been doing it already. If they do, it will be the first time on our soil that I know of.

I know you guys think surveillance is a good thing that protects the innocent, tools are tools, any tool can be used responsibly or not.
 
I'm not saying this, I'm saying that the state can already survey you how they want, they don't need drones for that and that I still need to see an argument why a UAV is worse than a helicopter.
 
I'm not saying this, I'm saying that the state can already survey you how they want, they don't need drones for that and that I still need to see an argument why a UAV is worse than a helicopter.

But they really can't without a high risk of legal and politically repercussions. As others have pointed out, the US was meant to put privacy far above much else, and it is a relatively unique thing compared to much of the developed world.
 
And, I'm saying I believe the 4th amendment should be upheld.
How is deploying an unmanned aerial drone an unreasonable search?

Perhaps it might be if the police were looking for the guy who keyed the police chief's car. But the suspect's crimes amount to so much more than that. Furthermore, he is believed to be holed up in a remote area of Southern California and might be heading for the Mexican border. He's the most-wanted man in America right now, and labelled a domestic terrorist.
 
I never said anything about their ROE's.... so not sure why you're trying to argue with me on that....

The topic that was specifically being discussed was privacy.
Actually I was specifically pointing out that believing legislation to protect your privacy if you're innocent will protect your privacy if you're innocent is foolhardy when legislation - much more stern legislation that forms the entire foundation of the governance of the USA - to protect you from being executed without trial fails to protect you from being executed by trial...
 
Famine
Actually I was specifically pointing out that believing legislation to protect your privacy if you're innocent will protect your privacy if you're innocent is foolhardy when legislation - much more stern legislation that forms the entire foundation of the governance of the USA - to protect you from being executed without trial fails to protect you from being executed by trial...


"Reasonable suspicion."

Well...

The man from New Mexico was a terrorist; regardless of whether or not he is a US citizen....

"al-Awlaki fled the U.S. as the FBI began to close its case linking him to two of the 9/11 terrorists. He fled to Yemen and allegedly gave guidance to both the famed underwear bomber and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who carried out the mass shooting at the Fort Hood military base. He showed himself to be an imminent threat to the U.S. and had to be dealt with."

He was with Samir Kahn when they were both killed.

http://www.oudaily.com/news/2013/feb/11/drone_strikes/

Yemen wouldn't extradite...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/12/yemen-tells-us-they-wont-extradite-awlaki/

So, yes. Blow their asses up.

I don't know the circumstances regarding the terrorist's son...

As far as what the media has done with the response from Gibbs that is unfortunate; he was cornered by the press and, well, pressed until he gave an answer he obviously did not have prepared.... But really how truthful was his answer...

Got off topic? lol

Edit:

Actually the poor 16 year old was collateral damage:

"According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager." ... Says the terrorist family from Yemen.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html

But hey that doesn't make as big of headlines as "16 YEAR OLD AMERICAN TARGETED BY OBAMA IN DRONE STRIKE!!!"

On a "quest" or training....
 
Last edited:
"Reasonable suspicion."

Well...

The man from New Mexico was a terrorist; regardless of whether or not he is a US citizen....

"al-Awlaki fled the U.S. as the FBI began to close its case linking him to two of the 9/11 terrorists. He fled to Yemen and allegedly gave guidance to both the famed underwear bomber and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who carried out the mass shooting at the Fort Hood military base. He showed himself to be an imminent threat to the U.S. and had to be dealt with."

He was with Samir Kahn when they were both killed.

http://www.oudaily.com/news/2013/feb/11/drone_strikes/

Yemen wouldn't extradite...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/12/yemen-tells-us-they-wont-extradite-awlaki/

So, yes. Blow their asses up.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the Bill of Rights where you could execute people without trial.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
No... No it rather looks like you can't do that.

Only the three branches of government you task with making sure that isn't broken all said it was fine.

Perhaps they were confused by the "in time of War" (the war they haven't declared) part, or maybe the "[in times of] public danger" part - but that'd require them to class al-Aulaqi as a serving member of their armed forces or militia.


I'm sure he was a very, very bad man - but the foundations of your country say that as a US citizen he must not be executed without trial.

These laws were ignored to kill a man who'd never been convicted of the crime he was sentenced to death for. They're pretty high-ranking laws because they form the basis of every other law in the USA. Why on Earth would you retain any confidence that piddly little privacy laws won't be ignored to surveil individuals who've never been convicted a crime?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause


"The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qa’ida to Afghanistan."

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

"The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

In the case you missed this:

Actually the poor 16 year old was collateral damage:

"According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager." ... Says the terrorist family from Yemen.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html

But hey that doesn't make as big of headlines as "16 YEAR OLD AMERICAN TARGETED BY OBAMA IN DRONE STRIKE!!!"

On a "quest" or training....
 
Last edited:
Yes. Reasonable suspicion is "we think that, but we can't arrest", while probable cause (which is in the Fourth Amendment) is "we think that and can arrest". Neither quite hit the mark of "We can put a missile in your brain without ever presenting your case to trial".

Probable cause is what's used to arrest people before their trial, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. A drone strike is what's used to kill people without them ever facing trial, against the provisions of the Bill of Rights. As a US citizen, al-Aulaqi should have been afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Just like you should be.
 
Back