Christopher Dorner first drone target on U.S. soil.
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As long as said drone would also speak about the environment, try to talk about the problems he and the criminals are having and not use his weapons. He should also be a role model to our kids and work to prevent smoking.thaluikhain said:
Assuming this is one of the older Predator drones: $4.03 millionFappy said:
If its one of the new Reapers: $36.8 million
Cost of a FIM-92 Stinger SAM (probly what he has, if at all): $38,000
OT: I dont see what the problem is here. If the only way to stop him is to bomb him back to the stone age with a drone, no shits are given by me. He is a wanted murderer who is well armed and EXTREMELY dangerous, and I put the lives of the LAPD FAR above this scum-bag.
Of course, I didnt complain about them bombing that guy in Yemen either, so take that as you will.
A missile is worth far more than a human, so they probably wouldn't bother blowing him up with it.
They're probably going overboard with expenditure just by having a UAV find him.
What I guess will happens is they're gonna find him with the drone, then go and riddle him with bullets because that's how justice works.
They're probably going overboard with expenditure just by having a UAV find him.
What I guess will happens is they're gonna find him with the drone, then go and riddle him with bullets because that's how justice works.
I think people do not really get the whole "continuum of force" thing, the police can and do have the authority to kill people in the US (and in most countries) under the right circumstances. This includes shooting fleeing suspects under the right circumstances. They always have, but I'm not going to get into that in details right now. Nor do I hope I really have to explain that it's not a utopian world, accidents, and collateral damage happen. You should try and avoid them, but it's one thing to sit back and QQ about garbage and how it turned out from a safe distance, and another to go out there and have to do this kind of thing, putting your butt on the line every day.
That said, from what I've read about Dorner, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to just snap and go rogue, even after being fired. I've noticed there isn't a lot of information about his firing, other than to say that it was due to him "making false statements". I've been of the opinion for a while that we need more information about what happened, and at this point they should be investigating the backround of this a bit more. It occured to me that instead of engaging in urban warfare with the guy, it might be a better idea to look into the situation a bit more, and maybe get the guy to surrender.
That said, I seem to remember this guy has been attacking the family members of people on his list, which doesn't speak highly for him.
While the situation needs more investigation and public scrutiny, as the guy is an armed, murdering, felon with a declared intent to strike again, I have no objection to him being taken out by snipers or a drone given the oppertunity... which is pretty much how I see killing someone with a Drone, the same as doing it with a sniper. For all intents and purposes a drone is just a much more advanced rifle/gun, someone is pulling a "trigger" to kill an unsuspecting target at a range. You have to be careful with tools like this, but as I've never objected to the police using Snipers in the right situations, I'm hardly going to object to them using a Drone. Dorner is exactly the kind of dude that warrents SWAT response and bringing those kinds of tools to bear to begin with.
This also applies to things like thermo, sensors, surveillance, Drones are just new ways of mounting/using those tools. As long as they go through the existing channels to use those tools to begin with, putting them on a Drone is no big deal. If Drones are used in place of SWAT members, or as a way of following up on pre-approved suerveillance/wiretapping operations that have gone through the proper channels, I really don't give a crap. Whether it's a couple of cops in a van listening to your conversation through a wiretap, or doing it by using a Drone hovering outside your window, to me it's the warrent/permission and that process that matters rather than the tool. Ditto for shooting someone with a Drone, I see little fundemental differance between a SWAT Sniper taking down a dangerous guy through a window, and doing it with a Drone, given the same kinds of targets.
That said, from what I've read about Dorner, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy to just snap and go rogue, even after being fired. I've noticed there isn't a lot of information about his firing, other than to say that it was due to him "making false statements". I've been of the opinion for a while that we need more information about what happened, and at this point they should be investigating the backround of this a bit more. It occured to me that instead of engaging in urban warfare with the guy, it might be a better idea to look into the situation a bit more, and maybe get the guy to surrender.
That said, I seem to remember this guy has been attacking the family members of people on his list, which doesn't speak highly for him.
While the situation needs more investigation and public scrutiny, as the guy is an armed, murdering, felon with a declared intent to strike again, I have no objection to him being taken out by snipers or a drone given the oppertunity... which is pretty much how I see killing someone with a Drone, the same as doing it with a sniper. For all intents and purposes a drone is just a much more advanced rifle/gun, someone is pulling a "trigger" to kill an unsuspecting target at a range. You have to be careful with tools like this, but as I've never objected to the police using Snipers in the right situations, I'm hardly going to object to them using a Drone. Dorner is exactly the kind of dude that warrents SWAT response and bringing those kinds of tools to bear to begin with.
This also applies to things like thermo, sensors, surveillance, Drones are just new ways of mounting/using those tools. As long as they go through the existing channels to use those tools to begin with, putting them on a Drone is no big deal. If Drones are used in place of SWAT members, or as a way of following up on pre-approved suerveillance/wiretapping operations that have gone through the proper channels, I really don't give a crap. Whether it's a couple of cops in a van listening to your conversation through a wiretap, or doing it by using a Drone hovering outside your window, to me it's the warrent/permission and that process that matters rather than the tool. Ditto for shooting someone with a Drone, I see little fundemental differance between a SWAT Sniper taking down a dangerous guy through a window, and doing it with a Drone, given the same kinds of targets.
From what I've read/seen of the drones in the Middle East the accuracy of these things isn't great. Unless he's hiding in a cabin in the woods it seems far more likely collateral damage would outstrip the convenience.
Let me clarify my previous post. I do not claim that they are going to kill him with the drone, but rather use it to find him, then kill him. They already tried shooting first. You cannot deny they intend to murder him - because they already tried it.
And as for the questions about how hes heavily armed and how are they going to bring him in? ...They're going to be sending in a small army after him once the drone finds him. The use of tear gas or tranquilizers would easily bring him down. There's no need to riddle him full of bullets, he's just one man. But that's what they want to do, so that's what's most likely going to happen.
Why's it wrong? Because in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. And its important that we keep to that rule.
And as for the questions about how hes heavily armed and how are they going to bring him in? ...They're going to be sending in a small army after him once the drone finds him. The use of tear gas or tranquilizers would easily bring him down. There's no need to riddle him full of bullets, he's just one man. But that's what they want to do, so that's what's most likely going to happen.
Why's it wrong? Because in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. And its important that we keep to that rule.
Drone flies much higher than a helicopter can, making it impossible to see or hear it from the ground, let alone shoot it down. No difference in cameras, really.albino boo said:
The majority of U.S. drones are surveillance only. I highly doubt we'll see one firing rockets in California. Also, the guy's a fugitive and as of now very dangerous. If there's no other safe option, take the shot.
Well, he posted a manifesto to his Facebook detailing the people he was going to kill and those people are now dead, their are about a dozen different people who witnessed him murdering these people, the cops that survived being fired upon confirm who did it, he admitted to it and has threatened that he has anti-air weaponry as to keep helicopters from trying to find him.TheTim said:
So yeah, it's pretty much confirmed that he's guilty.
However all of that is irrelevant as you, much like the OP, did not actually read the article as they are not using a drone missile to kill him, but just using a drone to find him, so as to make sure his threat of anti-air weapons does not bear any fruit or more dead people.
What I quoted is what was posted on the website at the time I made the post.emeraldrafael said:
Yes, I admittedly over-reacted. I hear a lot about these drones strikes, and the idea that they could possibly use them here on our own citizens did startle me.
I think it's a terrible trend. But that doesn't really matter because I'm on the losing end of things, not enough people care to actually be informed. And even when they do they always go 'well if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear' like no one in the government has ever abused their powers before or will do so in the future.
I would rather the dude get away than we set a precedent for the use of government spy cameras for any purpose.
I would rather the dude get away than we set a precedent for the use of government spy cameras for any purpose.
He has the chance to surrender, he knows that the police are after him, he is armed and he is running away after committing a string of murders. He is a big boy, used to work in law enforcement and is aware that he is being pursued.Arfonious said:
He can surrender if he lays down arms and putts his hands up or goes to the nearest phone and says 'come and pick me up'. He is not doing any actions conducive with surrender and so seems to have made his choice.
Hell, if he thinks the LAPD are going to top him on the spot, he can ask for an FBI team to pick him up.
Please elaborate the difference for me, morally speaking, between this and a police chopper.Mycroft Holmes said:
Actually the some police department have had drone capability for some time and have utilized them to track fleeing suspects, like Dorner. There is a very obvious reason for this, aircraft are great for finding people on the ground, which is why bigger departments have helicopters. However, manned airframes are expensive to operate and maintain, and police budgets are getting tighter. So do they rack up a bill for a pilot and his bird sitting unused on the ground as well as when its actually flying. Or do they spend a few grand on a drone to keep in the back of a squad car that anyone with very little training can operate when needed. It just makes sense to utilize the new technology, that gives you the same capabilities for much less cost.the clockmaker said:
You are exaggerating and being melodramatic.SaneAmongInsane said:
Using a drone =/= using the missiles of the drone to kill somebody.
Drones are primarily used for surveillance tools, the ability to kill people with them is just something they have managed to make military versions do as well.
That said, I don't see how it'd be any different from a police sniper taking him out if he were a threat to somebody. Obviously if he was not a threat and they killed him to "deal with him" then yes, I'd agree with you, but this doesn't seem to be the case at all.
