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:
Christopher Dorner first drone target on U.S. soil.
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
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.
The thing is, he isn't targeting just police officers, which some here don't quite grasp. He is also targeting their families or anybody who he perceives to be in the wrong. The murders he started with was the daughter of the officer who represented him at his disciplinary hearing and her fiance. You can say that he got a raw deal, you may find merit in some of the accusations leveled at the LAPD, but you can not find his actions here justified. Murdering people who are only tangentially related to his accusations show just what kind of person he is.Dijkstra said:
If there is no difference between the two, why are you objecting to the use of this and not the use of police choppers?Mycroft Holmes said:
Oh yes, I am aware of the practical differences, my question to the above quoted was whether he could indicate a moral difference.Feildin said:
They're using a drone to hunt him down, I don't see the evidence that they plan on killing him with it.
So no, this seems like the best idea ever.
So no, this seems like the best idea ever.
It specifically states he has military experience, and hiding with an attempt to evade police forces, chances are he would be able to get away without the intervention of modern technology.
furthermore, this drone is only being used in an emergency for only recon. nobody is approaching with lethal intent (as of yet) as drones with military weaponry are not available to local authorities.
That being said, strict guidelines should be put in place setting the standard for when to, and when not to, use drones as surveillance. last thing we want is for this to become to commonplace.
furthermore, this drone is only being used in an emergency for only recon. nobody is approaching with lethal intent (as of yet) as drones with military weaponry are not available to local authorities.
That being said, strict guidelines should be put in place setting the standard for when to, and when not to, use drones as surveillance. last thing we want is for this to become to commonplace.
