Christopher Dorner first drone target on U.S. soil.

Dansen

Master Lurker
Mar 24, 2010
918
19
23
Nieroshai said:
Everything you've been calling paranoia, everything you've been calling us "teabaggers" for, everything that's just a "conspiracy theory" coming out of "deranged" right-wingers, is actually happening. Right in front of you. Funny how Glen Beck is still crazy when everything he's ever predicted in his paranoia is coming to fruition. I don't blame "Liberals" for this. I blame one man in specific, and everyone who's fallen for his image. President of the United States of America Barack Obama, and his entourage, are using you. They are slowly taking control of you. They are building their power. You are now witnessing him bypass the Constitution, and defending his right to do so! And only now that he's given the right to kill civilians without warrants, do any of you see what you've been trashing half the country for seeing.
Let me say it again: WE SAID HE WOULD TRY THIS!

Let me say this much: I am not saying that everyone who's even remotely left-leaning is bad, or responsible for this. I'm not outright supporting the right wing itself. What I'm saying is that this man, raised by a family who treated communism like a religion, is (surprise!) using KGB tactics to worm his way into your favor and exert control over a populace that has come to adore him. He is not the man he has made himself look like. Kennedy was a good man and a paragon of liberalism at the same time. Same with early Roosevelt (later on he fell in love with Uncle Joe's ideals). Obama isn't a Liberal. Obama isn't a Socialist. Obama is an anti-Western Communist. Denounce him and return to the true Liberalism that wants to benefit all of mankind, not destroy the many so that the few can feel better.
I think Drone usage would have escalated with or without Obama, republican or democrat. Its benefits far outweigh any potential political blowback. I don't consider Kennedy to be a great man he was actually a notorious war hawk that authorized American bombings and Commando attacks on Laos during the vietnam war, no different really than the use of Drones in the middle east. Republicans have done the same thing, during peace in Vietnam talks Nixon authorized increased airstrikes in North Vietnam. Communism is irrelevant it was just a bogey man created to justify American expansionism, if you think Communism is Americas greatest threat I think you have been, mislead.
 

nexus

New member
May 30, 2012
440
0
0
Don't worry. They found him.

They also set fire to the cabin and burned him alive.

Stay classy America.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Seeing as how its a big debate as to whether it's even legal to arm drones and that is a hot topic under close public scrutiny, I doubt if they are going to just herp derp and drop a bomb on a citizen in full public view without a trial as a first move.

Of course the article actual confirms that as they mention using the thermal cameras to find him as opposed to killing him. Then again its from an anonymous source so its of questionable legitimacy anyways.

Of course don't let that get in the way of you're clearly angry post and misleading information. Posting while angry is never a good idea, ever.
 

nexus

New member
May 30, 2012
440
0
0
Desert Punk said:
All the news reports I can find say its unknown how it started.

Or are we jumping to conspiracy theories on how dem evil us govt agents in der black helicopters burned it down?

Stay classy escapist..
Aren't you a typical internet creature.

No I'm going by reports by people listening to the scanners had them saying "going ahead with the burn" "like we talked about". Also the fact they sat there and watched the building turn into an incinerator. What if there were unknown hostages? Who cares!

Also, this: Newspaper Carriers Shot by LAPD; Mistaken for Suspect [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html] ..Oops.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
nexus said:
Desert Punk said:
All the news reports I can find say its unknown how it started.

Or are we jumping to conspiracy theories on how dem evil us govt agents in der black helicopters burned it down?

Stay classy escapist..
Aren't you a typical internet creature.

No I'm going by reports by people listening to the scanners had them saying "going ahead with the burn" "like we talked about". Also the fact they sat there and watched the building turn into an incinerator. What if there were unknown hostages? Who cares!

Also, this: Newspaper Carriers Shot by LAPD; Mistaken for Suspect [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html] ..Oops.
Well he is a cop killer who killed LA Officers...

Will not be suprised if there is another LA riots due to the cops killing random people who were "suspects".
 

nexus

New member
May 30, 2012
440
0
0
RaikuFA said:
Well he is a cop killer who killed LA Officers...

Will not be suprised if there is another LA riots due to the cops killing random people who were "suspects".
Allegedly. Key word here.

I don't defend the man, I am just saying. He is also a disgruntled cop, not just your run-of-the-mill criminal "cop killer". That makes this case really bizarre in my opinion.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
nexus said:
RaikuFA said:
Well he is a cop killer who killed LA Officers...

Will not be suprised if there is another LA riots due to the cops killing random people who were "suspects".
Allegedly. Key word here.

I don't defend the man, I am just saying. He is also a disgruntled cop, not just your run-of-the-mill criminal "cop killer". That makes this case really bizarre in my opinion.
True. They are reopening the case he filed in response to this whole thing.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
the clockmaker said:
Mycroft Holmes said:
the clockmaker said:
Please elaborate the difference for me, morally speaking, between this and a police chopper.
I don't recall saying there was one.
If there is no difference between the two, why are you objecting to the use of this and not the use of police choppers?
Who says I don't? You're awfully presumptuous.

Is this the thread where we complain about every little thing we dislike? Because I thought this was a thread about the use of drones. If you want to bring up helicopters as a related topic in need of discussion then perhaps you should bring them up by asking my opinion about them rather than making accusations based on my imagined opinion of them.

I don't object to the use of helicopters because they are expensive as fuck. They are large, which means they require a large landing pad nearby. They require constant maintenance which requires mechanics to work on it often. They use up a lot of fuel which costs money. You have to hire a pilot that has been certified and trained, often with thousands of hours of experience.

Conversely drones can be made relatively cheaply, require no crew beyond someone watching through a camera who needs minimal training and wont have a high salary. They can be launched from almost anywhere and so do not have a constricted range. And due to their small size they don't require much fuel or maintenance.

On top of this helicopters will often just radio information back to a base, drones send entire camera feeds. While you can listen in to police radios, you can not control what they are looking at or saying. If you hacked [http://www.dailytech.com/Team+Demonstrates+Ease+of+Taking+over+Automated+Drones/article25030.htm](or otherwise gained access to) a drone however, which is possible and plausible, you would be able to get a video feed to more easily violate privacy.

There is also no legislation yet which outlaws warrantless spying by use of law enforcement drones. All attempts to pass such laws have been slapped down in congress and considering there's no public outrage there isn't likely to be such laws any time soon. Which is another thing helicopters can not do.

There's also a proven statistical dehumanization factor in military use, which translates to a dehumanization for private sector use. The further away you are and the more mechanical and bureaucratic layers between you and your target(watching or shooting) the easier it is to treat that target as simply an object.

This all means comparatively they are extremely more efficient, they can do what helicopters aren't legally allowed to in terms of spying(Which is fixable, but wont be) they are still more likely to violate privacy even if such a law passed due to the prevalence of poor tech security.

The efficiency in particular becomes a problem because it means they are more likely to be used in greater number for greater amounts of domestic spying and is the primary reason why drones are worse. The use of cameras to watch citizens is already distressing enough of a trend without hundreds of drones circling cities watching our behavior. It's the Chris Rock bullet argument. If helicopters are unwieldy and hugely expensive they are going to only be used sparingly and only when its extremely important. It does not mean they will necessarily be used in a more 'moral' fashion it simply means that it will be more difficult to do so. And if you really trust the US government then you either work for them, are stupid or haven't been paying any attention to the past 100 years of US history.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
I don't object to the use of helicopters because they are expensive as fuck. They are large, which means they require a large landing pad nearby. They require constant maintenance which requires mechanics to work on it often. They use up a lot of fuel which costs money. You have to hire a pilot that has been certified and trained, often with thousands of hours of experience.
Allow me to correct you: http://securitydebrief.com/2011/02/02/predator-uav-costs-an-analysis-of-alternatives-that-needs-further-analysis/
It seems that the cost of using a Predator Drone may be as much as twice as much as using conventional manned aircraft. I do wonder at this assumption that smaller means lower maintenance costs. It's completely without basis. Helicopters are much more common that drones, and finding personnel trained in their use and maintenance, is much simpler than for recent, much less widespread, technology.

They need a large landing pad? Oh no. A pile of concrete. Drones also require facilities, including a control facility. They also require constant maintenance. The controller has to be trained, and while he costs less than a helicopter pilot, the dismissal is unwarranted.
Conversely drones can be made relatively cheaply, require no crew beyond someone watching through a camera who needs minimal training and wont have a high salary. They can be launched from almost anywhere and so do not have a constricted range. And due to their small size they don't require much fuel or maintenance.
"Made Relatively Cheaply". A massive failure to do even cursory research. The DHS places the cost of a Predator at 4.5 million. A Bell JetRanger for comparison, costs between 900 thousand and 1.2 million. For salary comparison, a helicopter pilot can expect between ~70 and 106k. A drone pilot can expect between 30k and 70k.
http://www.aviationschoolsonline.com/faqs/uav-pilot-salary.php
http://www.cos.aero/HelicopterTraining/CareerGuide/HelicopterPilotSalaries.aspx
But when compared to the operating costs of both drones and helicopters, the salary of that one individual is hardly relevant, especially compared to the total, estimated in that first study to be $3234 per hour to operate a UAV.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
Devoneaux said:
nexus said:
Desert Punk said:
nexus said:
Don't worry. They found him.

They also set fire to the cabin and burned him alive.

Stay classy America.
All the news reports I can find say its unknown how it started.

Or are we jumping to conspiracy theories on how dem evil us govt agents in der black helicopters burned it down?

Stay classy escapist..
Aren't you a typical little internet creature. You join the Escapist just to love up on the LAPD?

No I'm going by reports by people listening to the scanners had them saying "going ahead with the burn" "like we talked about".

Also the fact they sat there and watch the building turn into an incinerator. What if there were unknown hostages? Who cares!

Also, this: Newspaper Carriers Shot by LAPD; Mistaken for Suspect [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html] ..Oops.
I'm sorry, but what evidence are you going by? You said something about scanners? Can we see this please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WJr4Ye8xY

I don't know if there's any way to demonstrate whether this is legit. There was a lot of commotion about it on Twitter when it was happening, though, and many of the details (possible rear exit, one shot fired from inside, and the basement) are consistent with news reports.

Edit: Not that it's a great leap in logic. They made the journalists leave, told them to stop tweeting, and within minutes, the building was on fire.
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Who says I don't? You're awfully presumptuous.
wait for it...

Is this the thread where we complain about every little thing we dislike? Because I thought this was a thread about the use of drones. If you want to bring up helicopters as a related topic in need of discussion then perhaps you should bring them up by asking my opinion about them rather than making accusations based on my imagined opinion of them.
wait for it...

I don't object to the use of helicopters
there it is! I made the assumption (and yes I know what they say about assumptions, but when you can only make conclusions based on small posts, we have to go by broad trends) that you don't object to helicopters because nofuckingbody who has thought it through objects to helicopters. YOu then get angry that I assumed you don't object to helicopters and then go right on to say that you don't, in fact, object to helicopters.

because they are expensive as fuck. They are large, which means they require a large landing pad nearby. They require constant maintenance which requires mechanics to work on it often. They use up a lot of fuel which costs money. You have to hire a pilot that has been certified and trained, often with thousands of hours of experience.

Conversely drones can be made relatively cheaply, require no crew beyond someone watching through a camera who needs minimal training and wont have a high salary. They can be launched from almost anywhere and so do not have a constricted range. And due to their small size they don't require much fuel or maintenance.
Looony has already said most of what needs to be said about this, but really, 'don't require much maintenance?' you realise that they don't fly by magic right, that beneath those sleek white exteriors there is machinery.

On top of this helicopters will often just radio information back to a base, drones send entire camera feeds. While you can listen in to police radios, you can not control what they are looking at or saying. If you hacked [http://www.dailytech.com/Team+Demonstrates+Ease+of+Taking+over+Automated+Drones/article25030.htm](or otherwise gained access to) a drone however, which is possible and plausible, you would be able to get a video feed to more easily violate privacy.
I remember this, they 'hacked' a drone that had no information security protocols.

There is also no legislation yet which outlaws warrantless spying by use of law enforcement drones. All attempts to pass such laws have been slapped down in congress and considering there's no public outrage there isn't likely to be such laws any time soon. Which is another thing helicopters can not do.
Are there laws, beyond the FAA, that dictate where police choppers can and cannot fly, what they can and cannot film?

There's also a proven statistical dehumanization factor in military use, which translates to a dehumanization for private sector use. The further away you are and the more mechanical and bureaucratic layers between you and your target(watching or shooting) the easier it is to treat that target as simply an object.
how is this a problem on an unarmed drone? In fact, when it comes to armed drones it is beneficial to remove the emotional response from the situation. A drone will not panic fire, it will not get angry at the loss of another drone and, due to the safety of the operator, we are less likely to see incidents similar to the police shootings that have occurred in this very case.

This all means comparatively they are extremely more efficient,
which, during a time of massive government debt is bad... how?
they can do what helicopters aren't legally allowed to in terms of spying(Which is fixable, but wont be)
show me what they can do, don't just say 'spying'. A good metric for spying, if the person conducting the activity could legally be doing it in person, it is not spying. It is not spying to surveill a crowded street, but it would be spying to put a drone in your bedroom without a warrant.
athey are still more likely to violate privacy even if such a law passed due to the prevalence of poor tech security.
I will agree that part of implementation of UAVs into law enforcement needs to be information security protocols.

The efficiency in particular becomes a problem because it means they are more likely to be used in greater number for greater amounts of domestic spying and is the primary reason why drones are worse.
See above as to why it is not spying, and why it is really no different from the cops doing it in person
The use of cameras to watch citizens is already distressing enough of a trend without hundreds of drones circling cities watching our behavior.
disagree, what you do in public is by definition not private. Why are you concerned about what people see you doing in the street.
It's the Chris Rock bullet argument. If helicopters are unwieldy and hugely expensive they are going to only be used sparingly and only when its extremely important. It does not mean they will necessarily be used in a more 'moral' fashion it simply means that it will be more difficult to do so.
so your solution is to make the US legal system more unweildly and less cost effective. that is just fantastic.
And if you really trust the US government then you either work for them, are stupid or haven't been paying any attention to the past 100 years of US history.
Yep those are the only three options, there is never one that says, 'they do bad shit, but on balance most of what they do is well intentioned and for the greater good' every one who disagrees with you is either a stooge, an idiot or being paid by the government.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
Devoneaux said:
bananafishtoday said:
Devoneaux said:
nexus said:
Desert Punk said:
nexus said:
Don't worry. They found him.

They also set fire to the cabin and burned him alive.

Stay classy America.
All the news reports I can find say its unknown how it started.

Or are we jumping to conspiracy theories on how dem evil us govt agents in der black helicopters burned it down?

Stay classy escapist..
Aren't you a typical little internet creature. You join the Escapist just to love up on the LAPD?

No I'm going by reports by people listening to the scanners had them saying "going ahead with the burn" "like we talked about".

Also the fact they sat there and watch the building turn into an incinerator. What if there were unknown hostages? Who cares!

Also, this: Newspaper Carriers Shot by LAPD; Mistaken for Suspect [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html] ..Oops.
I'm sorry, but what evidence are you going by? You said something about scanners? Can we see this please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WJr4Ye8xY

I don't know if there's any way to demonstrate whether this is legit. There was a lot of commotion about it on Twitter when it was happening, though, and many of the details (possible rear exit, one shot fired from inside, and the basement) are consistent with news reports.

Edit: Not that it's a great leap in logic. They made the journalists leave, told them to stop tweeting, and within minutes, the building was on fire.
If you can't prove it's legitimacy, then it isn't evidence. Who cares if people on Twitter exploded over it? People fall for tricks all the time, why should I believe this to be any different?
I'm posting an interesting recording that's relevant to the discussion, not bursting into a courtroom like Perry Mason ready to close out a TV show with absolute, undeniable proof.
 

Epic Bear Man

New member
Feb 5, 2013
178
0
0
HellbirdIV said:
I wonder what would happen if he did use that shoulder-mounted missile he claims to have to shoot down the drone. Does the conflict escalate to an AC-130 pelting the area? Because I have to admit that sounds kind of awesome. Ridiculous, but awesome.
Well if the LAPD keeps shooting unarmed civilians, they just might unlock the tactical nuke!

OT: As everyone else has mentioned, it's for surveillance purposes only.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Allow me to correct you:
And allow me to correct you. I'm sorry you wasted your time Googling links and writing all that stuff but you should probably take the time to actually read before you respond.

Drones do not need to have pilots that's the entire point, they have automated AI to pilot them. And because its automated it doesn't need pilot trained to take control of predator drones. You don't need to be authorized to shoot missiles it doesn't really require training. It requires the ability to point at a spot on a map, tell it how high up in the air it should be and then be able to operate a camera. So I don't really care how much a predator drone operator gets paid.

We are not talking about predator drones, I don't care how much predator drones cost. The average drone is about the size of a basketball and works more like a high tech automated RC plane.



huzzah super difficult.

the clockmaker said:
nofuckingbody who has thought it through objects to helicopters. YOu then get angry that I assumed you don't object to helicopters and then go right on to say that you don't, in fact, object to helicopters.
The difference is in practicality and effect, not in principle.

the clockmaker said:
Looony has already said most of what needs to be said about this, but really, 'don't require much maintenance?' you realise that they don't fly by magic right, that beneath those sleek white exteriors there is machinery.
Loony already said a bunch of irrelevant stuff yes. You do realize that not all drones are predators right? You do realize that a plane or a helicopters slightly bigger than an RC one doesn't really require much maintenance to keep flying yes? Do I need to copy paste the definition of drone over here or can you go figure that one out yourself?

the clockmaker said:
I remember this, they 'hacked' a drone that had no information security protocols.
Do you understand how hacking works then? Do you understand that they were proving you could connect to another persons drone and that the technology existed and weren't actually trying to hack one but merely to show that it was possible on a basic level?

Do you understand that most hackers call people up and impersonate their bosses, dig through trash for passwords and otherwise break your system without using a computer? And you do realize that if you start having these things around you're going to have a lot of blue collar barely graduated from highschool people back at the police station who can access them, and have little to no idea how to protect their passwords? Systems are almost never beaten because some super computer wizard is back at home typing on a keyboard, they are beaten because the people with access to the system suck at technology.

the clockmaker said:
Are there laws, beyond the FAA, that dictate where police choppers can and cannot fly, what they can and cannot film?
Who cares? We are talking about drones. And they are not beholden to those same laws and regulations with regards to law enforcement use.

the clockmaker said:
how is this a problem on an unarmed drone?
You don't see how not treating people as human beings would allow drone operators to way overstep boundaries in terms of spying and violation of privacy? You think the Jews living in the heart of Berlin in 1943 had it totally great with Gestapos dehumanizing them because, hey at least they weren't being shot at?

the clockmaker said:
In fact, when it comes to armed drones it is beneficial to remove the emotional response from the situation.
No it isn't it's the fucking scary shit that lets US drone operators bomb funerals and then foreign rescue workers showing up to the scene. You think enabling people to feel no empathy while murdering people is a good thing?

the clockmaker said:
A drone will not panic fire, it will not get angry at the loss of another drone and, due to the safety of the operator, we are less likely to see incidents similar to the police shootings that have occurred in this very case.
Yes, instead we are likely to see them callously kill way more civilians than terrorists, and that's so much better. But it's ok because Obama declared everyone killed by a drone strike who isn't a child to automatically be a terrorist regardless of their actually being one or not.

Doom972 said:
When did he order a drone strike on civilians? Drone strikes are usually used to make precise attacks on high priority enemy targets to avoid harm to civilians.
All the time.

We have killed 391 ? 780 civilians by mid range estimates in Pakistan alone, and that number includes 120 children. Which coupled with the CIAs confirmed kill listing of 14 terrorists, puts the rate at between 50:1 and 25:1. Which is to say 50 civilians killed for every terrorist killed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=2& http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

And we don't even just target residential areas where terrorists might be. We bomb funerals with mourners, and we shoot rescue workers arriving on the scene after drone strikes have occurred. Yes, we kill foreign EMTs, firefighters and paramedics for trying to save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACounting%20Drone%20Strike%20DeathsSUMMARY.pdf

The UN launched an investigation to determine if the US drone strikes on civilians constitute war crimes. It will never declare that of course because we have veto power over the UN. But it's pretty telling.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/un-expert-investigates-us-drone-attacks-targeted-killings-that-involve-civilian/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312411432248495.html

the clockmaker said:
which, during a time of massive government debt is bad... how?
Oh you mean the past 50 years? The US will always be in debt because we are a credit card country trying to live beyond our means.

the clockmaker said:
show me what they can do, don't just say 'spying'. A good metric for spying, if the person conducting the activity could legally be doing it in person, it is not spying. It is not spying to surveill a crowded street, but it would be spying to put a drone in your bedroom without a warrant.
They can follow a specific person and watch them, without getting a warrant and without justifiable cause. We require warrants for a reason.

the clockmaker said:
See above as to why it is not spying, and why it is really no different from the cops doing it in person
See above as to why it ignores warrant laws and is completely different.

the clockmaker said:
disagree, what you do in public is by definition not private. Why are you concerned about what people see you doing in the street.
I'm concerned about what the government sees me doing in the streets because the government assassinated US citizens and tried to ruin peoples lives/discredit them.

the clockmaker said:
so your solution is to make the US legal system more unweildly and less cost effective. that is just fantastic.
My solution is to actually consider the consequences of any action rather than just assuming cost efficiency will always make everything better. Can't wait till the cow super viruses transfer to humans, throwing every antibacterial agent at the same bacteria until they become immune to every medical defense we have against them could never backfire, I mean it reduces beef prices.