First U.S. drone target

http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil

thoughts?

is hope + change.

but seriously, tbh i think the word 'target' is a bit loaded. if all it's going to do is be like an automated version of an eye in the sky to track him down, it doesn't seem so horrible. what's the difference between this and a manned heli following someone in a chase? if he was actually blowed up then i'd say something like 'hope + change' and actually mean it as a maybe slightly dickish, but critical statement. and i'd be a bit horrified. i can't say that i don't see this leading to more and more uses though...

whats with the idiots up in the comment section there talking about 'innocent until proven guilty'? if the thing is just going to help locate the guy so he can be brought in and stand trial, then... well those comments are just completely idiotic then. but maybe it's because of the article using the word 'target' like i said, and it does mention the drone being used to locate him but it doesnt spell it out in a solid sentence. so i think maybe the article is slightly, and subtley a little (intentionally) misleading, trying to sensationalize just a bit. to be good reporting it should specifically talk about the capacity to which this drone is being used and make it clear. now tards are freaking out acting like this guy is about to be executed.

question: does this drone fly itself? shoot itself? (if it has any weapons that is)

this was one of the first things I said when I heard he had gone on the run. Not surprised in the least.

do you guys really think that this drone is going to execute this guy?

if so i would be inclined to say that you're 'special people', and by special i mean mentally handi-capped. this is coming from a guy who doesn't like obama, but knows he's not stupid enough to allow drones to just start shooting people before they stand trial. at least... not yet. give it a few yrs.

Seattle just ended their drone program http://kuow.org/post/seattle-grounds-police-drones-program

  On 2/11/2013 at 7:00 AM, MisterE said:

do you guys really think that this drone is going to execute this guy?

 

if so i would be inclined to say that you're 'special people', and by special i mean mentally handi-capped. this is coming from a guy who doesn't like obama, but knows he's not stupid enough to allow drones to just start shooting people before they stand trial. at least... not yet. give it a few yrs.

The reason drones are controversial is because they're currently being used to kill people.

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:52 AM, isaki said:

question: does this drone fly itself? shoot itself? (if it has any weapons that is)

Wrt the shooting, if you remember the helicopter footage from iraq that was on wikileaks a while ago, there was this chain-of-command thing going on. It's likely that the same holds for drones. Whether it's in the army or in the police.

  On 2/11/2013 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 7:00 AM, MisterE said:

do you guys really think that this drone is going to execute this guy?

 

if so i would be inclined to say that you're 'special people', and by special i mean mentally handi-capped. this is coming from a guy who doesn't like obama, but knows he's not stupid enough to allow drones to just start shooting people before they stand trial. at least... not yet. give it a few yrs.

 

The reason drones are controversial is because they're currently being used to kill people.

obviously i understand that, but if all this specific drone is going to do is use a camera to try to find this guy, that's probably totally irrelevant. especially if it doesn't even have weapons mounted on it. i know some people have a problem differentiating between things that seem alike, but actually aren't, but those people's inability to understand those differences isn't an argument against things like this. you're going to have to actually come up with a reason why its bad to have an automatic camera in the sky following a guy around. or like i mentioned, you could discuss how this might lead to other uses. but you have to make some kind of actual point.

a drone is a flying craft that has no pilot. the word drone does not include weapons being mounted on it. anything could be mounted on there. you need to specifically answer- do you have a problem with a done that only has surveillance equipment mounted on it, being used to find this guy, and if so, why?

MisterE, why are you so condescending? It seems a bit weird given that, in this context, I'm guessing all of us are concerned with the rise of drone use, for whatever reason...

  On 2/11/2013 at 7:46 AM, lumpenprol said:

MisterE, why are you so condescending? It seems a bit weird given that, in this context, I'm guessing all of us are concerned with the rise of drone use, for whatever reason...

because i dont understand why when topics like this are brought up, nobody actually addresses key points in the matter. instead its lots of emotions. ok so if you think the use of drones is rising and this incident is a footnote to that fine, talk about it like that. but to try to act like this event is somehow horrible in and of itself, separate from its historical place in the escalating use of these things, you need to give reasons why. just because it's a drone does not mean it is a heavy weapon death machine. but people are talking about it like it is. i try to participate and put that point out, and it goes ignored. so why bother? people want to ignore facts/points and continue emoting. it becomes hard to restrain condescension at that point. and it's not like it was 100% grade-a condescension. i'm just trying to get someone to address my point, and it STILL hasn't happened yet. people are talking like the guy is going to get blown away by this drone, and i think that deserves condescension. it's absurd. our country isn't quite THAT fucked up just yet.

are flying automatic cameras being used to catch fugitives, in and of themselves, a bad thing?

IMO drone surveillance alone is a bothersome precedent.

I know that not every slope is slippery but I really don't like it when the liberty/security balance is further tampered with.

fair enough. i agree. i just felt that the article was trumping the case up with subtle wording and by leaving out lots of key details, and obviously it has worked because lots of people in the comments over there are crying foul about a guy being executed without trial. to me that's counterproductive and distracts from the real topic, which is the slippery slope issue.

A skydiver wen't missing near a mountain last month and I wonder if a drone would have increased the odds of recovering him or his body. they never did find him.

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:00 AM, RadarJammer said:

A skydiver wen't missing near a mountain last month and I wonder if a drone would have increased the odds of recovering him or his body. they never did find him.

C'mon now. Obviously that's a completely different issue.

Using drones for rescue is different than peeking into someone's bathroom window so you can assassinate them.

  On 2/11/2013 at 7:46 AM, lumpenprol said:

MisterE, why are you so condescending? It seems a bit weird given that, in this context, I'm guessing all of us are concerned with the rise of drone use, for whatever reason...

Not sure whether mistere is condescending. It's perfectly reasonable to adress these issues (in a context where lots of people are concerned, but any factual content is sparse). That's more about being critical than condescending, imo. Although I see there's a huge gray area between being critical and condescending.

£199

it's still a disturbing precedent. i don't really understand why an article talking about using thermal imaging drones in the US to track down an alleged murderer right after the white paper was leaked from the DOJ doesn't raise eyebrows for some people. Plus, the link is msn.com...hardly a reliable source of information. Time will tell.

saw this quote in the original source material:

  Quote

 

However, one Big Bear resident, Dennis Pollock,
said: “I did 12 years in the Marine Corps. Give me a sniper rifle, some
gear, and point me in his general direction and get out of my way.”

lol fuck this guy.

Can't you evade thermal sensors by throwing off your heat signatures?

also, I dunno how reliable a news source this is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/la-police-shoot-women-in-hunt-for-copkiller-christopher-dorner-8485900.html

within that article:

  Quote

Dorner is said by the authorities to be heavily armed. At a press
conference, Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck described the
situation as “extremely worrisome and scary”. Officers assigned to
protect another police official whom Dorner had threatened shot two
women on Thursday morning. One of the women – who had been delivering
newspapers in Torrance, south of Los Angeles – was shot in the hand, the
other in the back. Both were rushed to hospital. They had been driving a
blue pick-up resembling Dorner’s 2005 Nissan Titan.

 

A second shooting incident in Torrance also involved officers who came across a
vehicle they believed to be Dorner’s. No one was hurt in that instance,
but local television news stations recommended that owners of dark
pick-up trucks should use alternative transportation until the he was
apprehended.

Im not calling false flag or any of that nonsense, but shady shit is going down when the LAPD shoots first. I need more info on this. Either that or Dorner has seriously got them rattled.

Is a drone attack really necessary for this? if you are able to locate him just go there with 100 swat guys and shoot him/arrest him there, its not like this guy has an iron man suit.

Also, like the comments on that article said, why doesn't this guy get a trial? (i dont know enough about this case, maybe there is video of him killing a bunch of people i dont know)

  On 2/11/2013 at 12:42 PM, Deer said:

Is a drone attack really necessary for this? if you are able to locate him just go there with 100 swat guys and shoot him/arrest him there, its not like this guy has an iron man suit.

 

Also, like the comments on that article said, why doesn't this guy get a trial? (i dont know enough about this case, maybe there is video of him killing a bunch of people i dont know)

I can almost guarantee you he wont come in alive. Either one man with marksman training is able to get the entire LAPD shook due to his awesome Batman stealth attack skills, OR he has something dirty on the LAPD to cause them to shoot unarmed 71 year old women because they drive the same car as Dorner.

the LAPD can do anything they want. next week lyndsey lohan will get another DUI or j.bieber will get caught shoplifting a candybar and most of america will forget about this

that said, i would think this guy has/can build a safety network of people willing to help get him out of the country

  On 2/11/2013 at 1:04 PM, RadarJammer said:

the LAPD can do anything they want. next week lyndsey lohan will get another DUI or j.bieber will get caught shoplifting a candybar and most of america will forget about this

 

that said, i would think this guy has/can build a safety network of people willing to help get him out of the country

I dont think most people are aware of this, the grammys were held last night and the pope just resigned, they'll never heard about this.

----

Apparently this guy wrote a manifesto against the LAPD, highlighting police brutality over the years.