Unmanned Drones to be used against U.S. Citizens by Police

[Dan Lee]

The Police State Progresses..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tHk9Q3Fv6g

[RobertNashville]

I see a lot of potential for abuse here.

Then again, isn’t that somewhat always the case when law enforcement adopts new technology?

I don’t especially like (in fact I very much dislike) “red light” cameras yet I’m also pretty tired of seeing people run red lights here as if it’s some sort of contest.

What about helicopters? I would say that they could be used in a way abusive to our rights yet at the same time, they are quite an effective tool in chasing down criminals who try to run/avoid arrest.

I don’t think we should be afraid of law enforcement using new technology but I also think we need to make sure our fundamental rights are not violated by the use of that technology.

[Dan Lee]

Subversion of the constitution has been coming in little steps.. Sneaking up on us. We justify everything now in the name of "safety".. No knock warrants on the wrong houses, with innocent casualties & deaths..

Now another possibility comes to light. Police drones focused on the wrong white car, because the operator had a "suspect car" go in one end of a tunnel, & come out the other end, only it's not the suspect car, it's the same model, same color, & happened to be going through the same tunnel. Police pull a pit maneuver on the wrong car, flipping it over & killing the driver, in the name of "public safety".. Many of those who aren't effected by the Government abuse & tragedy, will just say.. Oh well, it's not my mother, not my daughter, not my brother, not my father... After all, they were just doing their job right?

"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Martin Niemoller ,

October 14, 1968, before the U.S. Congress..

[RobertNashville]

There is a difference between abuse and honest (even if regrettable) errors.

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago, in the Crossville area if memory serves, that police chased down a car, killed a small dog under all because of the very incorrect belief that someone had been kidnapped (or something like that)?

How far do we turn back the clock?

Do we ground all law enforcement helicopters? Put all officers on horseback and/or on foot?

What about the pedophiles who prey on children over the internet...do we allow police to use internet chat rooms to catch these scumbags or do we restrict police to simply using shoe leather to investigate?

Is a "no knock" warrant really the problem or is it not knocking when it's the wrong house? Even if they knock, if it's the wrong house it's still the wrong house and bad things can happen, correct?

My point is, technology...ALL technology can be abused and ALL police powers can be abused if the law enforcement agency/officer is willing to do so.

So really...where exactly is the line...what technology would you have law enforcement use and what would you ban?

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

Respectfully, I don’t quite get where you are coming from; especially given the original post in this thread and my questions to the original poster.

Of course the Constitution is ultimate “line” but doesn’t truly reply to my questions. The Constitution doesn’t speak to “no knock warrants” or to the use of drones or for that matter, to the use of cars, helicopters or any other piece of “technology”…what it does speak to is the abuse of powers by government such as unreasonable search and seizure. The point being that “technology”, new or old, is not our enemy or our problem – abuse of that technology, ANY technology by a law enforcement agency willing to do so IS the problem.

“Technology” is not an “encroachment of the powers granted the government” nor does its existence of necessity “lead to the loss of Liberty”.

The OP seems to have an problem with the thought of unmanned drones - I’m sorry but I just don’t see it…a potential for abuse is not the same thing as abuse

Nor does the article have anything to do with “reporting the thoughts and statement of other citizens…I will say this, however; if I overhear someone that seems to be planning a bank robbery or a car-jacking I’m going to report them…I would hope others would as well.

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

I simply see no logic to your arguments.

Executing any kind or warrant can be dangerous…but irresponsible? No.

Courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld the use of no-knock warrants if the law enforcement agency has just cause to use them. Such warrants are requested/issued in cases, for example, where the police have reason to believe they may be confronted by armed…perhaps well armed suspects…perhaps suspects with a known history of violence…were it does not make sense to give such suspects time to “put on their jeans” and perhaps pull out their AR15s and shotguns.

You seem to have a significant and automatic distrust of law enforcement…why automatically assume that a drone is going to be used inappropriately? How exactly is the use of a drone with an officer in a command center viewing its data any different than an officer sitting in a helicopter doing the same (or do you object to the use of police helicopters as well)?

Technology is neither good nor bad, abusive or benign…what really matters is how it’s used. You seem to want to assume it will be used in an abusive way...why? Moreover, there is simply no logic in making such a fuss about one piece of technology while concurrently letting police use any other piece of technology since any technology can be used in an abusive way.

Do you advocate that we should ban ALL wire taps and/or ease dropping of any kind since that technology can be abused?

Do you advocate that helicopters be grounded because their use can be abused or because they may identify the "wrong vehicle"?

Maybe we should just disallow the bright searchlights and/or infrared systems helicopters use and require police to use only what they can see without aid of any kind?

Do you want to ban the existence and use of national criminal databases because an agency/individual officer can potentially use that information for political/nefarious purposes?

Perhaps we should completely ban the use of computers by law enforcement?

I asked you earlier; how far back do you want to turn back the clock...you didn't answer so I'll ask again...at what point in our country's history do you advocate that law enforcement stop utilizing new technology?

[Dan Lee]

I'm sorry Robert, but since you ignored my questions about the fourth amendment & why you can't understand SHALL NOT, & you had no comment about the raid maps, & several other questions that were posed to YOU, I'm seeing that having this conversation with you is a waste of time, just like the last debate I had with you. I understand who's side you're on now clearly. You're on the side of Big Controlling Government, & obviously you've bought in to the "War on Drugs" mentality that has never done anything but get cops & citizens killed. There are just as many drugs on the street as there ever were, if not more.. I don't use drugs, but I know an excuse for a unconstitutional power grab when I see one. You try to infer that I have some kind of problem with responsible Law enforcement. Funny you should say that when last night I was at my local Police station encouraging my local Police Department, & discussing constitutional issues with them, & how good of a job they do staying out of people's lives whenever possible here. I even watched a funny video of a pit maneuver failure with one of the shift supervisors on my phone. I have an excellent relationship with most Police officers. The ones I don't trust, I stay far away from.

So, your little dig at me is pretty infantile. In any case, as I've told you before.. You can go on letting the Government push you around if you want to.. You only mentioned cases where courts upheld these illegal searches, but you forgot that the Constitution & Bill of Rights are God Given rights, not dealt out by a Magistrate. "We hold these truths to be self evident". So I don't care what some libtard judge says. The limit is the constitution, & common sense. Common sense says you should not be bashing down doors & shooting people "by accident" who you aren't 100% sure are violent & that they have broken the law. In one of the cases on the Cato map, the information came from an Ex Convict/Felon. It turned out to be wrong, & a bold faced lie, & the police shot dead an innocent. If you can't figure out that widespread botches like this are insane & unacceptable, I feel sorry for you.. If you can justify the death of dozens of people in the name of the "greater good" then I feel sorry for you. It's akin to socialism in a way.. You have lost your way if you think that way.. The line is, if you break into the wrong house & kill someone, someone in that Police department needs to go to jail for manslaughter.. That will encourage the "mistakes" to stop.. But that isn't what happens in most of the cases.. If you'd like to be reasonable, do some research, & you'll find that some law enforcement is getting away with murder & manslaughter literally. That is unacceptable.. That any American turns their head the other way & acts as if it's just collateral damage, is also unacceptable, & egregious..

On the issue of drones.. They are much easier to hide, & fly much higher, they can stay up for almost a day, & have high powered cameras that take advantage of their smooth glide... They are a form of uncontrolled & unaccountable surveillance, & they do not shake around & make noise like a chopper. Why do you think they don't use choppers to bomb the Taliban & Al Qaeda? They are too loud & obvious! So YOU tell me, where's the line on being surveilled constantly by your Government? There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the law, & the Constitution. If you don't get that, I don't know what else anyone can do to make you understand it.. Just because technology allows you to do something, doesn't mean you necessarily should.. My guns allow me to shoot people, but I don't do it just because I can!

Oh, one last thing.. I especially loved how you compared the accidental killing of a dog by Police, to what I'm talking about, PEOPLE.. I think you may a little problem with your priorities there..

[RobertNashville]

What technology is Okay for the police to use and what is not Okay?

Do you or do you not believe that any technology can be abused/misused by law enforcement?

If you believe any technology can be misused then please explain what your argument for allowing law enforcement to use ANY technology in the performance of they job.

While I'm sure you believe I need an education in the Constitution, I precisely understand the words “shall not”; I also understand the phrase “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”…is there something about the phrase “but upon probable cause” that you don’t understand?

If police have probable cause they can obtain a warrant. If they have probable cause to believe that NOT announcing their presence and giving a suspect time to arm himself is justified they have the right to not announce themselves or “not to knock” which has been upheld by the courts including the Supreme Court (your unsupported assertion that such decisions were all made by a “liberal” judge aside – do you make such assertions because labeling court decisions or people you don’t agree with makes it easier to ignore them?).

You may have an “excellent relationship with most police officers” however from your words is seems apparent that while you may have a good relationship with the officers you have coffee with, you have an immediate distrust of law enforcement in general; your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

You are right, arguing is a waste of time since your response to anyone who doesn’t agree with you is to label them, denigrate them, and dismiss them.

P.S.
Your ridiculous comment regarding the killing of the dog is as obnoxious as it is inappropriate.

You can claim to understand the Constitution but whether your claim is true or not, you obviously have a problem understanding what an illustration is.

No where in my comments about the incident involving the happening in the Cookville area did I even REMOTELY compare the taking of the life of a dog with taking the life of a person…the point which you either missed or ignored was that it doesn’t take an unmanned drone to misidentify a vehicle (in response to your earlier scenario of a drone misidentifying a vehicle).

Since you are so distrusting of technology in the hands of law enforcement I suggest that we ban the use of cell phones and the 911 system since it was that combination of “technologies” that lead to the events around Cookville.

[David Lewis]

Gentlemen, please keep your discourse on a civil, courteous basis.

No one has crossed any lines yet, but I just want to caution you.

Thanks.

David

[C. Richard Archie]

One of the tactics of the British was to search every person (and their effects, wagons, carts, personal bags etc.) coming into or out of Boston during the lead up to the Revolution. The People found that type behavior sufficiently vexing that they listed a prescription against such behavior in the Bill of Rights.

I personally view the Government looking into my vehicle, or back yard, or through the windows of my home, (unless they have intelligence suggesting that I am committing a crime), and having presented a Judge with such evidence warranting further perusal, as a violation of my privacy. I believe that would make anyone feel unsecured in their Fourth Amendment Rights.

I suggest that the Departments that want to employ such technology, provide a budget to their employers, i.e. the People, explain the cost effectiveness, and seek approval. (That nasty little think about the consent of the governed might be applicable here) But to have them secretly decide to start surveillance of the general population on their own volition is very troubling to me, and I suspect to most others.

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

All that is fine, and I agree if the tail light is out, they have probably cause to stop the vehicle. Can you guarantee that the drones would only be used in an appropriate manner? Personally I want those officers available to answer 911 calls for breaking and entering. Average 911 response time is over 10 minutes, adding in drones giving info on possible drug dealers will most likely simply add to the longevity of that.

I spoke with my neighbor this evening, the Jackson Police officer, to ask his opinion of this discussion. He is Marine from a previous life, (as he tells me there is no such thing as an ex-Marine), and his take is that the average Police force would be much better off with a few more officers than a bunch of expensive toys. And I agree with his next point, which was that the dollars would be far better spent building more prison space for the habitual, career criminals than establishing surveillance networks which would not be used just to fight crime, but would be a the direction and discretion of politicians, who as we all know are not the most trustworthy class of people.

Now, I speak at a lot of Tea Parties on the need to succor the Second Amendment. I show up at all the City Council meetings to keep an eye on them and the MTAS who try at every opportunity to chip away at the rights I consider important while living on my tax dollars by the way. I can promise that I am on several "list" because, according to the chief of my Homeland Security division I am a threat to be watched because I consider abortion murder, and the fact that I consider it my responsibility to be prepared to become an active member of a County Militia should the need arise. I am very concerned that the local political establishment that likes me and my ilk not one little bit will assign that drone to follow me around and attempt to gather intelligence on me for their use than to have it chasing the drug dealers. Do you think there is a possibility that my concern has merit?

[photoguy67]

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]