US Police Consider Flying Drones Armed With Stun Guns (digitaltrends.com) 163
Slashdot reader Presto Vivace tipped us off to news reports that U.S. police officials are considering the use of flying drones to taser their suspects. From Digital Trends:
Talks have recently taken place between police officials and Taser International, a company that makes stun guns and body cameras for use by law enforcement, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. While no decision has yet been made on whether to strap stun guns to remotely controlled quadcopters, Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said his team were discussing the idea with officials as part of broader talks about "various future concepts."
Tuttle told the Journal that such technology could be deployed in "high-risk scenarios such as terrorist barricades" to incapacitate the suspect rather than kill them outright... However, critics are likely to fear that such a plan would ultimately lead to the police loading up drones with guns and other weapons. Portland police department's Pete Simpson told the Journal that while a Taser drone could be useful in some circumstances, getting the public "to accept an unmanned vehicle that's got some sort of weapon on it might be a hurdle to overcome."
The article points out that there's already a police force in India with flying drones equipped with pepper spray.
Tuttle told the Journal that such technology could be deployed in "high-risk scenarios such as terrorist barricades" to incapacitate the suspect rather than kill them outright... However, critics are likely to fear that such a plan would ultimately lead to the police loading up drones with guns and other weapons. Portland police department's Pete Simpson told the Journal that while a Taser drone could be useful in some circumstances, getting the public "to accept an unmanned vehicle that's got some sort of weapon on it might be a hurdle to overcome."
The article points out that there's already a police force in India with flying drones equipped with pepper spray.
It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
of law enforcement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Drones with stun guns as apposed to cutting down doughnut intake a spend a few weekends a month at the gym.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Been predicting this for some time along with others. This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
Not really a revelation, more of an inevitability. And certainly not a conspiracy theory - governments worldwide are already discussing this future openly...and assumedly otherwise.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys" (i.e. not them) until it is too late as per usual.
Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"
Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.
Re: It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fu (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a stupid argument. The police do not have nuclear weapons.
If you had said something about private citizens having MRAPs and grenade launchers, you'd have a point.
Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was hardly the first time police deployed a bomb [wikipedia.org] but at least they didn't burn down a few blocks of housing in Dallas. And of course that was not the first or last time the FBI was involved in such an operation.
I suspect the Dallas police were so enraged that they just looked for the most creative way to execute the guy and had no intention of capturing him alive.
Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score:5, Insightful)
they could have put anything on the robot.
they chose to use a bomb, instead of CS (tear) gas or any of a number of other options that would have ended the situation without further loss of life.
by that logic of yours, we should replace all police with robots as in Elysium or any of a number of other scifi stories.
why risk anyone's lives? lets just use robots to decide everyone's fate and enforce the laws.
the reason is because putting humans in the mix, putting them at risk, is part of the safeguard against abuse of power.
your logic is the logic that justifies saving police lives at the cost of all others.
being a police officer is dangerous, though not in the top 10. and it should be. it is by nature a risky profession. some days you interact with normal everyday citizens who just went a lil too fast. others you interact with actual dangerous criminals. that's the nature of the job when it comes to enforcing the law in relation to the nations citizens...all of them, normal or dangerous.
there are far too many police who think they're supposed to be warriors.
THEY ARE NOT.
that flawed mindset largely comes from ex-military who transitioned but forgot they aren't at war with America's citizens.
I've actually been told by various officers that the view of them as guardians is dangerous and emperils theyre safety.
that is garbage.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
and part of being a guardian of the public is protecting ALL OF THE PUBLIC, including the dangerous ones, to the best of your ability.
and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one.
Re: (Score:1)
"and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one."
But then how else can I legally bully people?
Re: (Score:3)
Become a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when somet
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, with mistrust of police at an all time high, weaponinzed drones in the cops' hands, how could that go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, what's your alternative? Send more human cops in so they can get shot dead by a terrorist who's heavily armed? Sending in a robot with a bomb was a bit extreme, but under those circumstances, it was warranted. If they had had a flying Taser drone, that would have been preferable (maybe, depending on your POV), as it's less-than-lethal and most likely would have incapacitated the shooter instead of killing him.
For extreme situations, I don't see what the problem is here, and a flying Taser makes per
Copseye (Score:4, Interesting)
As predicted by Larry Niven in 1972 short story, Cloak of Anarchy.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/... [technovelgy.com]
Someone at police headquarters had expected that. Twice the usual number of copseyes floated overhead, waiting. Gold dots against blue, basketball-sized, twelve feet up. Each a television eye and a sonic stunner, each a hookup to police headquarters, they were there to enforce the law of the Park...
Within King's Free Park was an orderly approximation of anarchy. People were searched at the entrances. There were no weapons inside. The copseyes, floating overhead and out of reach were the next best thing to no law at all.
http://www.larryniven.net/stor... [larryniven.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, our police aren't as benevolent as those Niven depicts. Ours would take umbrage at rocks being thrown at their copseye-equivalents.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, our police aren't as benevolent as those Niven depicts. Ours would take umbrage at rocks being thrown at their copseye-equivalents.
Are you kidding? Ours takes umbrage if you cross the street in the "wrong" place (even with no cars coming) or burn a spliff in the top of a tree where nobody can smell it. There's not going to be any benevolent anarchy. Just a boot stomping a human face if it doesn't assemble those doodads correctly, forever.
Re:Copseye or earlier Watchbird by Sheckley (Score:2)
I'm a 65 year old Brit and the rot seemed to start when the police were removed from the street (and stuck into Q-cars) because it was 'more efficient'. A person in a remote control room does not have the local knowledge to know that the 'threat' is someone is eccentric but harmless and has a heart problem. Result is judici
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw ED209, just equip the drone with a submachine gun! Already been done and demonstrated by our friends over at FPSRussia... ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
oh irony
Re:Make up your mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice False Dichotomy you found there lying on the ground. Should we report it to the police? The same police that have been shown to -regularly- use excessive force when they know they aren't being filmed... ??
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
I guess you're not a minority (neither am I), don't live in one of those types of neighborhoods (neither do I), and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters. (I do).
And about 'why' it is a false dichotomy... because there is obviously a middle ground between giving the police 'new toys' and giving them pillows.
Re: (Score:1)
Hyperbole much? An occupying force? That's where you're going? Have you ever been under occupation? Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
You do realize those neighborhoods most likely have a high percentage of minorities (which is odd since th
Re:Make up your mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore [cbsnews.com] when police stopped patrolling [cbslocal.com].
I'm not the person you're replying to, but perhaps rather than the either/or scenario, we could go back to first principles [wikipedia.org].
Re:Make up your mind (Score:5, Informative)
for those who don't click the link:
The nine principles were as follows:
1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Re: (Score:2)
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
said someone who is wiser than you [lifehack.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, when I think of point 9, I think of those terror plots which were created by the FBI [theintercept.com], or USBP interior checkpoints, or the police buying military surplus gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the other thing with point 3 is community policing [ncjrs.gov].
Re: (Score:1)
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force? Hyperbole much? An occupying force? That's where you're going? Have you ever been under occupation? Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.
I can see where people get confused when they see images like this one [ibtimes.co.uk] or this one [ibtimes.co.uk] or this one [ibtimes.co.uk] from Ferguson.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the middle ground. Police won't be shooting at criminals. They'll be using less lethal means to do their jobs.
Define criminal. Criminal is anyone that the powers at be want to take out. That's quite likely to be anyone, like you, based on your political views or just not bowing to the magistrates. Police no longer serve the citizens. They serve those that have bought and paid for their services, though their political contributions. Forget serve and protect. That doesn't apply to you any more.
Re: (Score:2)
To serve and protect doesn't mean what you think it does. Since the formation of the first police force its goal was to protect the law and serve those in power.
Police protects the community as a whole, not the individual citizen. And the only way to protect the community is to uphold the law. Of course the law says what those in power want to say so...
Re: (Score:1)
So, you can't see the parallel? I'm guessing the 'stop and frisk' in New York didn't qualify because enough suspects weren't pistol whipped. Or, because the recent John Doe warrant for fingerprints and mobile phones didn't include SWAT teams. They're an occupying force, when 'the people' no longer have any power over them; when they are not accountable for their actions. That tends to happen frequently in the USA: A country that objected to be ruled without a corresponding power (elections) over their
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.
Not every occupier runs a Naziesque genocidal regime. Why don't you look at the American occupation of Iraq instead? We instituted curfews, and desegregated populations that were living next to one another in relative peace, causing them to come into conflict and fomenting terrorism. That's pretty close to what American occupation of America is like, except instead of desegregating a segregated populace, our laws seek to segregate it further by demonizing and subsequently ghettoizing some races.
Re: (Score:3)
several counties out in bumphuck Oklahoma have MRAPS now.
and the boonies of Oklahoma aren't the only place this is happening.
MRAPS.
Mine Resistant Armored Personnel Carriers.
like we used in Iraq to protect from IEDs.
why do counties with a population of 5,000 people and 300,000 cows need MRAPS, let alone SWAT teams?
Re: (Score:1)
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?
So, when the police show up to serve a warrant and get shot and killed, you're cool with that. When they show up to serve the same warrant and protect themselves with better technology, that's them being an "occupying force," and evil. Gotcha.
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
You mean police in neighborhoods with wildly higher crime rates, who are targeting the criminals that commit crime there? Right. Gotcha.
and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters
If you cared about your "brothers and sisters," you'd be all for reducing the crime in those areas. But you're not, so your entire
Re: (Score:1)
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
also: nice racist dog whistles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.
Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skil
Re: (Score:3)
no, that's bulls***, and you damn well know it. .
the only person who has brought up opposing cops having body armor is YOU
you cannot make a rational argument based on telling others what they think, on putting words in their mouths.
also, its neither a false dichotomy, nor do I think (nor did I suggest) that police must allow themselves to be killed.
that is not what I said, but your illequipped brain is apparently incapable of proper reading comprehension, so do not even try to pretend to think that between
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
again: NO ONE has said, or implied, the words you are trying to put in their mouths. .
stop trying to tell others what they think, and read what they have actually said, using what little reading comprehension skill you have.
Re: (Score:2)
(ill repost as many times as it takes to get around your sock puppets.)
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the UK where cops shoot people they've mistaken for alleged criminals.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe we should give the police pillows.
Why not? They already have the comfy chair [turbobytes.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Female cops and female bandits both to be supplied with pillows. To clash in college dorms.
Re:Make up your mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Drone have no life on their own to be endangered. Therefore they will never have any occasion to use them, so why bother arming drones.
If they are intended to be use in non-life threatening situation, then it's torture. Torture drone. Great.
Re: (Score:2)
firstly, they are suspects, not criminals.
a criminal has been convicted of a crime.
secondly, they do not cease to be citizens, they do not lose their rights, upon being deemed a suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, a drone cannot be "killed" only disabled, so cannot use an excuse of protecting itself for the argument for lethal force. Hopefully, you'll have fewer cops panicing that they're about to be in danger and so killing someone who is holding a water pistol, or a wallet, or a book.
Arming a drone with a stun gun is far favourable to a cop with gun, This is potentially a good thing. There has to be strict laws in place at a federal level now though, that prevents the police being able to put anything mo
Re: (Score:2)
I can guarantee you, taser drones will not be used on "terrorist barricades". Mainly because there aren't terrorist barricades, but also because cops would rather risk other people's lives with a usually-not-lethal weapon rather than talk to a usually-not-dangerous suspect. Oh, were you under the impression that tasers don't kill?
It begins with stun (Score:1)
Then moves to gun.
Controlled much?
The IoT as a connection? (Score:2)
How much computer power in a parked van with carefully designed antennas is needed to build up a picture of the command and control link in a suburban setting per device?
It really, really frequency hops and has super encryption?
After that all that a device that sends a default return code or induces an error to make the drone stop and return.
A bit like whats done to mil grade drones but as a production line in a city.
A race to offer counter measures to the inner city and
Re: (Score:3)
Ahuxley, I appreciate the thought that went into that, but all that isn't necessary.
Just put a couple of car batteries in a drug house to power a brute-force broadband R.F. noise generator and broadband amplifier to be kicked on when the lookout gives the signal a raid is incoming.
Not only no remotely-controlled drones, no police radios, no cellphones, nada. If it ain't wired together it ain't talking, at least within a few blocks. No tactical comms, no calls for backup, no alerts about fleeing suspects, no
Re: (Score:2)
When a R.F. noise generator is encountered for the first time think of the sales to counter such inner city creativity:
Version 2.0 Feel the weight of the new shielding.
Version 2.1a A tight beam of commands from a helicopter to a small dish on the big drone.
Version 3.0 will be on wheels/tracks and just spool optical behind it for the length of the mission.
The upgrades and up sell will keep shareholders
Re: (Score:2)
But cant they just keep on adding heavy RF shielding?
No. R.F. doesn't work that way.
It's the inverse-square law of transmitter strength versus distance and relative signal strength at the receiver. Possibly comm equipment in a communications van at the scene *might* be powerful enough to punch a signal over the noise, but regular car radios and hand-helds would not be powerful enough. Then, even if the radios at the scene could get a signal to the station/HQ somehow (other than leaving the area or disabling the jammer), there's no way those at the scene will
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but now the one guy in your gang smart enough to hook all that shit up right is in federal prison, and when the rest of you get out of your State prison and start things back up, you don't have any of that anymore.
It "works" one time, but the SWAT team still arrests everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
If that can be measured or simulated a 3d printer with a study plan, read me and lists of materials and equipment could be passed around the inner city areas.
Design once, print anywhere. Thats the problem with factory fixed hardware and limited software expecting to have a secure radio link.
The next step is extracting the images sent back. Is the drone searching every part of the building or does it go direct
Re: (Score:2)
Who fucking cares? The cops are going to shoot you if they catch you. You'll be hoping it it the FBI that arrests you, because you won't end up full of holes.
You're not even going to fucking do any of that shit, you start following the cops around with your debug kit like that and you're already in jail before you even figure their shit out, because there are serious federal resources at play in that stuff. When you start fucking with police equipment control, that isn't normal crime.
I understand you wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
A raspberry pi is fast enough to run it in autonomous mode. Targeting based on facial recognition is trivial these days.
Wait. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother with cops at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
If these drones can accurately stun someone, why not make them autonomous, feed their video to an AI familiar with the law and then stun anyone who breaks a law? Oh, wait, because that's pure fucking insanity. But, it's also the direction we are rapidly heading. It will start with drones as backup/expendable less-than-lethal devices and progress pretty quickly to autonomous law enforcement drones. I keep hearing that the average person breaks the law several times a day so, it should make for a really exciting society!
Re: (Score:3)
On-board AI might be preferable to a hackable radio. If someone breaks either the radio protocol or gets into the control system computers, they would have a read-made army of stun-gun equipped drones.
Could be a great way for Russia to turn the protests when Trump loses into riots, making out that the police started stunning people at random. Or just a toy for some 14 year old kid in Bulgaria.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is pretty darn complex. I think a computer powerful enough to compute "I see 'this' and I've decided it's against the law" in near realtime would probably kill the battery life of a drone. Or make it too heavy to fly. At some point in the future you could probably compute it on-board but, for the foreseeable future, you'd have to stream the data to a large data center to crunch it.
The funny thing is that you'd probably use a cellphone signal to transmit the data. So, yeah, your worries are justi
Re: (Score:3)
They would be nuked from orbit to be certain.
meh (Score:2)
only fair if the coast guard gets sharks with lasers.
Sorry, it's illegal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, it isn't legally a projectile unless it reaches a certain number of feet per second. These types of devices do not have that much power.
Generally there is an exception for low speed objects only if they have a certain type of penetrating head. For example, is most states a "broadhead" hunting arrow is a projectile; a target arrow is generally not a projectile from the perspective of laws regulating projectiles. Deadly, but just not the same type of risk as a gun or broadhead.
This doesn't sound like a clever idea (Score:2)
Why do they have to use flying drones? Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal. They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Make it special, US mil spec encrypted and enjoy a "no bid" security contract.
Then make it a suggested part of every law enfacement budget. So staff can expect the same quality standards all over the USA. Get educated once, drone anywhere in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal.
That is not a universal guarantee. It may be that available drones are loud because the use cases don't really cause "quiet" to increase the price enough. Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually. But for the most part, it doesn't need to be quiet. It needs to be effective when it gets into range.
They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.
If you're shooting at the equipment the police are deploying, they just shoot you. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang ba
Re: (Score:2)
Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually.
That's not realistic. Cities have crazy-ass winds. A multicopter will have plenty of work to do remaining stable, but at least it will be able to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
One hopes they will be used more for preventative measures than actual reactionary deployment.
Drones have cameras, they record what you're doing. Think of it like the empty cop car sometimes parked on the side of the highway, it's there to prevent people speeding, people see it, don't realize it's empty and slows down.
The best use of such drones can be set up for sporting events or large concerts, as people load and unload from stadium, just to watch for trouble. That they make noise and draw attention to
yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they'll be used for barricaded hostages and terrorists and such. Just like SWAT teams.
police need drones (Score:2)
to track runaway vehicles instead of chasing them.
commentsubject (Score:3)
So if you want us feeling (even more) like everything is turning into 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc. by all means carry on.
looking forward to it! (Score:2)
I dunno, about the rest of you guys but I'm looking forward to the police force giving away pricey new drones when they start using these for everyday policing. :)
As tasers become more and more common, (Score:2)
I expect to see criminals starting to wear chain mail. I'm sure modern techniques could make it quite light and easy to use, especially since it doesn't need to stop bullets or blades. All it needs to do is prevent the taser darts from penetrating so deeply that the chain mail can no longer short them out. Then most of the taser current should pass through the armour instead of the victim's flesh. I suspect victims might feel some pain, and perhaps even a lot of pain, because of the imperfect electrical con
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing heavy like chain or ring mail is required. A thin metal mesh embedded within a jacket would be completely sufficient and practically unnoticeable; even a carbon fiber layer would work. Even when the hooks pierce the skin, it the metal mesh will still short out the taser.
All Americans are Terrorists now. (Score:1)
This is fucking nuts. (Score:2)
It's all I got, I don'tknow what else to say.
The police should consider layoffs and retirements (Score:1)
Don't you think that the cops are just friggen weird. It's just one budget busting whack job idea after another. There is too much policing in this country. Rolling them back hard and fast. Enough of this nonsense.
Time for a new tag (Score:2)
Cute (Score:2)
Not very effective (Score:3)
laws falling further behind... (Score:3)
Do You Know Who Would Like That? (Score:2)
Sadists, sadists would like that, like anyone would taser someone while they are already down.
I think it's a lot better than a bullet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, the view from a drone is a lot worse than the view from a police officer, so it will be harder to tell if force is necessary. It would be useful in cases where the criminal is located in a place where he's otherwise difficult to neutralize.
Looking forward to the shitshow. (Score:2)
Local government can barely patrol in automobiles without fucking up their gear. Federal government can't even properly deploy a website. We see our overseers ass up project after project, while ever eyeing more expensive projects and tech.
This will be a colossal fuck up. Politicians and police are expecting turnkey aircraft. That just aint how its going to go. Aircraft in general is pretty onerous to maintain, autonomous stuff even more-so. Shit goes wrong all the time. I bet they wind up keeping a ton of
Dark Angel Hover Drone (Score:1)
Chainmail (Score:2)
So if you're a criminal, you could wear some chainmail to short out the taser!
Facial recognition software (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand, but I think the risk is that it becomes too easy to use these non-lethal (but very painful) devices when the police are not in any real danger. They could become the quick solution to too many problems. Eventually they might also have lethal weapons.
I think that one of the keys to reducing police brutality is a better connection to the people that they are supposed to be serving, and I think drones weaken that connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Tasers can and do kill. If you have certain types of medical problems, they're more likely to kill. They should never be considered non-lethal. They're considerably less lethal than the officer's sidearm, but should never be used unless lethal force is justified.
Also, there are lots of cases of police officers using tasers too freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's a great idea. (the pepper spray not the peaceful protestors or non-white part).
Pepper spray is far less likely to be accidentally lethal than stun guns or rubber bullets. Someone controlling a drone is far less likely to shoot in the first place because they're less likely to panic, or feel threatened.
A drone has a camera on it at all times. Make it required that the video footage is available for independent bodies to review for abuse, and pass federal laws denying police the rights to
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm considering anti drone and anti police state countermeasures
Exactliy. If they want the a UAV weapon then they'll find the citizens have them too no matter what FAA may say.