Baltimore Police Back Pilot Program for Surveillance Planes, Reviving Controversial Program (baltimoresun.com) 31
Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said Friday he now supports a pilot program to fly three private surveillance planes over the city, reviving a controversial effort that had been shelved since it was revealed to have been used secretly three years ago. From a report: Harrison, who as recently as two months ago said he was skeptical of the planes, said the trial run will commence in May, funded by philanthropic dollars. Baltimore will become the first city in the country to use the technology, Harrison said. "I'm obviously well aware of the plane's controversial history," Harrison said. "I'm looking forward to hearing from our community and to educate them on what this is and what this is not." Harrison previously said the plane system's proponents had oversold its benefits and it was unproven to work. His apparent reversal followed a lobbying campaign that included members of the Greater Baltimore Committee endorsing the program and a prominent pastor presenting a poll that claimed to show community support. It also has become an issue in the mayor's race, with at least one candidate receiving support from the system backers and city officials arguing over whether the technology should be adopted.
funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that is not what philanthropy means. This is less humanism and more militarism.
No, didn't you read the 10th edition? (Score:3)
This IS philanthropy! Double-minus philanthropy, to be precise! So philantropy!
Double-plus good! Hail Big Brother!
Re:funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the inevitable consequence of liberalism, a spiral of chaos, with ever-more-oppressive totalitarian enforcement to force people into line.
Every long-term Democrat stronghold turns into this eventually, first, Detroit, them most of Chicago, now Baltimore and soon San Francisco. Even then, you get an enclave of rich people, limousine liberals, safely behind walls, and with great police protecting, and the supposed "downtrodden" killing each other while the leaders drone on about how much "help" they need.
It fills the elite's need to show how concerned they are over it all, and to do that, they make the situation for the poor worse and worse. Never once to they question their own motives or tactics, those are clearly "correct", so the problem must be that they aren't throwing enough money at it, or blaming the fact that the rest of us aren't enacting the same policies everywhere. It's inevitable, it always happens and can never happen any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never convince the Democrats that they actively work against their own objectives. No matter how rich or evil their leaders become... the only requirement is to say the words that they want to hear... you will never be required to back those words up with actions. Obama has deported more illegal aliens than Trump... yet who gets all the hate? If Trump had a D next to his name instead of an R, we would still be hearing the exact same arguments.... only with a different group complaining about the
Re: funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:1)
Re:funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:4)
I think rather than generalizing "liberals" as some group with complete ideological and philosophical homogeneity, it would be more productive to discuss individual policies that may be harmful and look for alternatives that may work better. I think there are a lot of dumb and sometimes malicious or harmful policies by liberals (and by conservatives for that matter) but by and large I try to assume good faith. I think most people who get passionate about politics have good intentions, otherwise why would they be getting upset about it? People want to do what's right and get angry when they see injustice and suffering. I think that's normal. Even most politicians probably got into politics because of a desire to improve things, though I think many of them end up losing sight of that goal and are ultimately corrupted by the system.
I think with respect to TFS, this is less a government overreach issue and more a police trying to do their job but not really thinking about the consequences issue. I think a lot of police are overspecialized at looking at their problems from their own view. They deal with a lot of misery and probably look for ways to prevent that from happening to begin with or at least to stop it from repeating itself. I think that's why police seem to like surveillance so much. I don't think they're really thinking about the chilling effect it can have on people engaged in legal and even morally upright but possibly socially shunned behavior. I think maybe there's a lack of perspective here. It probably doesn't help that I'm sure a lot of the feedback they get is probably very angry and maybe without a lot of substance to actually discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
I really like and dislike some of the things you have stated.
But make no mistake... Tyranny always comes under the guise of protecting your against an enemy. It has never take on a different form... and it will never attempt to deceive you. You will trade your liberty for nothing but the specter that you are going to be protected and never anything more. Those protecting you soon become those you need protection from, that is how it always works out 100% and why the tree of liberty must be refreshed from
Re: funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:2)
Read the quote again. "I'm looking forward to hearing from our community and to educate them on what this is and what this is not."
They literally couldn't give a shit what the public thinks, because if the public disagrees, they need to be "educated" more.
Jackboots gonna jackboots, and cops still don't realize high IQ people are shunned from their profession for too much independent thought.
Re: funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:2)
They like surveillance because our courts require something called "evidence" and audio or video of someone committing a crime is far more likely to result in a conviction than guiding a bored jury through highly technical forensics.
Unfortunately, the best surveillance is surveillance that actually sees or hears shit going down, so there is a want to cover as much public space as possible with it, without thinking of the unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the inevitable consequence of liberalism
For all you wrote, you haven't written a single word that points to this conclusion. Instead you've simply stated that populous areas have problems.
What you've failed to mention is that rural areas also have problems. They aren't the same problems but alas, you don't see people writing about how "a drug addicted population is the inevitable consequence of conservatism".
Please write something of value instead of wasting people's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe somebody should ask that question. If liberalism breeds profitable cities with criminal underbellies and extensive surveillance, and conservatism breeds post-industrial podunk meth towns, which one is preferable? :-P
(Of course it's a nonsense argument that requires cherry-picking and ignoring geography - Mexico is very conservative and has cities overrun by powerful gangs and enclaves of people rich beyond the wildest dreams of the "limousine liberals").
Re: funded by philanthropic dollars (Score:3)
This is the inevitable consequence of liberalism...
Thomas Jefferson was the inevitable consequence of Libetalism. Try not to sound like a partisan mouthbreather; you make the rest of us "pro-individual liberty, small-gov't" types look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm looking forward to hearing from our community and to educate them on what this is and what this is not."
What this is, sir, is a slippery slope. Whatever they are today isn't what they'll be in the future.
But 1984 said *drones*! (Score:2, Funny)
I thought it was your instruction book and bible, you creepy anxiety-disorder power-pseudo-bottom totalitarian Gestapo fucks!
They are the Police (Score:4, Informative)
It is not a shock they are pro-police state and pro-tyranny. They only have one job... to see the public as a bunch of criminals they need to catch or fine.
They stopped serving the public a long time ago... they only serve the state and they make no reservations for it either. You can hear many officers make the statement that the weapons at their sides are for their protection... not yours.
America is already a police state by the definition of a police state, however many people seem to have a different definition.
The simplest definition for a police state is...
"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens activities."
The state is on record as secretly supervising the citizens. They don't even try to hide it either and they openly laud their sting operations where they secretly goad and convince citizens... especially those with mental handicaps into committing crimes so they can puff their little chests out like they are heroes or something. And if you run afoul of any of these surveillance efforts you can be removed from society without any rights. And there is not a single citizen that is going to give a shit either, despite the fact that they run their mouths to the contrary. You can be killed for any reason the police deem justifiable and you can be arrested for any reason they deem justifiable. The courts including the SCOTUS has already made it clear that the police do not have to know or understand they laws they are enforcing. An attack on the kings men is the same as an attack on the king himself even if the kings men are the ones technically breaking the law first.
If the citizens gave a shit... there would have been a posse out looking for the police that killed 2 innocent bystanders in their evil and corrupt pursuit of criminals and a demand for their prosecution after they were all arrested. Since the citizens themselves can now be claimed as justifiable collateral in the pursuit of crime they have made it clear that the police are 1st class citizens and the rest of us 2nd class or worse. This is only going to get worse folks... and just you wait both sides of the political isle wants stronger and more invasive government, they just disagree on what form that should be taking.
Re: (Score:1)
So...you know that Baltimore has had no meaningful Republican input for over half a century now. Right? It's been in the hands of the Democrats since 1967. I'm sure you knew that.
Or, if you didn't know that, what part of that ZOMG POLICE STATE rhetoric might you want to revise in light of this embarrassing new fact? Remember when Baltimore had all the riots, and the cops withdrew from policing like you demanded? And crime exploded? Don't remember that either?
Re: (Score:3)
"So...you know that Baltimore has had no meaningful Republican input for over half a century now. Right?"
I have eyes, I see both sides of the isle reaching for a police state. The fight is only over which group the police state is going to benefit the most... that is all. You have to be a moron to not see it.
"Remember when Baltimore had all the riots, and the cops withdrew from policing like you demanded? And crime exploded? Don't remember that either?"
I didn't make those demands. But yes, I definitely d
Re: (Score:1)
The public demanded an end to policing. The police did that. Then the public said save us from the criminals, they're out of control without the police.
The Baltimore mayor - Democrat - was behind the whole thing. The Democrats own this.
Re: (Score:2)
America is hardly a police state. The fact that you can call it that without consequence proves it. Are the police out of control and need reigned in? Yes. It all comes from one simple training statement. Maintain control of the situation at all times using whatever means necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Your logic is pure bullshit and shows that your IQ is too low to argue with. By your logic we don't have laws because there are tons of people getting away with crimes that have never been caught.
Being able to say shit against the state and get by with it is no kind of a benchmark or even in the definition itself for whether or not if we have a police state and shows that your are a bitch ass police state apologist to advance the notion that this is some kind of requirement to be a police state.
We all have
Re: (Score:2)
' ....they only serve the state and they make no reservations for it either.'
Uh not in Baltimore. In Baltimore they serve themselves. They have a long history of being corrupt.
https://www.npr.org/2017/03/09... [npr.org]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
Just a reminder (Score:1)
Baltimore is a Nordic criminal justice experiment (Score:2)
Baltimore has lenient policing, weak sentencing (virtually nonexistent for juveniles (see last sentence) [cbslocal.com]), no truth-in-sentencing, porous jails with strong links to the outside [cbsnews.com].
When I note that Baltimore is implementing the Nordic model of criminal justice, a certain group of people explodes with indignation, yet they NEVER are able to tell me exactly what is different between Baltimore and the Nordic model.
Question: What is the difference between Baltimore criminal justice policy and the Nordic model?
Re: (Score:2)
Investigate past shootings and robberies (Score:1)
Finally police get the support they need to better stop crime in poor areas.
Re "generations to come"... what about the past generations who had to accept the crime rate due to failed police?
Criminals and illegal migrants are not "vulnerable citizens".
Poor US citizens who had to live with and pay for decades of crime are the real "vulnerable citizens".
Criminals found with "gunshot detection technology" are not "vulnerable citizens"
Eye in the Sky (Score:2)
Listen all about it [wnycstudios.org].
This was tested two years ago. (Score:2)
Baltimore has a murder rate that is extremely high. Many times during the test event. Police would be called to a murder seen long after the the suspects had fled. With a call to the data monitoring control where the data can be played back to the time of the murder. People or autos can be seen leaving and traced throw past time to there current location in the present where police can apprehend suspects. This gets probable murderers behind bars while normal evidence and testimonials can be collected.
Re: (Score:1)
Hoowhee (Score:2)