-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
LAPD considers deploying unmanned drones for ‘tactical events’
- Thread starter ZombieApocolypse
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drones
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
femurphy77
Grandmaster
Nothing surprising here, natural progression to totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,918
- 113
We already deploy ground-based robots and helicopters in tactical events, what's the difference, other than cost and safety of a pilot?
(Side note, the ground based robots are very unimpressive to look at. I really thought I was going to see Johnny 5 the first time I heard "we're going to deploy the robot.")
(Side note, the ground based robots are very unimpressive to look at. I really thought I was going to see Johnny 5 the first time I heard "we're going to deploy the robot.")
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
They may be unimpressive to look at but they are fun to use. Especially when you use them to destroy things.
Maximinus Thrax
Expert
yeah, I'm failing to see the difference between a chopper and a drone in those situations. If used beyond that then we can talk but this seems like good implementation to me.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Ok, run this by me. How is a flying camera a step in the progression to totalitarianism?
If they put the camera in the cop car, on their uniform, in a helicopter, in a rascal, or on Officer Chompy?
Explain the problem here?
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Well, of course, but we are all in agreement with this!
Meh. I don't think it's a huge deal. Not real different than another traffic camera, surveillance camera on the street corner or big white van with 'Pats Puppy Cleaning' on the side. I'm not saying I want more surveillance. Quite the opposite, actually. But I've been getting in to quadcopter/multi-rotor RC building lately and feel some comfort in knowing that I highly doubt the LA skies will be filled with 'drones', knowing that it's a PITA and very expensive to get good flight times on these. Even on expensive ($X,XXX) hobbyist built devices with top of the line parts, a flight time of 30 minutes is considered good. Furthermore, most 'drones' ( I hate that word unless you're talking about an unmanned craft bombing a village ) are equipped with cameras that are mostly wide-angle lenses, though I have seen some examples of zoom lenses but the power is such that the 'drone' would still be low enough to be visible and audible (they're not silent) if they were trying to get a close up of someone's face. This could be improved on greatly, but as the features and options increase so does the payload and down goes flight time. I think 'drones' (uhg) are mostly used by government agencies as they can be easily equipped to detect marijuana grows either via infrared cameras or can be flown over fields.
In short: There is a difference between a 'drone' and probably whatever the LAPD is flying. People think of drones in war because they can kill. UAV/Quadcopter/etc would be better term. Unless the LAPD is spending a boatload of money and doing something 'different', then their flight times will be low enough that I'm not worried about them being used often. Also, the photo in the article is a DJI Phantom that you can buy on Amazon for like $600 and has a flight time of 10-15 minutes or so... I'm not too worried about this because I think it's a inefficient method of surveillance.
In short: There is a difference between a 'drone' and probably whatever the LAPD is flying. People think of drones in war because they can kill. UAV/Quadcopter/etc would be better term. Unless the LAPD is spending a boatload of money and doing something 'different', then their flight times will be low enough that I'm not worried about them being used often. Also, the photo in the article is a DJI Phantom that you can buy on Amazon for like $600 and has a flight time of 10-15 minutes or so... I'm not too worried about this because I think it's a inefficient method of surveillance.
Last edited:
Well I've spent a lot of time and a decent chunk of change building my quadcopter that seems to suck up more of money as I try to get it to fly properly and have a decent setup... so I get annoyed by the term 'drone' when applied to anything that is flying in the air via remote control. :P Now I want a RC plane, too. It's a fun hobby and I have a decent sized field in my backyard that is perfect place to fly and there is a local RC club I may inquire about soon. Eventually I'll have a FPV setup on my 'drone' where I can wear goggles or have a video screen to transmit the data from an onboard small camera on the 'drone' back to me in real time to navigate it out of direct line of sight. Then I can do fun stuff like this: [video=youtube;hFxbyr4Guu8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFxbyr4Guu8[/video]
or
[video=youtube;vxe7yU2Umn4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxe7yU2Umn4[/video]
Sorry for derailing the thread though, haha. Yes, aerial devices for surveillance is bad. But depending on what they're actually deploying (because the article showed a photo of a consumer/introductory quadcopter) they won't be using these often as flight time is bad and they'd have to be relatively close to get good images of people even with a zoom lense, as it's hard to get a 'drone' to just hover in one place with minimal vibration from the motors long enough to get a close up shot of anything from a distance. Just seems like a pretty poor way of performing surveillance, and would be better used for other things like checking out a surrounding area before entering it (for example).
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,918
- 113
See, that's the difference. "Quadcopter" sounds like something you play with after Star Trek has went off but before your mom brings sandwiches down to the basement for when your D&D buddies show up. "Drone" sounds like an evil empire is watching you at all times for the sole purpose of bombing you at the optimal time.
I was thinking of the little dumb-bell shaped ones that SWAT uses, not the EOD bot, which I assume is what you are talking about. The only thing the SWAT robot could destroy is a particularly slow ant. Some SWAT robot. Stupid lack of death lasers. It should *at least* have an electro-fied harpooning attachment (tm).
This is the part that got me, as much as i dont want to be filmed 24/7 (im camara shy 
) this makes sense:
Beck responded to criticism of the plans by human rights and privacy groups by explaining that the technology is already “in the hands of private citizens” and corporations, so why shouldn’t law enforcement experiment with the devices as well?
) this makes sense:Beck responded to criticism of the plans by human rights and privacy groups by explaining that the technology is already “in the hands of private citizens” and corporations, so why shouldn’t law enforcement experiment with the devices as well?
