PDA

View Full Version : The "militarization" of law enforcement...



THE Gypsy
12-11-2011, 04:47 PM
Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,324348.story


I've seen reports on this from Texas and Florida...Now, North Dakota.

Thoughts?

Wei Wu Wei
12-11-2011, 07:05 PM
The more instability in our society, the more these measures are going to be pushed through in the name of "national security".

If you resist, you will be accused of being soft on crime, or supporting terrorism. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have any problem with this, right?

American cities are going to end up more like London in terms of surveillance, except with far higher degrees of police force.

http://i.imgur.com/VxhbD.jpg

JB
12-11-2011, 07:45 PM
At this point, what's the difference. Pandora's box has been opened.

There's so many public cameras watching us, traffic cameras, private cameras, satellites that can see into your bathroom (:eek:), email readers, CarrierIQ, cell phone whatever, you can't scratch your balls without someone knowing it.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but we have been watched for some time now. Throwing predators into the mix really doesn't make a difference.

NJCardFan
12-11-2011, 11:09 PM
The more instability in our society, the more these measures are going to be pushed through in the name of "national security".

If you resist, you will be accused of being soft on crime, or supporting terrorism. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have any problem with this, right?

American cities are going to end up more like London in terms of surveillance, except with far higher degrees of police force.

http://i.imgur.com/VxhbD.jpg

You're a guy who admires the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and Cuba among other communist regimes. Just how free did you think the people were in those places? You're a hypocrite if there ever was one.

txradioguy
12-12-2011, 03:08 AM
It's not militarization you ignorant clown.

:rolleyes:

djones520
12-12-2011, 03:31 AM
Just incase there were concerns about Posse Comitatus, these Predators are being operated by US Customs and Border Protection. Their just based on an Air Force base.

As for my thoughts, I'm not against it. It's not like they are being used for constant surveillance. It was used to recon a dangerous situation and ensure the safety of law enforcement personel. It was done within the bounds of a warrant, and so I'm fine with it.

txradioguy
12-12-2011, 05:07 AM
Just incase there were concerns about Posse Comitatus, these Predators are being operated by US Customs and Border Protection. Their just based on an Air Force base.

As for my thoughts, I'm not against it. It's not like they are being used for constant surveillance. It was used to recon a dangerous situation and ensure the safety of law enforcement personel. It was done within the bounds of a warrant, and so I'm fine with it.

If the OP were correct...which he is not...then you could jsut as easily say that Law Enforcement agencies that use airplanes or helicopters to patrol large hard to access areas are militarization of law enforcement.

DumbAss Tanker
12-12-2011, 10:38 AM
How is it really any different than police helicopters, aside from being much cheaper to operate?

Odysseus
12-12-2011, 11:14 AM
The more instability in our society, the more these measures are going to be pushed through in the name of "national security".
This wasn't a national security issue. It was a simple case of cattle rustling, and the drone surveillance was conducted under a warrant. If they'd used a police helicopter instead of a drone, there'd be no story here, even though the legal ramifications are the same. It's a non-story.


If you resist, you will be accused of being soft on crime, or supporting terrorism. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have any problem with this, right?
Do you object to the use of helicopters to track violent criminals? Do you object to surveillance cameras in high-crime areas that make it possible for police to catch criminals after violent crimes? For that matter, do you object when the totalitarian states that you admire do far worse? Your hypocrisy is astonishing.


American cities are going to end up more like London in terms of surveillance, except with far higher degrees of police force.

http://i.imgur.com/VxhbD.jpg
Look at the bright side. London has lots of enclaves where the police don't dare go, and law enforcement is left up to the local imams. Is that more to your liking?

Just incase there were concerns about Posse Comitatus, these Predators are being operated by US Customs and Border Protection. Their just based on an Air Force base.

As for my thoughts, I'm not against it. It's not like they are being used for constant surveillance. It was used to recon a dangerous situation and ensure the safety of law enforcement personel. It was done within the bounds of a warrant, and so I'm fine with it.
QFT

These are not armed drones, like the ones used in Afghanistan. They are simple camera platforms that allow for real-time intelligence gathering on law-enforcement target that has already been approved for legal searches in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the use of the surveillance platform was initiated by the legitimate concern for the safety of all persons involved in the case, including the perps, who had previously used the threat of violence against the police. The use of the drones prevented a violent outcome to the case, while allowing the police to execute the warrant that they had lawfully and properly acquired. While there is potential for abuse, this isn't an example of it.

noonwitch
12-12-2011, 11:54 AM
As far as border control goes, I'm all for using the unarmed drones. I'm opposed to fencing in our country, so using this technology is one step toward avoiding having a wall.


The cattle rustling case is only okay by me because the cops got a warrant first.

I appreciate Odeysseus' and djones' comments, because they know a lot more about the technology than I do.

THE Gypsy
12-12-2011, 12:47 PM
Just incase there were concerns about Posse Comitatus, these Predators are being operated by US Customs and Border Protection. Their just based on an Air Force base.

As for my thoughts, I'm not against it. It's not like they are being used for constant surveillance. It was used to recon a dangerous situation and ensure the safety of law enforcement personel. It was done within the bounds of a warrant, and so I'm fine with it.



How about this one..."being operated by" the Miami PD?

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21003198189967



OR this one, "being operated by" local law enforcement in TX?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012204111.html

djones520
12-12-2011, 12:49 PM
How about this one..."being operated by" the Miami PD?

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21003198189967



OR this one, "being operated by" local law enforcement in TX?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012204111.html

Ok, and? I was addressing that incase anyone had concerns that the US Military was taking part in Law Enforcement, since the article didn't actually make it clear.

I addressed my thoughts on the use in Law Enforcement on the second line, go reread that. Given the links you provided, it looks like they plan on using those drones for the same exact purposes that these were used for. Intelligence gathering on case by case basis, not constant monitoring that violates 4th Amendment rights.

THE Gypsy
12-12-2011, 12:56 PM
Ok, and? I was addressing that incase anyone had concerns that the US Military was taking part in Law Enforcement, since the article didn't actually make it clear.

I addressed my thoughts on the use in Law Enforcement on the second line, go reread that.
Sorry, I misunderstood the comment.

Personally, I'm not as concerned with "the US Military was taking part in Law Enforcement", for now, as much as the loss of privacy for law abiding citizens.

Novaheart
12-12-2011, 01:26 PM
At this point, what's the difference. Pandora's box has been opened.

There's so many public cameras watching us, traffic cameras, private cameras, satellites that can see into your bathroom (:eek:), email readers, CarrierIQ, cell phone whatever, you can't scratch your balls without someone knowing it.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but we have been watched for some time now. Throwing predators into the mix really doesn't make a difference.

Didn't Sister Mary Margarethe tell you to stop that?

txradioguy
12-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood the comment.

Personally, I'm not as concerned with "the US Military was taking part in Law Enforcement", for now, as much as the loss of privacy for law abiding citizens.


Let me guess you have tinfoil on your windows as well as your head?

You think the FEMA camps are real don't you?


What privacy exactly is being lost? There's no cameras on these drones that allow them to look into houses or through brick walls.

What reasonable expectation of privacy does one have when either A) out in public on a city street or B) committing a crime?

Novaheart
12-12-2011, 02:16 PM
What privacy exactly is being lost? .............
What reasonable expectation of privacy does one have when either A) out in public on a city street or B) committing a crime?

Privacy and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" are not the same thing. The former is a luxury we enjoy and citizens of a nation which isn't wall to wall people, and the latter is a legal standard for fourth and fifth amendment issues.

I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I am sitting on the north end of Assateague Island. By the same token, it is not the government's job or right to stand over me taking pictures while I sit in the sun. Gathering information on people not accused of crimes is indeed a hallmark of a police state. The fact that the subject is not immediately aware that he is being watch is irrelevant.

Just because the government can do something, doesn't mean that it should.

BTW, my comments have nothing to do with the article as I have not read it, merely commenting on your comment.

Novaheart
12-12-2011, 02:25 PM
Let me guess you have tinfoil on your windows as well as your head?

You think the FEMA camps are real don't you?


Now that I have read the article, I don't like the use of these machines in domestic law enforcement. I have no problem with having them on the border, which apparently was the stated purpose for buying them, but I do have a problem with any aircraft being used over private American land against Americans. I simply do, and I am entitled to. I also don't think that helicopters should wander and cruise looking inside the property of people.

Now you want to talk about a living constitution? Which of the founding fathers, who wrote into our constitution that the government needs a warrant to search your person, papers, and property would you have thought would have made an exception for hot air balloons? I don't think any of them would. They considered the inside of your fence to be your land and outside government reach.

Odysseus
12-12-2011, 03:12 PM
Now that I have read the article, I don't like the use of these machines in domestic law enforcement. I have no problem with having them on the border, which apparently was the stated purpose for buying them, but I do have a problem with any aircraft being used over private American land against Americans. I simply do, and I am entitled to. I also don't think that helicopters should wander and cruise looking inside the property of people.

Now you want to talk about a living constitution? Which of the founding fathers, who wrote into our constitution that the government needs a warrant to search your person, papers, and property would you have thought would have made an exception for hot air balloons? I don't think any of them would. They considered the inside of your fence to be your land and outside government reach.

If the drone were used prior to the issuance of a warrant, you'd be correct. However, the drone wasn't used until after a warrant was obtained, based on the altercation between the sheriff and the armed rustlers, which constitutes probable cause.

Novaheart
12-12-2011, 04:47 PM
If the drone were used prior to the issuance of a warrant, you'd be correct. However, the drone wasn't used until after a warrant was obtained, based on the altercation between the sheriff and the armed rustlers, which constitutes probable cause.

Good point. Let me think on that.

txradioguy
12-13-2011, 03:17 AM
Now that I have read the article, I don't like the use of these machines in domestic law enforcement. I have no problem with having them on the border, which apparently was the stated purpose for buying them, but I do have a problem with any aircraft being used over private American land against Americans. I simply do, and I am entitled to. I also don't think that helicopters should wander and cruise looking inside the property of people.

Now you want to talk about a living constitution? Which of the founding fathers, who wrote into our constitution that the government needs a warrant to search your person, papers, and property would you have thought would have made an exception for hot air balloons? I don't think any of them would. They considered the inside of your fence to be your land and outside government reach.


Then lets stop all law enforcement from using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. After all the military uses those too.

In large metro areas aircraft are the only way that law enforcement can effectively peruse and help apprehend criminals.

Why take that tool away from them?

While we're at it lets ban bullet proof vests and semi-automatic rifles for LEO's too...since they had their start in the military.

The OP is the CT version of Chicken Little screaming "the sky is falling".

Wei Wu Wei
12-13-2011, 09:08 AM
You're a guy who admires the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and Cuba among other communist regimes.

No not really, you apparently simply need to believe this to sustain your own world view.

I've been extremely critical of the totalitarian nightmare that the USSR and other regimes have become. I think it's fair to say that 20th century communism may be the greatest ethical catastrophe in human history.

You seem to base your own political identity on me being wrong, and in order to sustain that you need to believe that I believe these things that you claim.

For example, I'm making a post about risk of living in an increasingly watched, Big Brother state where the police fly robot spy machines around cities to keep an eye on everything, and you can only respond by claiming that I love USSR totalitarianism, which I don't. How about replying to the issue at hand?

Odysseus
12-13-2011, 12:50 PM
No not really, you apparently simply need to believe this to sustain your own world view.

I've been extremely critical of the totalitarian nightmare that the USSR and other regimes have become. I think it's fair to say that 20th century communism may be the greatest ethical catastrophe in human history.
Yeah, but were you critical of it when it was a going concern? Most of the people who supported communist governments back when they were promising to bury us now claim to have been on our side of the Cold War all along. In your case, it's even more difficult to believe, because you keep agitating for the same thing under a new name. 20th century communism is no different than 21st century communism, socialism, progressivism or what have you. It's all going to go the same way, because it's the same basic theories. Marx didn't suddenly start making sense when the millenium ended, and anyone who applies them today will achieve the same failure that the communists achieved for the last century. And don't pretend that you don't want to keep trying the same thing, because you've said it too often to hide your intent.


You seem to base your own political identity on me being wrong, and in order to sustain that you need to believe that I believe these things that you claim.
And yet, you do believe them. You continue to espouse Marxism, communism and socialism, while claiming to have been critical of the failed Marxist, communist and socialist states (without any proof, of course, that you actually did oppose them at the time). Our political identity isn't based on you being wrong. Our political identity is based on our being right about free markets, individual liberty and the rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution. Your political identity is based on you being wrong.

For example, I'm making a post about risk of living in an increasingly watched, Big Brother state where the police fly robot spy machines around cities to keep an eye on everything, and you can only respond by claiming that I love USSR totalitarianism, which I don't. How about replying to the issue at hand?

We did address the issue at hand, when talking to others, who are willing to discuss the issues of warrants, Fourth Amendment guarantees and nature of the surveillance in the context of the law. You make your typical blanket statements about how we are becoming a totalitarian state, and we dismiss you for the hypocritical, lying totalitarian shill that you are and give your statements the credence that they deserve, which is none.