So, that happened
You know, people have those moments in wherein something truly historical happens and the recall what they were doing. Well, this, wherein a drone strike has been ordered on US soil, will be one. I was watching The Walking Dead.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 10th, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Eh, that story is questionably sourced, but without a doubt they are using drones to find him at this point.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Fuck due process. Who needs it. Shoot on site
Put up a wanted dead or alive poster, same difference.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:41 pm
@Tom and that’s the real problem they are in shoot on sight mode without a doubt, but unless they are withholding information (which they probably are) we have no direct evidence he committed the murders attributed to him.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Well, it would seem I need to accelerate my own drone program.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:12 am
Isn’t that convenient?
They whole story, I mean. Now we need drones for “our protection.”
Joe Huffman is looking more right every day.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/02/08/experiment-goals/
February 11th, 2013 at 12:55 am
@d2k I don’t care what they are withholding. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW seems pretty clear.
Of course they can’t even get SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED right so what do I expect.
Listen, I’m sure the dude is guilty as homemade sin but until he steps foot in a courtroom he is entitled to all the protection due. Once convicted, bury the guy.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:25 am
If they can’t seem to stop thousands of illegal aliens going north, how in the hell are they going to find one man going south?
February 11th, 2013 at 1:31 am
Shoot on sight? Judging from photos of the truck, they neither use their sights, nor shoot at things they can see first. They just pull the trigger over and over with their lower jaw slung forward like Animal from “The Muppets” until they run out of ammo. Then maybe a chest bump somewhere afterwards.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:41 am
It’s a good thing Dorner burned his truck, or every dark colored pickup on the West Coast might be targeted.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:06 am
There is so much WTF in this story http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
February 11th, 2013 at 6:30 am
Well, to be fair it looks like they are only using the drones for the *search*–and it’s not clear that these are armed drones being used to kill Dorner on sight. However, given the LAPD’s record so far on this manhunt (they’ve shot almost as many innocent people as Dorner), you know they’ve at least thought about it. And there’s definitely the risk of mission creep. Again, look at SWAT teams, and what they’ve become compared to what they were intended to be.
February 11th, 2013 at 7:32 am
Glad I’m not camping in those mountains.
“Sir, we’ve locked onto a heat signature that matches that of adult human. We’re going to see if..”
“FIRE!!!”
February 11th, 2013 at 9:55 am
What ern said – if you read the story it looks like they’re only using the drones to search, and no indication they’re armed. I doubt there’s anyone in any .gov – state or Fed – that’s ready to open that particular can of worms yet.
Of course, we all know what will happen if LAPD does find him, since they’re clearly in execution mode. So maybe the difference isn’t really all that important, after all.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:57 am
Guess I need to accelerate my DroneSpotter development:
http://gunscarstech.com/2013/02/07/from-zero-to-air-traffic-control-for-25-or-less/
February 11th, 2013 at 11:23 am
That’s some apocalyptic serendipitous synchronicity there bro.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
While I think it could quickly get into due process for armed drones, this is an unnarmed version of a Predator. We are fortunately still not to the point where Border Control can attack. However, there is the warrant issues that this should bring up.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
We didn’t know the predators in Afghanistan were armed until well after it happened.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
For those of you that say they may be using drones only to find him, why would they use the language of “first person TARGETED”
You don’t target individuals you are just looking for.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
I’m with Ern, this one is being oversold. They are using drones with FLIR to search for him. I’ve seen nothing about a drone strike.
And if there is a drone strike, then the pilot needs to be charged with murder, and all his superiors in the chain of command need to be charged with conspiracy. The only way to stop Obama is for people following his orders to start going to prison.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Ya know … I was making a JOKE about LAPD using drones … not advice … a joke, son …
February 11th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
EVERYTHING we think we know about this guy comes from the MSM.
Think about that — long and hard — before you wish for his death. He may not be guilty of any crime at all.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
I agree that arming them is wrong for the same reasons I was against the OV-10 purchase by the ATF in the 90’s. BTW, Customs has Reapers, nor Predators, which is far more scary.
At the bare minimum all armament capabilities need to be removed from LE aircraft (manned or unmanned), save for an aerial sniper platform but then you have much different employment of looking down a scope on a rifle then a display screen that still as of now has low resolution for individual ID. For the most part that is how police helicopters have been deployed. It would have been major shift for Customs to keep the armament systems active on their Reapers. However, since they might have shown a “need” due to border security to have armed capability. Somebody should really FOIA that.
I’m still not quite tinfoil enough to say they are flying it around in search of this nutjob with Hellfires. I’m need some proof before I believe the Feds threw due process and image out the window that blatantly inside the US (but then there was Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.). Now if it was the LAPD’s drone and it had armament it would have blown up several other pickup trucks by now. I’m sure the LAPD has some kind of small unarmed UAV they may or may not be actually using yet due to FAA regs.
I would also say that without being armed there is still 4th Amendment issues, but the more it is being watered down on today’s technology, the more I doubt that would stop them.
February 11th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
If it’s within 100 miles of the border, the Fourth does not apply. See ACLU map (they made a mistake: Chicago and most of L.Michigan do not belong in The Shaded Zone).
February 11th, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“If it’s within 100 miles of the border, the Fourth does not apply.”
Which covers about 2/3 the population of the country.
Chris Dorner the DHS?
February 11th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
@mariner yep that was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread, the LAPD has named him as a suspect in several crimes, but they haven’t provided any evidence of his involvement.
February 11th, 2013 at 6:11 pm
They are just surveillance drones, not armed. There is no “strike”. The fourth amendment does not protect from aircraft flying above.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
It doesn’t? I think in many cases it does, or should.
Monitoring crops on private fields, looking for construction on owned wetlands, those are shaky.
Yeah, meh, probably not this one.
February 12th, 2013 at 4:17 am
Whether they take him out with a drone-fired hellfire or bring him down in a hail of gunfire before positively identifying him or whether he is even armed, what’s the difference?
February 12th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
What ern said.
This is not a “drone strike”. It’s the exact equivalent of using FLIR on an LAPD helicopter, except cheaper.
“Looking” is not “killing” – and a manhunt is pretty much the prime example of perfect justification for “looking” (see common law, hue and cry, etc.)