I wonder if they will consider it an assault on a police officer?
Destruction of public property me thinks. Every available officer will track down the perps, and the courts will set a stern example. It's for the children.
From the Russian news article linked to in initial post. (RT)
quote
Comments attached to the videos purported that the drone could belong to the LAPD......The LAPD recently brought the aerial technology on board.
Last month, the LAPD announced it was the beneficiary of two Draganflyer X6 unmanned aerial vehicles by the Seattle Police Department, which made the decision to forfeit the technology amid heightened public opposition to the drones.
LA Police Chief Charlie Beck said the unmanned drones could assist police forces in “standoffs, perimeters, suspects hiding…and other tactical events.”
“We’re interested in those applications,” he said.
On June 5, in response to heightened criticism over the drones, Beck said he would seek input from privacy advocates and civil rights groups before deploying the technology in the skies over Los Angeles.
However, Draganflyer X6 photographs available online suggest the drone in the video is not the same model the LAPD received from Seattle.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-16-2014).]
I realize there's not much we can do about it... but I just don't like un-manned equipment... IE: traffic cameras, drones, etc. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem using that stuff against everyone else, just not on US citizens in the United States.
As if Police ever abuse their authority. The idea is preposterous!
The truth is that ALL MANKIND has falts and are prone to neglect and abuse. A badge does NOT make a person immune. Yes there are some bad ones and yes some good ones do make bad mistakes. But the hate on COPs band wagon is as bad as the worst COP.
The truth is that ALL MANKIND has falts and are prone to neglect and abuse. A badge does NOT make a person immune. Yes there are some bad ones and yes some good ones do make bad mistakes. But the hate on COPs band wagon is as bad as the worst COP.
Sorry Charlie, The badge means hold them to the highest standard not coddle them.
I'm pretty certain something the size of a drone can't get within 300 yrds from my house.
There have been several lengthy threads about it. Show us where you posted otherwise. The officers involved are still on the job, the city (taxpayers) out millions of dollars and yet, you've been silent as a mouse about it. If you don't endorse their action, publicly call for their firing. Many of us already have. Now, is the time to stand up for that "higher standard".
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-17-2014).]
There have been several lengthy threads about it. Show us where you posted otherwise. The officers involved are still on the job, the city (taxpayers) out millions of dollars and yet, you've been silent as a mouse about it. If you don't endorse their action, publicly call for their firing. Many of us already have. Now, is the time to stand up for that "higher standard".
You ask me a direct question about a specific event, I responded in kind, and you respond to my question with a generality? So much for the higher standard.
You ask me a direct question about a specific event, I responded in kind, and you respond to my question with a generality? So much for the higher standard.
Typical, that is about what I expext from Mrs pot head.
I have never done drugs of any kind. Mary Jane, as most here know, is my wife's name. Many here have met her. But, you already knew that.
No, I dont. I have never met your wife nor do I lnow this to be true. I know mary jane to be a reference to pot, dope, drugs and I know your opinion towords ( support of) the life style. I have no beef with your family, and this you know. The attempt to dodge and divert is pethetic and weak. Just deal with the issues, IF you can?
I should state, that I am (in general) against drug use in as far as currently defined illegal drugs goes, but I am also very cognizant of the fact that the current "war on drugs" is ineffective, overly expensive, unsustainable, has led to a high degree of militarization of our domestic police forces, has become overly intrusive into the private part of most recreational user's lives, has ruined at least as many lives as the drug use itself has, has morphed into a cash cow for both police departments and the corporations that support them, and is a constant drain on manpower of almost every police dept in the nation by it's own weight and is a self perpetuating entity. IOW, it, as currently structured, isn't working and something definitely needs to change.
My opposition to the war on drugs is monetary in nature in defense of the US taxpayer.
Say what you will, to fool the ignorant. Support of drug legalization IS supporting AND condoning the "life style". It just is what it is. And you ARE in favor of drug legalization over drug restriction. This IS true. It is what you stand for, OR am I misunderstood?
Say what you will, to fool the ignorant. Support of drug legalization IS supporting AND condoning the "life style". It just is what it is. And you ARE in favor of drug legalization over drug restriction. This IS true. It is what you stand for, OR am I misunderstood?
Of course this is the only way you want to understand it Rick. You are White,in a union,work for the government,in law enforcement and the war on drugs is great job security.
Seriously, I don't expect much else from your perspective. There simply are no magic glasses to be had that could allow you to see outside your world. You think you see but you simply can't recognize any other view. You are in effect a flat lander. Where others see spheres you only see lines.
Say what you will, to fool the ignorant. Support of drug legalization IS supporting AND condoning the "life style". It just is what it is. And you ARE in favor of drug legalization over drug restriction. This IS true. It is what you stand for, OR am I misunderstood?
No I am not in favor of drug legalization over drug restriction IF the restriction is affordable to the society that is paying (taxes) for it's enforcement, and if the restrictive policy works. It does not. Here's the rest of what I said:
quote
I do not believe that banning anything makes it significantly more attractive---people (for the most part) are either going to drink and drive, smoke, snort coke, steal, kill, embezzle, or whatever--or, they are not. Pretty obvious after 35 years, that simply making a substance illegal has had very little influence on whether a person uses or doesn't. I do not know what the answer is, but status quo is not it.
I have many many times over the last 13 years here in OT railed against drug use , and my views on the subject are well known to evidently almost everyone but you. You don't have a reading problem Rick--you have a comprehension problem. People have asked you many questions, (you even quote the questions), and then answer a completely different question while ignoring the question that was asked. Read what people post and type. All of it--not just what you want to pick out and wax philosophically upon. I am not, never have been, and never will be in favor of any illegal mind altering or other mentally incapacitating drugs and even if they were to become legal I still would not be in favor of their use for myself or my loved ones. Should the legalization issue come to a vote here in Texas, I would in all liklihood (depending how the legislation is structured) vote against it.
Typical, that is about what I expext from Mrs pot head.
Your ignorance is showing. Sad really.
So, by your own definition of the name, Mary Jane's everywhere were named so because of drugs? Smooth Rick is not smooth.
And your incoherent babble in this thread suggests alcohol. That is my opinion only, but you brace it up with horrible misspellings and lack of judgement. I bet you drove home that way. But, you wear a badge (do they give badges to guys that could not make it on the streets?)so it is acceptable.
Hey, don't you have to go get lunch for the inmates? Maybe direct a few to clean the latrine? You are an officer in the prison's walls, but you are not on the streets. Is that a tough cookie to chew on?
I have many many times over the last 13 years here in OT railed against drug use , and my views on the subject are well known to evidently almost everyone but you. You don't have a reading problem Rick--you have a comprehension problem. People have asked you many questions, (you even quote the questions), and then answer a completely different question while ignoring the question that was asked. Read what people post and type. All of it--not just what you want to pick out and wax philosophically upon. I am not, never have been, and never will be in favor of any illegal mind altering or other mentally incapacitating drugs an d even if they were to become legal I still would not be in favor of their use for myself or my loved ones. Should the legalization issue come to a vote here in Texas, I would in all liklihood (depending how the legislation is structured) vote against it.
I know that in one sentence you say that you against the " drug war" then in another say you are on the fence about voting for legalization? I understand that you dont want to use it, how do you feel about others using it?
Of course this is the only way you want to understand it Rick. You are White,in a union,work for the government,in law enforcement and the war on drugs is great job security.
Seriously, I don't expect much else from your perspective. There simply are no magic glasses to be had that could allow you to see outside your world. You think you see but you simply can't recognize any other view. You are in effect a flat lander. Where others see spheres you only see lines.
All your drone are belong to us.
Why would you think I cant see what drugs are doing to America? It does not take any special glasses to see they are destructive. And as I have said in another "drug" thread, my job is not dependent on drug laws. But you would or could not understand it. AB 109 has proved that there is plenty of crime in CA to support an entire industry without the "recreational" users being locked up.
So, by your own definition of the name, Mary Jane's everywhere were named so because of drugs? Smooth Rick is not smooth.
And your incoherent babble in this thread suggests alcohol. That is my opinion only, but you brace it up with horrible misspellings and lack of judgement. I bet you drove home that way. But, you wear a badge (do they give badges to guys that could not make it on the streets?)so it is acceptable.
Hey, don't you have to go get lunch for the inmates? Maybe direct a few to clean the latrine? You are an officer in the prison's walls, but you are not on the streets. Is that a tough cookie to chew on?
My ignorance? You dont understand what I say so I am ignorant? Then follow it up with accusations guessing and insult. And you call me ignorant? LOL, OK. Not much else to say to a comment like yours.
There have been several lengthy threads about it. Show us where you posted otherwise. The officers involved are still on the job, the city (taxpayers) out millions of dollars and yet, you've been silent as a mouse about it. If you don't endorse their action, publicly call for their firing. Many of us already have. Now, is the time to stand up for that "higher standard".
Are you asking me if this shooting was wrong? My answer is yes. Are you asking me if the COPs should be investigated? My answer is yes. Are you asking me what form of action should take place? This is where you wont like what I have to say (gust guessing ). I have two answers, 1 personal and another professional. My personal opinion is that I would not want to work with loose cannons like that so they should not be working there any more. Without going through the obvious I will say that nobody will want to risk their job on this happening again. My professional opinion is that I have not seen the results of the investigation, so the reasonable thing to do is stay quiet as a mouse.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-17-2014).]
I know that in one sentence you say that you against the " drug war" then in another say you are on the fence about voting for legalization? I understand that you dont want to use it, how do you feel about others using it?
Inasmuch as there is currently no real pending legislation in the Texas political arena for or against legalization, it is impossible for me to to make an informed and absolute decision on that voting option at this time. Being for or against any law prior to knowing what is IN the law reeks of ignorance. I've already stated, that depending how any future law is structured, I would probably vote against it. There would have to be extreme safeguards in the statute to prevent use, possession, sale, or manufacture for or by minors--much stronger penalties re minors than we currently have for tobacco, firearms, and alcohol. Since I don't see that happening, I would (in all liklihood) vote against it. Others? I believe in State's Rights as spelled out in the US Constitution and think others should obey the laws of their land (state) at all times. Legislating morality is a lost battle before it even begins.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-17-2014).]
My ignorance? You dont understand what I say so I am ignorant? Then follow it up with accusations guessing and insult. And you call me ignorant? LOL, OK. Not much else to say to a comment like yours.
He asked you a simple and direct question--you chose not to answer it. Why?
He asked you a simple and direct question--you chose not to answer it. Why?
Then he can ask it without the "extras". That would make it easier for people who he thinks to be ignorant to understand. Believe it or not, I do respond to honest questions. I may or may not respond to sarcastic, sharp or insulting comments, depends on how I feel about it at the time.
