Dorner is first drone target on US soil.

[farmerbyron]

If they are referring to armed drones, we should all be outraged. The guy is still entitled to due process although LAPD has shown no concerns for such things. If it is just drones with infrared sensors, then who gives a damn.



http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil



Fugitive alleged LAPD-killer is first drone target on U.S. soil

It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.

 

[bmwguy25]

LOL if i had more drive id post up the thread where you guys said they wont warm drones bla bla bla when Reddog brought it up

 

[Chaseme3]

and has a $1 million bounty on his head.

Are you serious? A $1mil bounty without due process? This guy knows something....

 

[been]

LOL if i had more drive id post up the thread where you guys said they wont warm drones bla bla bla when Reddog brought it up

Yep. People still havnt waken up yet. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!

 

[mugsy]

For heaven's sake - read the complete stories before jumping to conclusions:

- The drones have only been cited as being used for search purposes. How is that different than if they used helos or Fixed wing manned aircraft for search purposes?
- The $1 million dollar reward is for information leading to his arrest not a bounty "on his head" as someone very dramatically but highly misleadingly stated

I think most Americans are, in fact, for strict limits on drone use in the U.S. - basically the same limits as for manned surveillance. All drones do is allow longer dwell times and limit risk to pilots - for example searching in bad weather - but when you fly off the handle and spread misleading and inaccurate commentary it makes the credibility of your own argument drop dramatically. As for using weaponized drones - same basic issue. It will probably be possible to build a political coalition against such use except under extremely limited circumstances but this particular case hasn't YET become the test case you are implying it is.

 

[farmerbyron]

For heaven's sake - read the complete stories before jumping to conclusions:

- The drones have only been cited as being used for search purposes. How is that different than if they used helos or Fixed wing manned aircraft for search purposes?
- The $1 million dollar reward is for information leading to his arrest not a bounty "on his head" as someone very dramatically but highly misleadingly stated

I think most Americans are, in fact, for strict limits on drone use in the U.S. - basically the same limits as for manned surveillance. All drones do is allow longer dwell times and limit risk to pilots - for example searching in bad weather - but when you fly off the handle and spread misleading and inaccurate commentary it makes the credibility of your own argument drop dramatically. As for using weaponized drones - same basic issue. It will probably be possible to build a political coalition against such use except under extremely limited circumstances but this particular case hasn't YET become the test case you are implying it is.

The only thing that raises an eyebrow for me is, why is this newsworthy? If they are just using a drone for recon, that is not newsworthy. I thought they have been using drones on the border for a while now.

The article title makes it sound like armed drones are out hunting this guy. Like i said in my OP, if it just recon drones, who gives a damn. Why cover it?

Hopefully Americans can rally behind the opposition of armed drones but I don't have that much faith in the electorate.

 

[CoachR64]

Mugsy, I understand and see your point. I read the article twice, and I still have issues and concerns. The article states he is the first human target. If these are surveillance drones that have been actively deployed, than this part disturbs me based on the term target and being first as surveillance drones have been used on humans for some time. At the same time, this is very likely the media choosing the words they do to play on the fears and the current public perception and concerns wite drones.

 

[SMS]

I don't see anything to indicate the use of armed drones. I see media sensationalism and the desired reaction to same...

 

[CoachR64]

I'm also not sure how I feel abut the reward. In a case this high profile, I don't see the money being a huge motivator. If people see this man, they will turn him in. In many cases, big rewards put innocent people in danger as they will take risks searching for him on their own just seeking that opportunity for easy money. It also ties up police time and communications as the number of sightings and tips will sharply increase. Any man that remotely comes close to the description will now have people calling police and taking up valuable time. In cases where suspects are loved, revered, and hiding amongst friends and supporters, rewards can often be enoughg motivation for someone to turn in the suspect. In this case, I don't think the reward is necessary and could be more harmful than good.

 

[Old Fart]

This guy knows something....

I'd bet he does.