FAA enrolls State, and local Law enforcement to curb UAS, and model aircraft?
01-30-2015, 11:43 AM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-30-2015, 09:14 PM
#104
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: new bern
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police have too much power now. They do not need to be given any more. If it were up to me, there would be serious consideration about removing their ability to use fire arms. They have obviously not proven themselves to be responsible with them. Just 2 weeks ago we had a cop empty 11 rounds into someone. Have you ever rattled off 11 rounds before? It takes some time. To me, this was more of an execution, than the prevention of crime.
No, They are not responsible enough to have an aerial surveillance aircraft.
No, They are not responsible enough to have an aerial surveillance aircraft.
With proper documentation and statute assistance maybe with future published and established guidelines, the law enforcement community can succesfully prosecute or deter the rogue drone pilot taking video of your wife or daughter through your homes window , (yes it happens) and so far to this day, many jurisdictions find it hard if not impossible to prosecute. This FAA issue being discussed can be a step in a forward direction to help deter un safe operation.
And contrary to popular belief the law enforcement community is embracing the technology and not against SAFE operation, there are trial programs with multi rotors with special "night optics" being tested to find lost children in wooded areas as well as fugitive tracking and damage assessment after a special weather event. A multirotor with live feed capabilities has been tested at chemical plants under a "practice" ammonia tank leak to recon and gather situational awareness before sending two man teams in haz-mat suits in the hot zone to do the recon, thus saving money and manpower and lessening the time spent in order to get the team in repairing or mitigating the "leak" I can go on and on with bomb squads to air quality to emergency response but bottom line is law enforcement has a need and is eager to use the technology for faster safer and pro- active venues but as well, has to wait for the FAA has to produce guidelines and litterature of what is going to be allowed , law enforcement is as always in a glass house and even they will have limitations on how they can or can not use the technology.
As to your third point, I hope that at no instance in your life you are faced with the split second adrenaline filled thoughts that you might die threat that a "cop" faces when confronted with that situation. And I hope that the "cop" isn't second guessing the decision while its your family in direct harm. It actually takes less than two seconds to fire that many rounds, and for arguments sake , none of us were there to speculate on what happened firsthand, it does not happen like portrayed in the movies, assailants dont drop to the ground upon the first projectiles impact. And the main reason we as citizens arm law enforcement with firerms, is to protect us from the individuals that carry firearms to cause harm to un-armed citizens.
And lastly as to the point they dont have the responsibility to have aerial surveillance aircraft, well if you have not made the conclusion, I have been carrying a gun for as long as I have enjoyed holding a transmitter in my hand and currently am the safety officer at my local AMA flying club. But as self stated , your opinions can not be changed and that is your right to have those opinions.
The main point here is that as a law enforcement community and as well as an r/c community we are , pardon the expression , behind the curveball in the multi rotor / fpv scene because the technology has improved at an alarming rate. SAFE OPERATION is what has to be first for all of us to communicate to other modelers and peers alike. As an r/c advocate I dont want to see unsafe operation come into public eye and hurt my hobby that I enjoy by more and more negative attention. As a law enforcement officer I dont want to see anyones rights compromised or even have some innocent by-stander hurt by unsafe operation simply because I didnt have any law or fine or ordanance to deter and prosecute such un-safe operation.
There is tons of details yet to be re-solved but at least in my opinion, maybe this is a step in the right direction to help keep the hobby alive for everyone to enjoy.
01-31-2015, 06:16 AM
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-31-2015, 08:59 AM
#109
01-31-2015, 12:41 PM
#112
I was deveolping land for a new subdivision in a small town here in IL. ,stopped at the local bar and a guy asked me what i was doing on the land across the road so i told him . He blew a gaskit about guys like me tearing up the land and cutting trees down till i showed him pictures of my resurvation i was adopted off of .lmao No gambling places back then just tin shacks with dirt floors. joe
Last edited by joebahl; 01-31-2015 at 12:45 PM.
01-31-2015, 12:48 PM
#113
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I was deveolping land for a new subdivision in a small town here in IL. ,stopped at the local bar and a guy asked me what i was doing on the land across the road so i told him . He blew a gaskit about guys like me tearing up the land and cutting trees down till i showed him pictures of my resurvation i was adopted off of .lmao No gambling places back then just tin shacks with dirt floors. joe
01-31-2015, 01:08 PM
#114
The build never happened ,crazy city kept on asking for more and more free stuff and after 3 years of town hall meetings my boss and his lawyers had enough and the boss walked in and told them he just sold the land to kiss his ars . Sent me to north Las Vegas to develop 150 lots there for a year then to Aspen Co to build a 3.5 million dollar home down town Aspen ,was tough work for a single guy like me !lmao joe
01-31-2015, 01:28 PM
#116
Ha Ha no just a old school carpenter / super for the company they use to send out to fire the college boys who get over their heads and fix the mess they left.lol BTW It kills me when guys spout off about indian casinos and think it was that way for all of us . joe
Last edited by joebahl; 01-31-2015 at 01:35 PM.
01-31-2015, 01:58 PM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-31-2015, 07:33 PM
#119
Well without getting too ugly here , lets get back on track and keep the police bashing to a minimum, the FAA has been asked and pleaded for guidance and verbage to help the law enforcement community enforce malicious and rougue model aircraft operation mainly since the multi-rotor scene has so rapidly grown recently
With proper documentation and statute assistance maybe with future published and established guidelines, the law enforcement community can succesfully prosecute or deter the rogue drone pilot taking video of your wife or daughter through your homes window , (yes it happens) and so far to this day, many jurisdictions find it hard if not impossible to prosecute. This FAA issue being discussed can be a step in a forward direction to help deter un safe operation.
And contrary to popular belief the law enforcement community is embracing the technology and not against SAFE operation, there are trial programs with multi rotors with special "night optics" being tested to find lost children in wooded areas as well as fugitive tracking and damage assessment after a special weather event. A multirotor with live feed capabilities has been tested at chemical plants under a "practice" ammonia tank leak to recon and gather situational awareness before sending two man teams in haz-mat suits in the hot zone to do the recon, thus saving money and manpower and lessening the time spent in order to get the team in repairing or mitigating the "leak" I can go on and on with bomb squads to air quality to emergency response but bottom line is law enforcement has a need and is eager to use the technology for faster safer and pro- active venues but as well, has to wait for the FAA has to produce guidelines and litterature of what is going to be allowed , law enforcement is as always in a glass house and even they will have limitations on how they can or can not use the technology.
As to your third point, I hope that at no instance in your life you are faced with the split second adrenaline filled thoughts that you might die threat that a "cop" faces when confronted with that situation. And I hope that the "cop" isn't second guessing the decision while its your family in direct harm. It actually takes less than two seconds to fire that many rounds, and for arguments sake , none of us were there to speculate on what happened firsthand, it does not happen like portrayed in the movies, assailants dont drop to the ground upon the first projectiles impact. And the main reason we as citizens arm law enforcement with firerms, is to protect us from the individuals that carry firearms to cause harm to un-armed citizens.
And lastly as to the point they dont have the responsibility to have aerial surveillance aircraft, well if you have not made the conclusion, I have been carrying a gun for as long as I have enjoyed holding a transmitter in my hand and currently am the safety officer at my local AMA flying club. But as self stated , your opinions can not be changed and that is your right to have those opinions.
The main point here is that as a law enforcement community and as well as an r/c community we are , pardon the expression , behind the curveball in the multi rotor / fpv scene because the technology has improved at an alarming rate. SAFE OPERATION is what has to be first for all of us to communicate to other modelers and peers alike. As an r/c advocate I dont want to see unsafe operation come into public eye and hurt my hobby that I enjoy by more and more negative attention. As a law enforcement officer I dont want to see anyones rights compromised or even have some innocent by-stander hurt by unsafe operation simply because I didnt have any law or fine or ordanance to deter and prosecute such un-safe operation.
There is tons of details yet to be re-solved but at least in my opinion, maybe this is a step in the right direction to help keep the hobby alive for everyone to enjoy.
With proper documentation and statute assistance maybe with future published and established guidelines, the law enforcement community can succesfully prosecute or deter the rogue drone pilot taking video of your wife or daughter through your homes window , (yes it happens) and so far to this day, many jurisdictions find it hard if not impossible to prosecute. This FAA issue being discussed can be a step in a forward direction to help deter un safe operation.
And contrary to popular belief the law enforcement community is embracing the technology and not against SAFE operation, there are trial programs with multi rotors with special "night optics" being tested to find lost children in wooded areas as well as fugitive tracking and damage assessment after a special weather event. A multirotor with live feed capabilities has been tested at chemical plants under a "practice" ammonia tank leak to recon and gather situational awareness before sending two man teams in haz-mat suits in the hot zone to do the recon, thus saving money and manpower and lessening the time spent in order to get the team in repairing or mitigating the "leak" I can go on and on with bomb squads to air quality to emergency response but bottom line is law enforcement has a need and is eager to use the technology for faster safer and pro- active venues but as well, has to wait for the FAA has to produce guidelines and litterature of what is going to be allowed , law enforcement is as always in a glass house and even they will have limitations on how they can or can not use the technology.
As to your third point, I hope that at no instance in your life you are faced with the split second adrenaline filled thoughts that you might die threat that a "cop" faces when confronted with that situation. And I hope that the "cop" isn't second guessing the decision while its your family in direct harm. It actually takes less than two seconds to fire that many rounds, and for arguments sake , none of us were there to speculate on what happened firsthand, it does not happen like portrayed in the movies, assailants dont drop to the ground upon the first projectiles impact. And the main reason we as citizens arm law enforcement with firerms, is to protect us from the individuals that carry firearms to cause harm to un-armed citizens.
And lastly as to the point they dont have the responsibility to have aerial surveillance aircraft, well if you have not made the conclusion, I have been carrying a gun for as long as I have enjoyed holding a transmitter in my hand and currently am the safety officer at my local AMA flying club. But as self stated , your opinions can not be changed and that is your right to have those opinions.
The main point here is that as a law enforcement community and as well as an r/c community we are , pardon the expression , behind the curveball in the multi rotor / fpv scene because the technology has improved at an alarming rate. SAFE OPERATION is what has to be first for all of us to communicate to other modelers and peers alike. As an r/c advocate I dont want to see unsafe operation come into public eye and hurt my hobby that I enjoy by more and more negative attention. As a law enforcement officer I dont want to see anyones rights compromised or even have some innocent by-stander hurt by unsafe operation simply because I didnt have any law or fine or ordanance to deter and prosecute such un-safe operation.
There is tons of details yet to be re-solved but at least in my opinion, maybe this is a step in the right direction to help keep the hobby alive for everyone to enjoy.
I will never buy the fact that more than a couple of rounds is all it takes to drop and stop a criminal. What did you guys do up until the late 1980's or early 90's when safe semi autos were not available? Back when standard issue was a S&W M&P 10? The .45 ACP was designed specifically (in 1911) to knock the assailant to the ground, with one round. So someone makes a false move, you empty your magazine, and then
decide, damn he had a cordless drill. Even worse is when there are 4-5 cops, and they all empty their magazines. 40 or so rounds later. Yep, you got him.
As far as this issue goes, I want you to know I do not have a problem with cops specifically. It is a hard job, and I would not get near it. But I have a serious distrust of the ones giving them their orders. Drones will become a new tool for the generation of revenue.
02-01-2015, 05:33 AM
#120
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I can see search and rescue/ fire dpts. having the use of aerial cameras. Considering we pay the bills, we (the tax payer) shall see what law enforcement is allowed to do. Photo radar, and red traffic light cameras are on the cusp of being made illegal in CO, and I would argue that any camera drone used by law enforcement would fall under this same restriction.
I will never buy the fact that more than a couple of rounds is all it takes to drop and stop a criminal. What did you guys do up until the late 1980's or early 90's when safe semi autos were not available? Back when standard issue was a S&W M&P 10? The .45 ACP was designed specifically (in 1911) to knock the assailant to the ground, with one round. So someone makes a false move, you empty your magazine, and then
decide, damn he had a cordless drill. Even worse is when there are 4-5 cops, and they all empty their magazines. 40 or so rounds later. Yep, you got him.
As far as this issue goes, I want you to know I do not have a problem with cops specifically. It is a hard job, and I would not get near it. But I have a serious distrust of the ones giving them their orders. Drones will become a new tool for the generation of revenue.
I will never buy the fact that more than a couple of rounds is all it takes to drop and stop a criminal. What did you guys do up until the late 1980's or early 90's when safe semi autos were not available? Back when standard issue was a S&W M&P 10? The .45 ACP was designed specifically (in 1911) to knock the assailant to the ground, with one round. So someone makes a false move, you empty your magazine, and then
decide, damn he had a cordless drill. Even worse is when there are 4-5 cops, and they all empty their magazines. 40 or so rounds later. Yep, you got him.
As far as this issue goes, I want you to know I do not have a problem with cops specifically. It is a hard job, and I would not get near it. But I have a serious distrust of the ones giving them their orders. Drones will become a new tool for the generation of revenue.
02-01-2015, 12:17 PM
#122
Photo radar and red light cameras are not a revenue generator for Law enforcement. They are tools by the local government to confiscate monies from the public. Generally they are set up by private entities. Like I said in my previous post, there is a push to make them illegal in my state, and they already are in about half of them. I find the constitutionality of them questionable, and if never properly served, the offenders have nothing to worry about anyway.
02-01-2015, 12:51 PM
#123
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Photo radar and red light cameras are not a revenue generator for Law enforcement. They are tools by the local government to confiscate monies from the public. Generally they are set up by private entities. Like I said in my previous post, there is a push to make them illegal in my state, and they already are in about half of them. I find the constitutionality of them questionable, and if never properly served, the offenders have nothing to worry about anyway.
I don't disagree in general on the constitutionality of them....that's a sticky wicket for sure. I see them as a distraction and might even be the cause of accidents.
02-01-2015, 01:39 PM
#124
You couldn't be more wrong. Of course they are generators of revenue...and L/E in the given venue benefits from the citations issues. Of course they are set up by private entities..so what? The private entities don't benefit from them other than the installation fee. Many functions of state/local govt get contracted out.
I don't disagree in general on the constitutionality of them....that's a sticky wicket for sure. I see them as a distraction and might even be the cause of accidents.
I don't disagree in general on the constitutionality of them....that's a sticky wicket for sure. I see them as a distraction and might even be the cause of accidents.
Regardless, my main point to all of this, is I do not feel comfortable with Law enforcement using and having cameras everywhere. Whether they are in a van parked on the side of the road, or mounted on light poles at intersections, or flying around as a quadcopter. LE has done just fine in the past doing things the hard way with real foot work. As a taxpayer, I will do everything I can to fight this stuff, and support politicians that agree with me. We still have constitutional rights, and I will fight for them.
