Police Recording Confirms NYPD Flew At a Drone and Never Feared Crashing

Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's give them MORE taxes and resources to use against us.

Re:Yay big government! by itsenrique · 2014-07-10 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry, I'll bite. The problem is that the "anti-tax" people that are elected (and electable in the future) are not against giving more money and power to the police in general. And neither are the "pro-tax" people. This isn't about money. It's about power and authoritarian over-reach. You could take away their choppers and tanks and cut salaries but that wouldn't address the underlying issues. By trying to steer this into a conversation about taxes you fail to see the very real problems with police brutality, corruption, lying, profiling, and on and on. Now, back on topic...
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:05 · Score: 1

Let's give them MORE taxes and resources to use against us.
This is the local police force - not "big government". Are you seriously suggesting we move law enforcement to actual private companies? The defacto public-private partnerships are bad enough - I don't think we want to go back to the days of the Pinkerton gangs.
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-10 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Government, police, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach. It's all about taxes - taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against government overreach, and the Constitution was written with this fundamental truth firmly in mind.
Of course, of all of Congress there are but a handful of congresscritters who actually are for less government spending, and usually the voter's choice is merely between which group of supporters the tax money will go to. That's a cultural problem in the US, and we can't begin to fix it until every call for lower taxes stops being dismissed with "you anarchist and probable racist, why do you want 0 government".
Fixing the problem starts with popular acceptance of the idea that one can say we're sending too much without being some extremist calling for the end of government. Less does not mean none - spread the word!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by FrozenToothbrush · 2014-07-10 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

What you're describing takes a fundamental change in the human condition of most people. Money and taxes are an enabler for those who are pro-authoritarian. I don't think the original posters thought should be dismissed so coldly.
Re:Yay big government! by dubiousx99 · 2014-07-10 07:29 · Score: 2

Anything NYC related is big government. They have more money than many countries.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:00 · Score: 1

Business, private security, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. Doesn't help that corporations are also bigger people. Taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against corporate overreach. What's your solution if we don't fund a group to watch them? We shouldn't just force agencies to spend our taxes wisely, but also demand how and to whom we allocate those taxes to.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:33 · Score: 1

Business, private security, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. Doesn't help that corporations are also bigger people. Taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against corporate overreach. What's your solution if we don't fund a group to watch them? We shouldn't just force agencies to spend our taxes wisely, but also demand how and to whom we allocate those taxes to.
What a fool you are.
You don't have to deal with a business. No one forces you to give a business your money (well, unless it's the government forcing you to buy health insurance - but that's the government doing that...) Try not paying your taxes and you'll see the result.
And that result will be the government using it's legal monopoly on violence to force you to obey.
Businesses and corporations weren't the driving force behind Stalin starving millions of kulaks, Hitler gassing millions of Jews and others, or Pol Pot slaughtering millions of people. Those were all government driven.
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-10 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Business, private security, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. Doesn't help that corporations are also bigger people. Taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against corporate overreach. What's your solution if we don't fund a group to watch them? We shouldn't just force agencies to spend our taxes wisely, but also demand how and to whom we allocate those taxes to.
This is the other kneejerk response to any suggestion of reduced government spending that needs to die forever.
1 - How about we cut government spending in some are other than the tiny percentage spent on protecting people against corporate abuse?
2 - We have a system in place for this. The problem with it is not that it's underfunded, but that it's been corrupted by the very corporations it tries to regulate! Arguably, stuff like the DMCA shows that more harm than good is done in some areas, thanks to this. This is perhaps the most serious problem in internal politics in America today but it's not in any way a funding problem.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by SuricouRaven · 2014-07-10 09:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs. They shouldn't have to be, I agree, but it's the big problem with US politics: The two-party, two-faction system forces everyone to ally with one of the extremes. So you can't be just opposed to high taxation - well, you can, but you'll be ignored and excluded. You need to buy the whole package: Low tax, guns for all, no abortion, no gay marriage, climate change is a liberal hoax, wave the flag and God Bless America.
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-10 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, ... It's all about taxes ... there are but a handful of congresscritters who actually are for less government spending,
Are you unhappy with taxes or with budget allocation? The first and third part above are about budget allocation, which, unfortunately, has very little to do with taxation. The middle part is about taxes, which, unfortunately, have very little to do with budget allocation.
I favor reducing spending and increasing taxes. That is because I am a fiscal conservative and we are currently running a wildly excessive deficit. I believe in running a balanced budget except during exceptional economic downturns, in which a short-term deficit is fiscally prudent for the long-term outcome, and in times of plenty, when a short term surplus prepares our larder for the next downturn.
Conflating reductions in spending with reductions in taxation is a premeditated psychological manipulation tactic. There are bad people out there who want to maximize their personal short-term outcome by cranking up the deficit and damn the consequences to the economy. Those people are not helpful to America. Do not fall victim to the false equivalence of taxation and spending.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by reboot246 · 2014-07-10 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then the perfect party for you is the Tea Party. Check them out. They're not the right-wing nutjobs you believe them to be. There are plenty of libertarians (and even some Democrats!) to be found among their ranks.
Re:Yay big government! by shaitand · 2014-07-10 10:20 · Score: 1

" taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against government overreach, and the Constitution was written with this fundamental truth firmly in mind."

Hardly, the common man was given zero authority with regard to taxes in the constitution. The constitution gave that power to congress. The constitution wasn't written to empower the common man, the constitution derives it's power from the people. It's government that was empowered by the constitution.

The Constitution left almost all authority in the hands of the people. Ever since it was signed, the government it empowered has been working on changing that and it's been very very successful. The biggest example is the people's only explicitly stated and protected power in the form of a jury and jury nullification. The government could write laws all day long and if it couldn't convince 12 people in your community that what you did was actually wrong (regardless of any "law" it violated) that jury has the power to find you "not guilty."

How about we start focusing on taking away the governments ability to punish without a criminal convinction (no more government issued CIVIL punishments) and the courts decision that not only do they not need to tell a jury about their right to nullify unjust laws and their application on a case by case basis but that they can actually LIE to juries. Juries are the people's check on all three branches, including the judicial. It is not the place of the judicial to limit their authority!
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-10 10:31 · Score: 1

The House of Representatives is "the people's house". That's why they stand for election every 2 years. And that's why all tax bills must originate in the House. Now, of course, that has been thoroughly subverted both by Gerrymandering and by Senate workflow (amend some House bill to replace all the text with a tax bill - see, it originated in the House!). But still, that was the clear intent.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by sumdumass · 2014-07-10 10:50 · Score: 1

This was more obvious when senators were appointed by the states however those states decided- instead of being directly elected by the population of the state.
The house of representatives was supposed to be exactly that, representatives of the people. The senate was supposed to represent the state as originally, the feds were limited in what they could do. The president was supposed to be a common figure head for foreign relations and such while keeping congress in check with his veto or acceptance of bills and the administration of the laws passed.
Re:Yay big government! by Livius · 2014-07-10 11:03 · Score: 1

The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach.
Everyone agrees with that part. The problem is no-one agrees how much is 'just barely enough'.
Re:Yay big government! by JoeyRox · 2014-07-10 11:04 · Score: 1

The difference is business, and private security don't have the power of the state behind them, meaning the power to detain, arrest, and jail citizens at will, and otherwise ruin their lives.
Re:Yay big government! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-07-10 11:23 · Score: 2

Not only that, but they (and California even moreso) have crossed the linr from local government to quasi-national bloat and over-regulating government, placing burdens on their populations that were normally reserved (such as it is) for the top dog government.
Now they are plagued at two levels.
Europe is going the other way, introducing a power-inhaling pan-European government atop their own bloated national governments. Don't wanna be left out by their own dueling bloat levels.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:52 · Score: 1

Actually I'm going to agree with you. 50%.
Yes it's about power and overreach. And yes, government will generally vote for more government. Police will generally vote for more police. That's a cultural bias that almost nothing will change. To expect otherwise is like expecting a chef to vote against food.
However the answer to all that is not solely taxes. Taxes is a tool to limit scope yes, and a particularly powerful tool. However if you view that as "the only practical weapon" can take you down a dark path.
First of all, what if limiting funding fails? If the only limit is money and the money becomes available, then those agencies will view their expanded scope requests as having been approved, finally. They were entitled to program expansion all along and "someone" finally listened. So scope expansion will happen.
Second, how does the average citizen determine how much money an agency needs? How do the elected representatives? This is hugely problematic.
Third, let's say you achieve limited funding. You still cannot say that those state agencies are not active in areas you don't want them active in. It's not unrealistic that a government department will deliberately underfund one area to fund another that it wants badly enough. Poor service is just the cost of doing business in this scenario. If some citizen or politico complains loudly enough about the poor service the department simply blames overall funding level.
None of this is theoretical. Our security and defence agencies have dark programs routinely. Even their overall funding can be kept secret. This is merely the most extreme of the ways departments can conceal their activities that they don't want generally known.
I know, I worked in government. Lots of stuff goes on, all the time. When the dirty laundry comes out, the very people tasked with oversight invariably resign/retire (~50% of the time), are fired (~10% of the time), or express outrage that they "were not informed". The latter of which is essentially an admission that they were incompetent, lazy, or were in on the scheme or were informed and are therefore lying.
If you absolutely do not want certain kinds of activity, ban it explicitly. It's not a perfect solution but it gives the oversight function a clear dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:13 · Score: 0

Not only that, but they (and California even moreso) have crossed the linr from local government to quasi-national bloat and over-regulating government, placing burdens on their populations that were normally reserved (such as it is) for the top dog government.
Now they are plagued at two levels.
Europe is going the other way, introducing a power-inhaling pan-European government atop their own bloated national governments. Don't wanna be left out by their own dueling bloat levels.
I'll grant that NYC - specifically - Bloomberg (who was an R but became I to win) really over-reached with the soda fiasco, but this could just as easily happened with any other municipality that had a multi-million (Billion in this case) bridge in the area with a bored an UNaccountable cop.
The possible over-regulation in NYC is preferable to the under-regulation of Texas though. A factory blows up after holding 2,000x the legal limit of explosives and the AG decides the solution is to.... not require disclosure of those things to the public? Really? Shudder.
If you have a credible solution for resolving the thin blue line, I'm all for it. I'm in favor of having police abuse settlements come out of the cops' pension funds personally. That's the most practical solution to the "wah wah don't sue the cops, the taxpayer's pay for it meme". Funny how the police union is the ONLY union the Repub's aren't against. Dem's are bad too, but not as much, and generally not HYPOCRITICALLY. I can live with higher taxes to feed poor people, it's the UNdercrowded but FOR-profit prison industry that worries me.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:25 · Score: 0

I find it rather funny how governments are always seen as some separate entity of that of the country and its people. Let me tell you something... they're not.
Governments are the collective representation of the people, or at least in theory they all should be but we always see them as some third party that's outside everything. It's bloody stupid. The only reason why there are so many problems witb governments is that there is no real accountability and or any real oversight by the people themselves. Most, if not all, countries people are in an abusive relationship with their government... you know the one where your loved one beat you an inch of your life but you keep going back to them. It's sick to say the least.
Fixing all that is rather simple but requires everyone to help. You can't just sit around mopping and complaining about what the government does, you need to actively help to make a change. Simply put, the only way, and I truly mean the only way, for no corruption to exist where the people have complete control over their country (and often their own lives) is to remove a central authority altogether. Governments are nothing more then a third party anyways when it comes to money distribution, law making, law enforcement, policy making, etc. Imagine this, how is a large oil company responsible for a major oil disaster going to get away with it if they have to answer to 300+ million people of the country affected. What are they going to do, bribe 300+ million people...
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:29 · Score: 0

Underfunding the police is not a defense against corruption and overreach.
Quite the opposite - the worse you treat them, the less they'll think of you and the worse they'll behave. If they can't afford that on the budget you give them to do the things you think they ought to be doing, then some of those "things you think they ought to be doing" will simply go undone, so they can save money to do the things they want to do.
Seriously, they work at this 24/7, and you think you can outwit them by cutting their budget once a year? Grow up.
Re:Yay big government! by Ksevio · 2014-07-10 12:38 · Score: 2

There must be a different tea party I haven't heard of, because the ones I've talked to have been full on cut everything/remember bengahzi/obama is killing america
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:53 · Score: 0

It's not quite so black and white (or binary). There's "barely enough resources to do their job", also known as "enough resources to do their job, if poorly". Then there's "way more resources than they could ever need to do their job as well as they ever could". Somewhere in between are spots like "enough resources to do their job well without having enough resources to dick about too much on the taxpayer's dime (but human nature being what it is there will still be some wastage)".
If you needed the police's help (someone you cared about was kidnapped, perhaps), would a police force having "just barely enough resources to do their job (if poorly)" still sound like such a great idea?
Re:Yay big government! by crunchygranola · 2014-07-10 13:12 · Score: 1

Business does have the power to drop an enormous lawsuit on you and force you to wipe out your life savings trying to defend yourself, and if a judgment is obtained due their immense advantage in resources, they can attach your salary and assets for life.
They also have the power to put false information of your credit history, which is virtually impossible to expunge, and thus ruin your ability to buy a home, or a car, or a loan for any other worthy purpose, or even rent an apartment and even to deny you a job (since prospective employers invariably run credit checks).
Other than that, no power to ruin your life at all.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:Yay big government! by Sir+Holo · 2014-07-10 13:21 · Score: 1

Government, police, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach. It's all about taxes. . .
Close, but wrong. It's all about the purse-strings.

Elected leaders, held to account, will reign in organizational misbehavior by tightening the purse-strings (cutting their budget).

Government, like many things, is a necessary evil. Flat-out saying that "paying taxes is wrong!" solves nothing. Because, you see, there will always be someone in charge.

Hold them to account, and they will hold departments, etc. within their purview to account.

If you want zero taxes, go to Somalia.
Re:Yay big government! by crunchygranola · 2014-07-10 13:22 · Score: 2

You are apparently referring to the Tea Party of 2010. The current self-identified membership seems almost entirely the hard right in the Republican Party.
Check out the vanishing support for the movement within the ranks of the Republicans .

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:Yay big government! by 7-Vodka · 2014-07-10 13:32 · Score: 1

Almost right.
It's not about taxes, it's about spending.
Because when they spend, they'll come up with the money one way or another, indebt future generations, print money, sell government power.
But then again, take away the power to spend and you have a solution.
Or even better, just take away their power.

--
Liberty.
Re:Yay big government! by No+Tears+In+The+End · 2014-07-10 13:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ah yes, the nutjobs slander. Have you ever considered the possibility that the people who believe differently than you have put as much thought as or more thought than you into the issues and simply come to a different conclusion?

You need to buy the whole package: Low tax, guns for all, no abortion, no gay marriage, climate change is a liberal hoax, wave the flag and God Bless America.
What you fail to realize, either intentionally or not, is that you're complaining about political coalitions.
To boil it down to my main issues, I'm pro-life and pro second amendment.
Low taxes are something that I regard as a "nice to have" but not a requirement. I don't care much about gay "marriage" or flag waving. I don't think that reducing particulate emissions would be the worst thing in the world.
I support the people who care about those issues because they support me with mine.
It's not just my side, both sides do it.You don't really think that the upper-middle class white feminists give half a damn about some poor black kid's police brutality claim, do you?
Before 1992, I would have probably been a Democrat. I wasn't fond of Reagan or Reaganomics. George Bush Sr. was a filthy liar. No new taxes indeed. But in those days, the Democrats made it clear that pro-life, pro second amendment people were not welcome in their party while the Republicans opened their arms and welcomed us in.
Want to change things? Offer something more substantive than scorn and ridicule. Otherwise, a lot of people like me will have no choice but to vote for whichever John McCain clone gets the GOP nomination in 2016.
NTITE

--

-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
Re:Yay big government! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-07-10 14:36 · Score: 1, Offtopic

But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs
Nonsense. The people calling for lower taxes today are right-wingers AND independents... who today make up the largest voting block, at 40%.

Sorry, but Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, et al. have been driving away voters in droves. If the Democrats came even close to beating out Republicans and Independents in the 2014 elections, I'll be amazed.

You can only piss people off for so long, before they fight back. A concept Obama doesn't seem to understand.
Re:Yay big government! by MaskedSlacker · 2014-07-10 15:00 · Score: 1

Business does have the power to drop an enormous lawsuit on you and force you to wipe out your life savings trying to defend yourself, and if a judgment is obtained due their immense advantage in resources, they can attach your salary and assets for life.
You do know what a "judgement" is, right?
HINT: It's a government action, not a business one.

They also have the power to put false information of your credit history, which is virtually impossible to expunge, and thus ruin your ability to buy a home, or a car, or a loan for any other worthy purpose, or even rent an apartment and even to deny you a job (since prospective employers invariably run credit checks).
You do know where credit reporting comes from, right?
HINT: Legislation enacted by congress (particularly the Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act).
You do know where corporations come from, right?
HINT: Acts of government.
Government created business, not the other way around. They are two heads of the same hydra.
Re:Yay big government! by dryeo · 2014-07-10 16:19 · Score: 2

Given no government oversight business will have private security with the power to abuse people. History has shown rather then jailing they'll mutilate and kill as it is more cost effective. In the Americas Columbus started it by cutting off the hands of the natives who were not producing. There is the whole history of slavery which was run by private enterprise, companies such as the East India company and the Hudson Bay company both of which had powers usually reserved to government, the Pinkerton Detective Agency who were often hired to kill union people and other outstanding examples like the Congo Free State, a whole country ran by private business, once again they cut the hands of of people who weren't productive enough.
Since the ultimate goal of capitalism is to acquire a monopoly and given lack of government, business willing to do anything to acquire and keep that monopoly, a world ran by pure business would not be pleasant no matter what the businesses tell you.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Yay big government! by gizmo2199 · 2014-07-10 16:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, I think you're logic is fallacious. You're not looking at the functional power wielded by either party. Since the US is a democracy which holds private property, including the assets of a corporation, as the highest form of freedom, the government can't take that property without due process.

This process is handled through the court systems, which works with lawyers and Judges, and juries. The only lawyers that work for the government are criminal prosecutors, and they make less than corporate lawyers. So government lawyers would only be involved in a criminal case against a private corporation.

Therefore, in civil suites, corporations get get the best private attorneys money can buy. This includes lobbying the government to pass certain laws in their favor. And the corporations that pay for the right lawyers, can get away with anything they want and $$$.

So, in reality, in the American capitalist system of government, it's the government that's beholden to private interests, since they make more money.

If you can't see this, you've been watching too much Fox News.

--
This Sig does not Exist.
Re:Yay big government! by MaskedSlacker · 2014-07-10 17:00 · Score: 1

If you can't see this, you've been watching too much Fox News.
Since you think anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest must be a slobbering neocon you are not even worth responding to.
When you grow up and learn that not everyone who disagrees with you is the boogeyman, I'll be happy to continue this discussion more rationally.
Re:Yay big government! by phantomfive · 2014-07-10 18:19 · Score: 2

They're not the right-wing nutjobs you believe them to be.

That is, they're no more nutty than the rest of Americans. We're a pretty nutty bunch.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 19:02 · Score: 1

If a bill is modified, it should go ALL the way back. Yes, this means huge delays. Who the fuck thought that making new laws faster and faster was a good idea in the first place? Really, we should be refactoring the existing ones to make them more concise while retaining the intent and stripping out the bullshit loopholes built-in for special interests. The average citizen should be able to be aware of and understand the laws they come into contact with if ignorance of the law is not a defense at law.
Re:Yay big government! by Xest · 2014-07-10 21:23 · Score: 1

No the GP is right for the simple fact that are counter-examples to your argument. Some of the freest societies in the world have much higher taxes than the US like Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Some might even argue one sits right next door to you - Canada.
Hence, it is not an inherent human condition, but in fact a societal attitude problem. The overeach of paramilitary forces to the level being discussed is almost entirely unique to the US in the Western world. It has nothing to do with tax levels - that's just Republican small government propaganda. It's largely a result of the fact that Americans are extremely susceptible to the politics of fear and hate in large part because it's always been a deeply divided nation that lacks any degree of national resilience - it lost the plot as a result of 9/11 and turned against the very things it always claimed to stand for like freedom.
Compare and contrast this to the likes of the much more muted reaction of the Norwegians to Anders Breivik's attacks and you can see the difference.
It's incredible how American politics has become so partisan that even the most unrelated things turn into a debate on taxation and small government vs. big government. It's perfectly possible to have big government without that resulting in a police force that drives around in tanks and armoured vehicles and chases down citizens in helicopters.
Re:Yay big government! by No+Tears+In+The+End · 2014-07-11 00:01 · Score: 2

I'm not debating my beliefs with you. Basically, you don't get a vote in deciding what's important to me.
I put it in quotes because it's a neologism. Like I said, I don't really care about gay "marriage" but the people who support me on my issues care about it, so I lend my support to them in return. Do you think I care about what marginal tax rate someone making 200k/year pays? Nope, not at all but those guys tend to assist me when something that I care about it up for public debate, so I return the favor when it's time to discuss taxes. It's a part of being a political coalition.
Indeed, I'm right at home in the GOP but 25 years ago, I would have probably been more at home in the Democratic party.
NTITE

--

-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 00:22 · Score: 0

I think every generation goes through this, "the current shit sandwich is awful, let's get a new flavor. Oh wait, this shit sandwich is awful too..."
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 00:35 · Score: 0

You know where laws come from right?
HINT: lobbyists.
And who pays for them?
HINT: corporations.

Same with all other forms of rules and regulations that corporations via money and lobbyists tell the government al all levels to create. Do the politicians even read the laws they pass? You can bet the corporations do.
If the politicians dont do what the corporations want they lose funding get voted out and the new one knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Businesses told government to makes rules to keep them on top, don't forget whose hand is on the steering wheel.
Re: Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 03:46 · Score: 0

You claim to be pro-life and pro second amendment. Perhaps you meant anti-abortion and pro second amendment? The other phrasing demonstrates hypocrisy.
No. It is perfectly possible to be pro-life and pro second amendment at the same time without being hypocritical. It just requires pro-life to mean something other than "opposed to the taking of any life at any time for any reason whatsoever", and something more like "anti-murder".
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 03:49 · Score: 0

Then by your own logic the GOP is doomed because they're pissing off women, young voters, anybody who believe the US isn't by law a Christian antion, recent immigrants, and anybody to the left of Ghengis Khan.
Good luck to your GOP forcefeeding it's declining demographics the same garbage they've used since St. Reagan the Senile (OMG teh Gayz!; CHRIST IN CHRISTMUZ!; GUMMINT IZ SCAREY!, etc., etc.): it isn't working in the larger electorate anymore.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 03:53 · Score: 0

antion = nation
Not to mention the rest of the so-called "99%-ers" who are sick of being told a corproation is a person.
Re:Yay big government! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 03:58 · Score: 0

>Texas though. A factory blows up after holding 2,000x the legal limit of explosives and the AG decides the solution is to.... not require disclosure of those things to the public?
In Texas, they call this "a healthy bidness climate" and it is one of the many reasons you don't want to live there (except maybe Austin) unless you like Pearl, dress like a cowboy, think Reagan was a god, and like beating up "commies".
Re:Yay big government! by pnutjam · 2014-07-11 04:20 · Score: 1

I haven't seen any welcome arms for pro-life in the republican party. You have just decided that pro-gun is more important to you and you drank the kool-aid that democrats want to take your guns, when the fact is Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the 2nd amendment.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Yay big government! by pnutjam · 2014-07-11 04:22 · Score: 1

well said, wish I could give you a mod point.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Yay big government! by Zordak · 2014-07-11 05:02 · Score: 1

This is the other kneejerk response to any suggestion of reduced government spending that needs to die forever.
1 - How about we cut government spending in some are other than the tiny percentage spent on protecting people against corporate abuse?
2 - We have a system in place for this. The problem with it is not that it's underfunded, but that it's been corrupted by the very corporations it tries to regulate! Arguably, stuff like the DMCA shows that more harm than good is done in some areas, thanks to this. This is perhaps the most serious problem in internal politics in America today but it's not in any way a funding problem.
And you just disproved your thesis. The end result of a body that regulates a business sector is always that the regulators get in bed with the people they're supposedly regulating and work together to erect barriers to entry into their cozy little oligopoly. Throwing more money at them will not fix the problem.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Yay big government! by Zordak · 2014-07-11 05:04 · Score: 1

You seem to make it an either/or proposition. You can have laws that prevent these kinds of abuses without having huge regulatory bodies that just end up being the lapdogs of the "regulated" industry.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Yay big government! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-07-11 05:43 · Score: 1

Then by your own logic the GOP is ... pissing off women, young voters, anybody who believe the US isn't by law a Christian antion, recent immigrants
Yes. What's your point?

What I stated was that the Democrats (who have been in power) have been pissing off more people lately. And it's true. Which means that the largest voting block is going to be GOP plus all those independents who are pissed off at Obama's unconstitutional government... and there are a LOT of those.

What I didn't say -- but just because I didn't say it, you don't get to assume the opposite -- is that I think it's sad that the backlash against the Dems is likely to mean big wins for the GOP.

This is all implied by the other fact I mentioned: the largest voting block now, for the first time in the last century or so, is "independents" at 40% of the voting population. People are jumping off both the Democratic and Republican bandwagon in droves. Because BOTH of the 2 big parties are full of shit, but in (mostly) different ways.
Re:Yay big government! by GPS+Pilot · 2014-07-11 06:52 · Score: 1
I favor reducing spending and increasing taxes. That is because I am a fiscal conservative and we are currently running a wildly excessive deficit.
Do you want to increase tax revenue, or tax rates? The two are not necessarily the same, depending on which side of the Laffer Curve we currently occupy.
And don't write off other ways to reduce the deficit:
- a revenue reduction concurrent with an even larger spending reduction. (Even during Bill Clinton's second term, when there was a healthy federal surplus, opinion polls of that era showed most Americans thought the government was spending too much. If spending was scaled back to Clinton Administration levels, in partial deference to that sentiment, we would instantly be back in surplus.)
- the "Penny Plan," surprisingly endorsed by the liberal Lanny Davis (although one must wonder about the sincerity of that endorsement)
--
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-11 10:30 · Score: 1

Do you want to increase tax revenue, or tax rates? The two are not necessarily the same, depending on which side of the Laffer Curve we currently occupy.
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now, and has been for a decade, lower than it was in the 50's and 60's. Since the 50's and 60's were the two decades when we rose to superpower -- with the highest sustained GDP growth in our history -- empirical data says we are safe to at least go up to that level.
I would posit that we are almost certainly in the big hairy middle section of the Neo-Laffer Curve. That is, even without the evidence we gathered during our golden era, I would still suspect we are far from the point where excessive taxation becomes a primary cause of reduced GDP growth.
a revenue reduction concurrent with an even larger spending reduction.
Yes, as soon as we get that big spending reduction (which I favor), we can take revenue increases off the table. Meanwhile, I remain a fiscal conservative; our deficit is excessive, and we must do all of: cut defense, cut health spending, cut social security, and increase revenue until we bring the deficit under control. We cannot tolerate saying, "But not the one I don't like." Bullshit. Cut them all, and increase revenue, until we get the deficit under control. Then we can have our pudding, but we can't have any pudding if we don't eat our meat.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by K10W · 2014-07-11 10:38 · Score: 1

Government, police, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach. It's all about taxes - taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against government overreach, and the Constitution was written with this fundamental truth firmly in mind.
Of course, of all of Congress there are but a handful of congresscritters who actually are for less government spending, and usually the voter's choice is merely between which group of supporters the tax money will go to. That's a cultural problem in the US, and we can't begin to fix it until every call for lower taxes stops being dismissed with "you anarchist and probable racist, why do you want 0 government".
Fixing the problem starts with popular acceptance of the idea that one can say we're sending too much without being some extremist calling for the end of government. Less does not mean none - spread the word!
that wont fix anything, think a little bigger than national boundaries for the proof. Plenty of the worlds police turn to corruption to make a living because they have barely enough resources to do their job. The corruption doesn't stem from resources per se, just the way the corruption manifests changes whether it is on the side taxation/bribes/using resources to acting as a semi pmc or militia for various groups like in some developing countries to common thing in US and Europe of arrests for filling quotas to hit plotical projected figures and thus future funds as well as too much interests in getting fat of privatised prison system, sadly the UK is now going the same way.
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-11 13:22 · Score: 1

It's worth noting that the more we depend on income taxes on high earners, the more federal revenue will suffer in bad economic times (the very times when the left would argue we need to spend most). Changes to the sum total of income of the bottom 95% in bad times are pretty small: maybe unemployment goes from 5% to 8%, so how much does that affect the total tax base? But top-tier incomes are really unstable, they go down fast in a downturn and up fast in an upturn, so federal revenue takes it on the chin from that group during times like 2008-2011.
That's probably the dominant factor in changes federal revenue as a percentage of GOP these days, now that 1% of tax payers pay about 1/3 of all income taxes, and that noise drowns out any signal we might get from changes in top marginal rate.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-11 13:29 · Score: 1

Fixing the problem starts with popular acceptance of the idea that one can say we're sending too much without being some extremist calling for the end of government. Less does not mean none - spread the word!
If you want zero taxes, go to Somalia.
Fuck you very much sir troll; fuck you very much.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by dryeo · 2014-07-11 14:37 · Score: 1

It's not me that is making it an either/or proposition. There are some posters who always claim that business is inherently better then government due to government having a monopoly on force.
I agree that you can have government without the regulatory bodies that exist to help the regulated industries though how to get there I'm not sure.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-11 15:48 · Score: 1

But top-tier incomes are really unstable, they go down fast in a downturn and up fast in an upturn, so federal revenue takes it on the chin from that group during times like 2008-2011.
Is that a bad thing or a good thing? If the ideal case is for taxation to decrease during lean times, and to increase during times of plenty, that might make a rather nice automatic adjustment.
That's probably the dominant factor in changes federal revenue as a percentage of GOP these days, now that 1% of tax payers pay about 1/3 of all income taxes, and that noise drowns out any signal we might get from changes in top marginal rate.
Also worth noting that in the 1950s and 1960s, the period of greatest economic growth in our history, we had a much higher top marginal rate. As corollary evidence, consider that a lower Gini index (less income concentration) correlates to a higher GDP per capita (PPP, product per person) all over the world.
I don't care about equality for its own sake, I'm a heartless economist: Whatever maximizes long run GDP is the best answer; it makes the rich richest, and it makes the poor richest, and it makes everyone in between richest, in the long run. That is the only objective definition of "good" in my world. There's a lot of unfounded beliefs on both sides of the argument, but the data, if you look at it without presuming to know the answer, points pretty hard in one direction.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-12 08:41 · Score: 1

Is that a bad thing or a good thing? If the ideal case is for taxation to decrease during lean times, and to increase during times of plenty, that might make a rather nice automatic adjustment.
Except it's not the tax rates going down! Those stay the same. It's incomes going down, which really doesn't help recovery.
While too much income concentration can certainly be a problem, it's not what the tax code is for. Taxes are for funding the government, after all. (And those with very high income have great flexibility as to when, where, and how they receive compensation - it's those in the "Second 1%," small business owners, doctors, lawyers, and top-tier salaried workers, who really get screwed by attempts at social justice through the tax code. The executive making $500k has other options to dodge taxes, such as getting paid in Ireland, or get pay spread over 5 years, or whatever.)

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-12 09:06 · Score: 1

Err, I thought "Throwing more money at them will not fix the problem" was, in fact, my thesis?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-12 13:53 · Score: 1

While too much income concentration can certainly be a problem, it's not what the tax code is for.
It is exactly what the tax structure is for. The idea is to gradually increase the friction as compensation packages increase in size, so that the government cannot specify who gets paid how much, but can have an influence on the broad distribution of income (in my opinion, which power should only be used to maximize long-run GDP growth rates).
Taxes are for funding the government
That's what the overall tax rate is for, not the tax structure.
(And those with very high income have great flexibility as to when, where, and how they receive compensation - it's those in the "Second 1%," small business owners, doctors, lawyers, and top-tier salaried workers, who really get screwed by attempts at social justice through the tax code. The executive making $500k has other options to dodge taxes, such as getting paid in Ireland, or get pay spread over 5 years, or whatever.)
That is an extremely good point. It is a critical flaw in our tax structure that is actually a direct cause of the reduction in tax progressivity that started before Reganomics. I'm not sandbagging or trying to trick you; you really have hit on one of the most important problems with our tax structure.
Prior to 1993, our marginal tax rate thresholds were not adjusted for inflation. In 1934, the top tax bracket started at $1m nominal, $13.9m real (2014) using the GDP deflator (feel free to use a different deflator for your own calculations, as suits your context, of course). In 1936 it was upped to $5m nominal, $67.1m real. In 1942, it was cut to $200k nominal, $2.3m real. In 1954, there was a major update but the top marginal level remained at $200k nominal, which inflation had dropped to $1.4m real. In 1986, it was still at $200k nominal, which had fallen to $430k real. And in 1993, it was finally set to track inflation, and was set to $250k nominal, $407k real.
So, from 1934 to 1954, the top marginal bracket moved from the truly extraordinarily high earners to the merely exceptional. From 1954 to 1986 (particularly during the massive inflation in the wake of OPEC driving up the price of oil in the early 1970s) it dropped from the exceptionally high earners to hit a really wide range of C-execs, VPs, and even officers in small to medium enterprises. This is when the high top marginal rate, which had been a healthy moderating influence (according to the empirical data) on a tiny fraction of society, started to really pinch the broad "got there on hard work and talent alone" class, including entrepreneurs and people who worked their way up from the blue collar families. That provided the pressure that galvanized Reagan to lower the top marginal rate, but we had already put in a major reduction in 1963.
Which all is to say, the top marginal bracket is much too low. In fact, I believe that if we increased the top marginal rate without moving the top marginal bracket right now, it could very well harm the economy. But the data still says that a higher top marginal rate is better for long-run GDP growth. If my belief that keeping the top marginal bracket at this level while raising the top rate the same would be harmful is correct, then the policy we should be testing -- if our objective is to maximize long-run GDP growth -- is to increase both the top marginal rate and the level at which it kicks in.
That is what the empirical data says is best for everyone, rich, poor, and middle class alike; regardless of what our hearts might believe.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-12 13:59 · Score: 1

Oh, and one more thing:
who really get screwed by attempts at social justice through the tax code.
Don't pull that "social justice" crap on me. I have made it exceedingly clear that my only concern is long-run GDP growth. I believe that the only possible "social justice" coincides with maximizing the income of the highest earners -- which happens to be achieved by the exact same path as maximizing the income of the lowest earners. The only path to that end is maximizing long-run GDP growth -- it's a math thing, you can't maximize anyone's income without maximizing long-run GDP growth. And maximizing long-run GDP growth necessarily maximizes everyone's income in the long run.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by lgw · 2014-07-12 14:38 · Score: 1

You may be the only one arguing for raising the tax rates without an agenda of "social justice". Usually people arguing are talking past each other. Far to many Americans these days don't care how much it hurts government funding as long as it hurts people better off than them. Talk about cutting off your nose to spiderface (never spiderface!).
Naturally, GDP growth is all that matters long term. Heck, even in just 20 years, the difference between 2% and 4% growth makes more difference in our day-to-day lives than anything else the government can do. But so few people seem to care.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Yay big government! by Bob9113 · 2014-07-12 15:01 · Score: 1

Far to many Americans these days don't care how much it hurts government funding as long as it hurts people better off than them.
And far too many remain emotionally attached to laissez-faire despite extensive empirical evidence that in the real world it does not match the theoretical ideal free market.
Naturally, GDP growth is all that matters long term. Heck, even in just 20 years, the difference between 2% and 4% growth makes more difference in our day-to-day lives than anything else the government can do. But so few people seem to care.
The hardest thing for me to do when I did a deep dive on the data was to give up the preconception that I was hoping to prove. I went into it believing that the shift in the level of the top tax bracket had caused the reduction in long-run GDP growth by increasing friction on the entrepreneurial class (roughly P90 - P99 income range). While the data did not support my belief, it gave me an extraordinarily detailed picture of what did happen. I am an economist and an empiricist; my only rational choice was to abandon my belief in favor of the truth.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Yay big government! by nobodie · 2014-07-15 12:25 · Score: 1

OK, I'll bite.
I grew up in a small town, in the south (Virginia), where there were lots of problems. Black people lived in fear and danger of the system the laws and the police, for example. But I didn't, I was white, my dad was upstanding, a civil servant for the Army, retired warrior from WWII and Korea. We had a fine life.
Now, the corruption was just what I described. We, white people, middle class people, land owners with a couple of cars and a couple couple of kids and dogs and cats and the MayberryRFD life were .... free!
Everyone else could see the corrupt underbelly of racism, sexism, fascism, and all the rest of the underpinnings of our perfect society.
Now, here we are today. The rascism, sexism, fascism, capitalism, etc of the ruling class has become focused into a single small elite who have the sense of security that I grew up with, but the vast majority have lost out on it. We are now the disenfranchised, the cheated, the lied to, the herd being led to slaughter in the wars in ways that we never felt before.
The sad/bad part is that what many of us (and I am including myself in this out of a sense of fairness) want is a return to that past that really sucked for the victims and downtrodden of that time. And we are led to believe that it is those that were the downtrodden who are the cause of our own loss of power and happiness (and security). The people who are leading us are the ones who still have the power, and they dio it because they are also afraid of losing what they see that we have lost. They think that they very cleverly stole it from us, but they didn't. they just were too stupid to understand how to operate the world to maintain a real reasonable balanced system that could support all of us: they bought into the scarcity system because it was all they could understand.
So, here we are. Squabbling like the fools we are, about scarcity while surrounded by abundance. We have the money,time,ability and desire to do evberything that needs to be done, instead we waste it on bullshit like wars. Stupid humans!

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
Re:Yay big government! by No+Tears+In+The+End · 2014-07-15 14:40 · Score: 1

Just like Democrats of 70 years ago might not have wanted black people actually living in the same neighborhoods despite civil rights lip service.
Yeah, about that. 70 years ago, the Democrats were unabashedly opposed to any kind of civil rights for Black people.
NTITE

--

-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
Re: Yay big government! by No+Tears+In+The+End · 2014-07-15 14:43 · Score: 1

Bingo.
I use the word "pro-life" because that's what our culture has decided upon but I describe my position as "pro-innocent life".
I'm not opposed to capital punishment, in principle but in practice I think that's it's not properly applied and the last thing I want is to execute an innocent person. So, I'm in favor of juries having the option to sentence a defendant to death but I also support moratoriums on carrying out executions until all doubts have been removed regarding any claims of innocence.
NTITE

--

-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.

So by afidel · 2014-07-10 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

So when are reckless endangerment charges going to be filed against the pilot? He intentionally steered his craft towards an object that they admit through their own filings presented a risk of a crash.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:So by sabri · 2014-07-10 06:32 · Score: 5, Informative

How is it reckless endangerment when the police were supposed to be in the area and did their job by investigating something suspicious?
Basic VFR separation guidelines still apply, even to a police helicopter.

--
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

They lied about the drone flying at and following the helicopter. It was, in fact the helicopter that flew recklessly at the drone. IOW, the NYPD falsified their report in order to make an arrest.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:36 · Score: 1

Cops can't drive mosnster trucks over everything just because they are investigating something suspicious.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

So... they filed a false report.
Fire them and press charges. We can't have the police lying on reports.
Re:So by Runaway1956 · 2014-07-10 06:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

*sigh* I just wasted moderator points - just posting to negate the effects . . . .
Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground. They chase you, maybe you're doing 80 or 90, but the cop exceeds 100 mph catching up to you. The police report states that the chase exceeded 100 mph, and the judge looks at that, and throws several books at you.
It would be great if cops were trustworthy.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:So by thaylin · 2014-07-10 06:43 · Score: 1

Because the police did not have to get so close to investigate.... It is like cops can be charged with reckless endangerment if they cause issues in a chase if it is determined they should not have been doing what they should have been doing. There is supposed to be a reasonableness to their actions.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:48 · Score: 0

Yet...
Re:So by fustakrakich · 2014-07-10 07:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yet we will not see perjury charges against them. How quaint.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:So by roc97007 · 2014-07-10 07:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Cops can't drive mosnster trucks over everything just because they are investigating something suspicious.
Give them time. They seem to be gearing up to do just that.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:So by roc97007 · 2014-07-10 07:01 · Score: 2, Informative

We can't have the police lying on reports.
Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh today.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:So by sexconker · 2014-07-10 07:05 · Score: 1

So... they filed a false report.
Fire them and press charges. We can't have the police lying on reports.
Fuck that. Execute them in the public square.
Re:So by rogoshen1 · 2014-07-10 07:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Those small-cities which buy surplus APC's for their 'SWAT' teams beg to differ.
They're the police, and due to their newly found paramilitary status are better able to keep us safe. Like from your dog. Did you know it was a threat? It is.. or was, that's why they shot and killed it when breaking into your house.
Re:So by thaylin · 2014-07-10 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

More likely they will fire the flight controller for recording them.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:So by tomhath · 2014-07-10 07:16 · Score: 2

Did you listen to the audio? While the pilot is talking to the tower he clearly says the drone "did a 180" and "is right over us now". He followed it after it turned and went away.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

FAA, and probably NYPD police procedure, has a lot stricter guidelines with regard to vehicle pursuit regarding helicopters. While somewhat similar, this really is an apples and oranges scenario. Not everyone can fly a helicopter. Or a drone for that matter. Most everyone however, with the minimalist of experience, CAN drive a car.
That said, we likely won't see any charges going towards the police. Even though it sounds like they filed a false police report. Isn't that perjury? They are officers of the law! Hoping the 2 arrested file suit. LEO overstepping their bounds REALLY need to be put in their place quick and hard. They're in place to serve the public trust. Not the courts, jailers, or DOJ.
Re:So by racermd · 2014-07-10 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The flight controller didn't do any of the recording. The FAA (a *federal* agency, mind you) mandates ALL radio transmissions be recorded. The flight controller's only job is to control traffic. They have zero ability to trigger, delete, modify, etc., recordings. The pilot of every aircraft should know this so it wouldn't be something they'd be all that concerned about. Their supervisors/managers on the ground may not know this, however... And the FAA is quite good about responding to FOIA requests.
Also, firing a federal employee is actually really hard, even for cause. Usually, they're just given a crappy job with almost nothing to do so they'll feel motivated to quit on their own. Trust me, that's actually a LOT easier than getting firing someone at the federal level. Besides, even the NYPD can't get a federal employee fired since the NYPD is a state-level agency.
The most likely outcome, in my opinion, is that the NYPD will grudgingly admit their mistake, tell the pair to knock it off in some semi-friendly manner while the cameras are watching, then go back to business-as-usual until they're caught in their own lies again. Meanwhile, we'll all continue to bitch and moan about the "police state" and post ignorant comments in random places on the internet. Heck, I'm doing that right now!

--
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:So by tysonedwards · 2014-07-10 07:33 · Score: 4, Informative

The pilot also said that the drone accomplished a Mach 0.9 vertical ascent.

--
Thirty four characters live here.
Re:So by TheCarp · 2014-07-10 07:41 · Score: 1

Hell there was a case where police raided a home looking for someone who wasn't even there. In the process tossed a flashbang in a kids crib....then disclaimed all responsibility and said it might even lead to charges against the...PERSON WHO WASN'T THERE!
Thats right, if the police have reason to suspect you of something, they are of the opinion its your fault they are investigating and you are responsible for any harm they cause to anyone else by their own actions.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:So by mpe · 2014-07-10 07:49 · Score: 1

So when are reckless endangerment charges going to be filed against the pilot? He intentionally steered his craft towards an object that they admit through their own filings presented a risk of a crash.

Was the pilot the only occupant of this aircraft?
Possibly more important what happens to the two men falsely arrested? Are there procedures to "annull" any record of their arrest?
Re:So by sabri · 2014-07-10 07:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground.

But they are not. And while they are police officers, they generally have no authority in the air. What flies in the air is all subject to the FAA and a regular officer (even those flying a police helicopter to assist ground units) are limited to FAA rules and regulations.

Unlike ground vehicles, a police helicopter will not be exempt from FAA flight rules and regulations. If the pilot is flying VFR, he is to maintain VFR separation from other flying objects, whether they are in the air lawful or not. The reasoning behind this is obviously that if he fails to do so and somehow crashes into it, his badge will not protect anyone on the ground from getting hurt from the crashing helicopter or whatever object he flies into.

Furthermore, his badge will give him police authority, but the FAA can simply revoke his pilot's license and ground him.

--
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Re: So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:53 · Score: 0

The flight controller didn't do any of the recording. The FAA (a *federal* agency, mind you) mandates ALL radio transmissions be recorded. The flight controller's only job is to control traffic. They have zero ability to trigger, delete, modify, etc., recordings.
Must come as quite a shock to the boys in blue. They're probably used to dealing with evidence captured on their dashcam recorders.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:57 · Score: 0

First, you have the order wrong. He said that the drone was over him and then did a 180. He obviously flew to the drone when he saw it take off and flew under . He also identified the drone as "military" and went from 0 to 2000 feet in about two seconds. I think he got overly excited like cops are known to do when in a potentially dangerous situation (Drones! Terrorists!) and overestimated the drone's location, speed and direction. He never once claimed he had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the drone.
Re:So by jd2112 · 2014-07-10 08:02 · Score: 2

They lied about the drone flying at and following the helicopter. It was, in fact the helicopter that flew recklessly at the drone. IOW, the NYPD falsified their report in order to make an arrest.
It sounds like a high tech version of 'The suspect repeatedly struck my fist with his face'.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:So by Rich0 · 2014-07-10 08:20 · Score: 1

When you think about it, this is the only sensible approach. Do you want every municipality that owns a helicopter to be trying to police aircraft that are flying overhead? Maybe the plane's registration is bogus. Great, call it in to the FAA as a good citizen and let them deal with it.
There are a lot of safety issues when you try to deal with issues in the air. Indeed, I've heard ATC recordings where ATC is basically trying to ream somebody out for not following procedures correctly, and that is also something that shouldn't happen. Deal with problems on the ground - if somebody violates the rules they should record it and refer it for enforcement action and write up a report. Trying to deal with problems in the air just means you're putting others at risk by not doing your job.
I'm all for enforcement, but at the right time and place.
Re:So by afidel · 2014-07-10 08:20 · Score: 1

Who cares if the pilot was the only one onboard, a crash of a full sized helicopter full of fuel is a significant risk to everyone in the vicinity. As to the charges, sure there's expungement (though in some states you can only expunge convictions, not arrests), but unfortunately for these guys they ran to the media so there's a more or less permanent record.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:27 · Score: 0

So let's refer this to the FAA and let the cop lose his pilot's license. He clearly can't be trusted with his toys.
Re:So by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Filing the false report is the first charge. Next up, unlawful imprisonment. Next up, reckless endangerment of everyone around them who could have been injured/killed (they themselves said it was a very dangerous situation, they don't get to say it was no big deal now). Finally, federal penalties for violating FAA rules and regulations. Perhaps the pilot should have his license suspended.
If NYPD is a police force rather than organized crime, they will see to it that all of the above happens AND release the men they arrested with deepest apologies.
Re: So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:32 · Score: 0

You where running away from the cops at 80 or 90 and your where framed for 100?
You where in the right they should have let you go.
Re:So by mjm1231 · 2014-07-10 08:32 · Score: 1

The reasoning behind this is obviously that if he fails to do so and somehow crashes into it, his badge will not protect anyone on the ground from getting hurt from the crashing helicopter or whatever object he flies into.
This reasoning could also be applied to motor vehicles on the ground. It rarely is.

--
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Re:So by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:40 · Score: 1

Vietnam is so 20th century. SWAT are the new baby burners.
New slogan: "Napalm sticks to children"
Re:So by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:44 · Score: 2

Even if the pilot was the only one on board, he endangered anyone who might have been hit by fragments of the aircraft had there been a collision.
A helicopter rotor coming apart in flight can throw fragments a long way.
Re:So by flopsquad · 2014-07-10 08:53 · Score: 1

That's pretty much the story. This particularly atrocious bit of police behavior occurred in Georgia. The cops were looking for drugs and a suspected drug dealer (dad, I think). IIRC, the cops couldn't get the door open, so they thought there was someone trying to physically block/barricade the door and tossed a flashbang into the room. Only, it wasn't a desperate meth cook pushing a barrel of methylamine against the door, but a toddler's crib that had been placed there by grandma. I don't remember if it came out why the crib was there (small house/trailer maybe?) but she certainly had no reason to know or think that LEOs were going to require that entryway for a tactical assault on the house.

Neither drugs nor dad were found in the home, and toddler was severely injured (might still be in the hospital?) by the flashbang that was thrown directly into his crib. Mom and dad were elsewhere and I believe were later arrested on some kind of drug charges. This is all from memory, so a Google search might fill in some details.

--
Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:56 · Score: 0

Um, but the cop has to go faster than you to catch you. That means due to your speed the cop had to a speed X faster than you to catch up to you. Your actions made the 100 MPH response necessary therefore the chase did exceed 100 MPH. Should the cop just respond by going .5 MPH faster than you? 1 MPH faster? Or maybe they should be leisurely and only drive the speed limit and just follow you till you stop willingly?
I'd love to hear you in court. "Yes, your honor, I was going 90 MPH, but did the officer really need to go faster than me? Isn't that dangerous? Shouldn't he be under arrest? In fact, citizen's arrest your honor. I mean, if he would have done the speed limit he would have never caught me and we wouldn't be here. What egregious government interference! How dare I be responsible for what my actions force others around me to do. Just because I'm breaking a law doesn't mean I should be stopped, right?"
Re:So by sycodon · 2014-07-10 08:59 · Score: 1

Flashbangs are the new Binkies

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:So by apraetor · 2014-07-10 08:59 · Score: 1

Cars on the ground can, with little exception, stop any time they feel like giving up the chase and turning themselves in to the officers. Aircraft have no such ability, and if you were being actively closely pursued by another aircraft it could even prove fatal to try and land. That doesn't even take into account the risks involved to the people on the ground below, who the police in this case endangered by engaging in pursuit -- the correct action would be to have the ATC track the belligerent until it landed, and arrest the pilots there. Following it at high speed, closely, it precisely what FAA regulations were intended to prevent.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:01 · Score: 0

Why is this +5 interesting? Perjury has to be in court. There might be other charges more appropriate (I don't know the full details so wont' speculate) but not perjury. Unless this goes to court and the officers stick by the original story and the guys are convicted, then no, we won't see a perjury charge because it doesn't fit the facts.
Re:So by apraetor · 2014-07-10 09:02 · Score: 1

Hopefully the drone pilots file an FAA complaint, that should be sufficient to get at LEAST a suspension of the officer's flight status. He caused an accident under Part 830 by intentionally entering another craft's airspace.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:05 · Score: 0

Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground. They chase you, maybe you're doing 80 or 90, but the cop exceeds 100 mph catching up to you. The police report states that the chase exceeded 100 mph, and the judge looks at that, and throws several books at you.

That's because on the ground state traffic law applies, which allows cops to exceed the speed limit.
And as sabri says, in the air, FCC regulations apply, and the pilot is required to follow VFR regulations. No exceptions.
Re:So by tomhath · 2014-07-10 09:22 · Score: 1

From the audio:

He's right over top of us right now, LaGuardia. He did a 180 really quick.
I suppose you could interpret that either way. I take it to mean the drone was over the helicopter because it made the turn "he IS over top of us...he DID a 180".
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:28 · Score: 0

+1 Sad.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:32 · Score: 0

They're the police, and due to their newly found paramilitary status are better able to keep us safe. Like from your dog. Did you know it was a threat? It is.. or was, that's why they shot and killed it when breaking into your house.
It's much worse than that.
Police illegally trespass onto your property and kill your dog in a fenced-off pen:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Re:So by Aighearach · 2014-07-10 09:42 · Score: 1

That's a pretty big "if."
Re:So by Aighearach · 2014-07-10 09:44 · Score: 1

Well, air traffic is under Federal regulation and ground vehicles are under State regulation.
Haters will hate for pointing it out, but Federal regulations are usually of higher quality.
Re:So by sabri · 2014-07-10 10:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Cars on the ground can, with little exception, stop any time they feel like giving up the chase and turning themselves in to the officers. Aircraft have no such ability, and if you were being actively closely pursued by another aircraft it could even prove fatal to try and land. That doesn't even take into account the risks involved to the people on the ground below, who the police in this case endangered by engaging in pursuit -- the correct action would be to have the ATC track the belligerent until it landed, and arrest the pilots there. Following it at high speed, closely, it precisely what FAA regulations were intended to prevent.
I could not agree more. One addition:

In the air, pilots have the authority to deviate from every rule in the book, if they deem it necessary for the safety of the flight. This is even stressed out by the FAA themselves in every WINGS seminar on this topic I've attended. Roughly the same authority goes to Air Traffic Control when a pilot declares an emergency.

Yes, my non-pilot friends, you read that correct. If a pilot declares an emergency, he is the ultimate authority in the sky over what he does, with ATC being his best wingman with broad authority to divert anyone else. That includes everyone with a badge as well.

Obviously, with authority comes responsibility. Once the flight has ended, the pilot must usually attend a hearing where he (or she) must explain their actions and may even lose their license on it. Every pilot is expected to show good airmenship, and the helicopter pilot pursuing a drone may have been making some judgements that are open for discussion.

--
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Re:So by sjames · 2014-07-10 10:40 · Score: 1

Sadly agreed.
Re:So by Paradise+Pete · 2014-07-10 11:15 · Score: 1

Cars on the ground can, with little exception, stop any time they feel like giving up the chase and turning themselves in to the officers.
"And once they've turned themselves into the police, they'd be the police and they can drop the charges!"
Re:So by apraetor · 2014-07-10 11:22 · Score: 1

"in to" and "into" are not equivalents.
Re:So by apraetor · 2014-07-10 11:23 · Score: 1

What about government forms that require a signature attesting to the validity of the information, under penalty of perjury?
Re:So by TapeCutter · 2014-07-10 11:35 · Score: 1

I have no sympathy for idiots who poke the bear and then whine about the obvious consequences. A court of law will sort out if the charges are valid or not. These people deliberately broke the FAA ceiling in full view of a police chopper. They are not oppressed heros, they are wankers who bring the hobby into disrepute and fuck it up for everyone else.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re: So by Obfuscant · 2014-07-10 11:35 · Score: 1

Must come as quite a shock to the boys in blue. They're probably used to dealing with evidence captured on their dashcam recorders.
They're also quite familiar with the standard recording of all dispatch radio traffic. It is no shock to any pilot, either.
Re:So by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 12:19 · Score: 1

I agree with you, with the caveat that breaking the law is not the correct response to breaking the law. Hopefully, the idiot drone pilots and the idiot NYPD pilot will both share a jail cell.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:So by Dorianny · 2014-07-10 12:32 · Score: 1

What they did amounts to nothing less than arresting someone on "Trumped-up Charges". Considering all the media attention this is getting you can bet that Internal affairs is going to take this very seriously. In our system of checks and balances the judiciary and the free press are responsible for keeping law enforcement honest and in this case the press cam thru. The system works, sometimes!
Re:So by sjames · 2014-07-10 12:48 · Score: 2

It seems you didn't RTFA, hate drones, and have a strange neurological condition affecting your knee. Three strikes, you're out!
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 13:09 · Score: 0

> Vietnam is so 20th century. SWAT are the new baby burners.
You know what is weird about that?
The baby they flash-banged is Vietnamese.
Actually he is Laotian, which is still close enough for government work.
Re: So by Runaway1956 · 2014-07-10 14:16 · Score: 1

You ain't very bright. I stated that they gave chase, not that you were running. I used 80 or 90 mph as an example, precisely because those speeds are only a little bit over the legal speed limits in many places. So, you meet a cop on the interstate, doing around 80 - in many places that is just ten mile over the speed limit. The cop drives across the median, does his U-turn, and gives chase. HE EXCEEDS 100 MPH, so he tells the judge that the "chase" exceeded 100 mph, in an effort to make the arrest sound much more serious than a similar arrest in a 35 mph zone.
As for "running away from the cops" - well, maybe I have done that. You don't do it in the family car though. And, "speeds over 100 mph" are meaningless terms on/in any vehicle capable of outrunning a police car. The term "speeds in excess of 175" might make sense then, except very, very, VERY few police cars are capable of that.
Youtube has a number of videos attributed to "Ghost Rider". You might find them interesting. Note that not all of those videos are of the "real" Ghost Rider, but some of the false attributions are as good as the real ones.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:So by Runaway1956 · 2014-07-10 14:19 · Score: 1

The cop decided to take the risk of exceeding any given speed, not you. YOU are only guilty of the speed at which you were driving. The cop is entirely responsible for his own actions.
Question - have you never witnessed police speeding for mundane reasons? No siren, no lights flashing, they're just driving along. I've seen them fly through villages with speed limits of 35, doing double the speed limit.
Cops routinely break the law in most of the US, all on their own initiative.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:So by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:35 · Score: 1

Wow, I can't believe the guy is only demanding that the officer be fired. If anyone else had done this, he would be in jail and PETA would be throwing blood on him.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:So by aaaantoine · 2014-07-10 16:32 · Score: 1

Besides, even the NYPD can't get a federal employee fired since the NYPD is a state-level agency.
The NYPD is not even a state-level agency; it's a municipal-level agency. Though granted, it is the largest such agency in the US by far[pg. 34], they are nonetheless 2 steps removed.
Re: So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 19:23 · Score: 0

I find that if you have someone following you (not necessarily police), areas with a high density of intersecting streets (residential, particularly), give you somewhere to lose visual contact, without resorting to dangerous high speed maneuvers. You can't outrun the radio, but you can make it really hard to find you and then slink off.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 20:13 · Score: 0

NYPDIDF pls go.
Re:So by JosKarith · 2014-07-10 20:32 · Score: 1

This isn't confined to America - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...
If a private citizen had done something like this it would prosecuted as Tampering with Evidence. But if the police do it, they get away with it...

--
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Re:So by dynamo · 2014-07-10 21:22 · Score: 1

in another context or another less totalitarian government situation i might call that a troll.. but here- mod parent up.
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 01:18 · Score: 0

In NYC, police entrance teams use a non-injurious tool against dogs: a fire extinguisher. One of the first guys through the door has/uses one. It scares the crap out of the dogs and they go running. No shots needed. I'm not sure if people will start training their dogs to attack fire extinguishers, but it's working well now, and a lot safer for everyone involved, between the dangers of injured dogs and stray shots.
Re: So by racermd · 2014-07-11 01:31 · Score: 1

The recording of police dispatch traffic falls under a different mandate but achieves similar results. Every PSAP has such a mandate but is specified on a case-by-case and agency-by-agency basis.
Also, I'm pretty sure the normal dispatch radio traffic doesn't overlap much with the FAA radio traffic (if ever) and I doubt that sort of traffic was recorded by the NYPD under their records-retention mandate. Obviously, they'll have their own radio dispatch traffic recorded (which probably has some aircraft-to-dispatch traffic) but will probably leave the FAA to record anything going on in the skies between the aircraft and the tower. What was released was the FAA recordings and was most likely not recorded by the NYPD. I don't think we've heard the NYPD dispatch traffic yet and, at this point, I doubt we will.
I speak with some experience on this sort of matter but only from the perspective of my locality - as in, not NYC.

--
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 01:47 · Score: 0

I think you are missing the point where there is now proof that the police pilot was lying.
Re:So by Mattcelt · 2014-07-11 03:56 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight... You're saying they should be punished for not breaking any laws, while the police who perjured themselves and violated FAA FARs should not?
If you can be imprisoned for being an arsehole, you belong in prison as much as they do, as do the rest of us.
Re: So by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 04:04 · Score: 0

These people deliberately broke the FAA ceiling in full view of a police chopper.
THEY CLAIMED that it broke the FAA ceiling. They also claimed it accomplished a Mach 0.9 vertical ascent*, so I'd say their credibility is somewhat shaky.
*Mach 0.9 is a pretty good climb rate for fighter jet aircraft. It's rather unbelievable for a small propellercraft.
Re:So by gmhowell · 2014-07-11 04:59 · Score: 1

Did it do a 4G inverted dive?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:So by eric_harris_76 · 2014-07-14 14:10 · Score: 1

Well, that's never happened before.

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.

Do you feel safe yet? by Scutter · 2014-07-10 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gotta keep those conviction numbers up to justify your DHS endowments. What matter if you destroy a few lives in the process?

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"

Typical by Hamsterdan · 2014-07-10 06:29 · Score: 2

Just when they say someone fell down the stairs, or resisted arrest. I wonder what the penalty will be for lying...

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.

Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I wonder what the penalty will be for lying...
Nothing.
if the cops actually do back down, they will say something like, "It was an error " - something like that in the third person. Not "We were in error." or "The NYPD apologizes for the false arrest." or anything that would show honesty, responsibility, a desire to serve and protect, or anything that would earn the respect for the badge.
Instead the NYPD are a disgrace and nothing but grunts and thugs with badges and guns.
Remember 9-11? Along with all those poor FDNY guys who died, a few cops got taken out also actually helping people - not many - but a few.
There were TONS of memorials and honors given to the New York Firemen who died, but NOTHING for the NY police who did.
I wonder why.
Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember 9-11? Along with all those poor FDNY guys who died, a few cops got taken out also actually helping people - not many - but a few.
There were TONS of memorials and honors given to the New York Firemen who died, but NOTHING for the NY police who did.
I wonder why.
Agreeing with you: By and large, cops are cowards. They're #1 priority is making sure "they get home safe". They are a bunch of backstabbing murderers as attested to by every cop who has never filed complaints with IA against other officers because "They need to make sure they have each others' backs". If your partner will murder you because you truthfully testify that he lies on his timesheet, that mofo should not be a cop with a gun. Interactions with cops generally is a bad experience. They've even gone to the Supreme court to demand they NOT be obligated to protect people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Contrast that with the fire department. Sure, there are corrupt fire inspectors and crap, but there's no red/blue wall of silence about it. If I'm passed out from smoke inhalation and the guy breaking down the door and carrying me to safety wants to lighten my wallet while another is doing the CPR thing, I'm AOK with that.
Re:Typical by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-10 07:16 · Score: 2

If history is any indicator? Minimum 2 weeks paid vacation, er, "suspension."
Obviously we all got into the wrong lines of work.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Typical by sycodon · 2014-07-10 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

In 2013, 101 firefighters died in the line of duty.
In 2013, about 110 police officers died...mostly in traffic accidents. Only 33 due to firearms and even among those few actually killed by bad guys.
Firefighters risk their lives on every call and are protected by nothing more than a thick coat and helmet and their brains.
The Police face risks on every call but most a boring and not dangerous. They are protected by firearms, theirs and their partners, ballistic vests, and overwhelming firepower when needed.
The Police kill innocent people all the time. Firefighters rescue innocent people all the time.
Hats off to Fire Fighters.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Typical by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 10:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Firefighters no more "risk their lives on every call" than does my plumber. To start with, a relatively low percentage of calls involve a fire. Of those only a relatively few put a few of the firefighters at the scene in any degree of danger. Hats off to my plumber, at least he knows he's just doing a job and getting paid well for it without any need to pretend he's doing something noble.
Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:24 · Score: 0

Firefighters no more "risk their lives on every call" than does my plumber.
To start with, a relatively low percentage of calls involve a fire. Of those only a relatively few put a few of the firefighters at the scene in any degree of danger.
Hats off to my plumber, at least he knows he's just doing a job and getting paid well for it without any need to pretend he's doing something noble.
The police are the ones that pretend to be heroes, despite Warren vs District of Columbia. Firefighters never went to the Supreme Court to demand they not be obligated to squirt water on fires. Firefighter's get our respect because they've generally earned it. Cops get it because they have guns and the ability to lie and put us in jail. Not all cops are bad, but they're all "bad enough" when they don't go after law breakers who have a blue shirt and a badge.
Re:Typical by sycodon · 2014-07-10 12:58 · Score: 1

If you Plumber doesn't shoot you when you happen to pick up a pipe wrench, then yes, hats off to him too.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 17:23 · Score: 0

Did a firefighter steal your girlfriend?
Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 05:50 · Score: 0

Being a car mechanic is more dangerous that being a fireman.
Top 10 deadliest jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Commuting to work every day is more dangerous than being a fireman.

you would think prop wash would down the drone by swschrad · 2014-07-10 06:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

helicopters ride on a LOT of air. the cops could have just gotten over the drone and slapped it down.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:you would think prop wash would down the drone by PseudoCoder · 2014-07-10 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've personally seen how the rotorwash of a helo more than a half mile away turned over a 25 lb aircraft during a design competition fly-off back in my college days in Florida. Damn good pilot from Univ. of Puerto Rico recovered a highly loaded bird from fully inverted and brought it in. I have no doubt that a 5 lb quad-copter would get tossed around like a speck of dust. Either they weren't that close, or the autopilot did a hell of a job keeping the thing upright and under control.

--
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
Re:you would think prop wash would down the drone by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:34 · Score: 0

Depends. A multirotor is a lot more stable than some fixed wing plane without a flight controller. I have flown my quad in tropical storm extremely choppy wind (30 MPH gusting over 40 MPH) and had no problems. It wasn't super fun mind you but I never lost control because the flight controller was doing what it does keeping the craft stable.
I'm not sure how it would do in helicopter wash though. Searching seems to indicate the rotorwash is about 40 MPH or so.
Re:you would think prop wash would down the drone by Sir+Holo · 2014-07-10 13:30 · Score: 1

Similarly, I've seen the rotorwash of an LAPD copter, 50 feet above my street, blow 4' X 8' plywood panels dangerously airborne in the construction site across the street. Grit was thrown in my face.

This was around 3:00 am, and NOT in LA City proper. If only I'd grabbed my camera...

You know what'll happen next? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:32 · Score: 0

Tighter drone regulation! You heard it here first.

Cops love to make stuff up! by KillerBeeze · 2014-07-10 06:33 · Score: 1

Cops love to make stuff up! Just to charge the "perp" with as many charges as possible!

Incoming South Park Reference by DeathByLlama · 2014-07-10 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny

/// Drone hovers lazily next to the river ///
NYPD: It's coming right for us! *BANG BANG BANG*

Every drone is an imminent threat.

Re:Incoming South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:53 · Score: 0

It's not as good without Ned's electrolarynx.
Re:Incoming South Park Reference by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:58 · Score: 1

And the three people across the river who fall down as if shot are just a coincidence.
Re:Incoming South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:00 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure I know what color that drone was.
Re:Incoming South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 08:37 · Score: 0

It's just (some "police" career-felons') S.O.P.: Assault/Batter/Charge/Arrest/Shut-up/or Shoot first and don't ask questions...EVER!
WHY DO THOSE DRONE GUYS HATE 'AMERICA'!?!?

ATC recordings will be taken for investigation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds to me like the police need to seize those ATC recordings as part of their investigation into this incident. When the police have the evidence in their possession about what happened, then they'll let us know what evidence they want to let us see in accordance to what verdict they want the outcome to have.

Anything else would be prejudicial and could not be supported as factual evidence from a free world.

Re:ATC recordings will be taken for investigation by mpe · 2014-07-10 08:39 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like the police need to seize those ATC recordings as part of their investigation into this incident. When the police have the evidence in their possession about what happened, then they'll let us know what evidence they want to let us see in accordance to what verdict they want the outcome to have.

Presumably soon after doing this NYPD won't be flying anything due to lack of certificates of airwothyness and pilot's licenses.
Even if they do have jurisdiction over FAA recordings the FAA can quite literally "ground" them.
Probably invite the NTSB along too. Given that this incident has now become more serious. Since a mid air collision involving something as large as an NYPD chopper could easily kill everyone aboard both aircraft. (Whereas a drone is the equivalant of a single large bird, potentially expensive but very unlikely to pose any actual danger.)

Obligatory painful comment by Uberbah · 2014-07-10 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess every story has at least one.

So, the cop saw someone breaking the law, gave chase, and then they're the bad guys because the suspect tried to ram them?

No, you twit. They're bad guys for lying about it.

No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

Charge them for what they did do, not make shit up about what they didn't do. This isn't hard.

"I'm seeing nothing on radar" by frootcakeuk · 2014-07-10 06:43 · Score: 1

I had no idea these things are police radar evasive. Perhaps why the filth et al are really hating these things atm.

--
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, they're bad guys because they falisified a fucking police report.

So, Lying is the new norm now for LEOs? by lamer01 · 2014-07-10 06:44 · Score: 2

Have we seen an instance where they have not lied to cover any of their questionable actions in the last decade or so?

Re:So, Lying is the new norm now for LEOs? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:47 · Score: 0

This is the NYPD you're talking about. I'd be stunned if they weren't lying.
Re:So, Lying is the new norm now for LEOs? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:13 · Score: 3, Informative

There's nothing to stop them or even discourage them doing so. In fact procedure often encourages lying to the populace.
It's getting to the point where lethal force will be a justified response to ANY LEO approaching you, your family or your home. Sure it'll still be completely illegal, but from an ethical and survival standpoint, you're being approached by armored, heavily armed, trained forces hostile to any and all life not wearing a similar uniform.
Re:So, Lying is the new norm now for LEOs? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:14 · Score: 0

No, lying is not a new thing for police, they have been doing that for a very long time.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:46 · Score: 0

There are a bunch of apologists who cry "but they're small". Go ahead, drop a battery from a hundred feet on your head. .

I was hit in the head with a R10MF from quite an altitude. Didn't hurt so bad.

Unclear if any law was viaolated by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:47 · Score: 1

First of all the police will have to prove that the operators were not in visual range of the craft for any charges to be valid.

It is not against the law to operate a radio controlled craft in populated areas. AS long as the craft is within line of site of the operators and is being controlled through means of radio communication then no laws were broken by anyone by the police.

Re:Unclear if any law was viaolated by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:49 · Score: 1

It is not against the law to operate a radio controlled craft in populated areas. AS long as the craft is within line of site of the operators and is being controlled through means of radio communication then no laws were broken by anyone by the police.
The FAA says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. I'm pretty sure two out of three of those rules were busted. One for certain.
The Police also violated FAA regulations by approaching within 500 feet of a person, structure or aircraft.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Overzeetop · 2014-07-10 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, the local cop saw someone speeding, chased him down, and then charged the person with drug possession after tossing a dime bag in the back seat after pulling them over.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Suspicion of Military - Take it down* instinct by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:49 · Score: 0

NYPD—He has to be military. He's moving. He's right over top of us right now, LaGuardia. He did a 180 really quick. Going down the east river at this time. I just want to make sure its not a drone

Re:Suspicion of Military - Take it down* instinct by sjames · 2014-07-10 09:02 · Score: 1

How stupid do you have to be to pursue a military craft in one of those police egg beaters?
Re:Suspicion of Military - Take it down* instinct by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:50 · Score: 1

If it is military, then they would be idiots to shoot it down. They'd probably get shot down in retaliation.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Perhaps stupid question by Bananenrepublik · 2014-07-10 06:51 · Score: 2

How do these rules deal with the possibility that you cannot gauge the distance? For an object in midair the only available measure of distance is the size of the object. A drone is much smaller than any object you're usually encountering in steady flight (another helicopter, say). Hence you're going to significantly overestimate the distance. Or so would be my thought. Please educate.

Re: Perhaps stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:34 · Score: 0

A drone is much smaller than any object you're usually encountering in steady flight (another helicopter, say). Hence you're going to significantly overestimate the distance. Or so would be my thought.
Had you figured out how to keep large birds (like geese) from flying near planes? If so, please do tell. I was under the impression that pilots usually kept an eye out for them and tried to avoid them whenever possible.
Re:Perhaps stupid question by sabri · 2014-07-10 07:45 · Score: 2

Please educate.
They were under ATC. ATC can track objects in the air, even if they're not using a transponder. Using primary radar, ATC will be able to provide traffic advisories. Police helicopters usually fly under "flight following", meaning they would like to be informed of other traffic.

--
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Re:Perhaps stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:21 · Score: 1

Small vs. far away
Re:Perhaps stupid question by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

When they were blaming the other guys, they seemed to have no problem determining that it was dangerously close. So we can just take their word for it that the approach was close enough to call it reckless endangerment and that it is worthy of arrest.
Re: Perhaps stupid question by Bananenrepublik · 2014-07-11 00:10 · Score: 1

Please notice the qualification "steady flight". Birds are moving. That's how I wanted to avoid this question, but since you asked ...
You can probably recognize a bird as such and thus gauge its size (as it is an object you would expect to encounter), whereas a drone could have any shape or color or may even be made to look like a typical helicopter scaled down. There's no a priori estimate of such an object's size.
Re:Perhaps stupid question by Bananenrepublik · 2014-07-11 00:12 · Score: 1

Well, after they recognized what it was they knew its approximate size, thus could determine the distance and hence determine that it was dangerously close. This is not in contradiction to them not being aided by air traffic protocol and not being able to gauge the distance before that instant.
Re: Perhaps stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 04:24 · Score: 0

Please notice the qualification "steady flight". Birds are moving.
Drones are moving too. False distinction is false.

You can probably recognize a bird as such and thus gauge its size (as it is an object you would expect to encounter), whereas a drone could have any shape or color or may even be made to look like a typical helicopter scaled down. There's no a priori estimate of such an object's size.
It was a toy. It looked like a toy. And if the source linked in this story was something besides the NY Post, you might actually get useful information like the type of drone (a DGI Phantom 2), photos, or a video showing one of the defendants with his toy (screengrab).
Re:Perhaps stupid question by macs4all · 2014-07-11 04:55 · Score: 1

Please educate.
They were under ATC. ATC can track objects in the air, even if they're not using a transponder. Using primary radar, ATC will be able to provide traffic advisories. Police helicopters usually fly under "flight following", meaning they would like to be informed of other traffic.
Oh, noes! You KNOW that isn't true!

Don'tcha remember?!? On 9/11/01., all the "Hijacked" Airliners simply DISAPPEARED from RADAR because they switched their Transponders off... (Rolls eyes) [/sarcasm]
Re: Perhaps stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 04:59 · Score: 0

This seems like common sense to me, but perhaps you the expert can find a flaw in my reasoning: if you're ever flying about and you come to notice an unidentified flying object that doesn't show up on your radar, you should assume that it's either very very small, and give it plenty of room, or very very classified, and give it plenty of room.
Re:Perhaps stupid question by sjames · 2014-07-11 05:18 · Score: 1

So why did they then pursue it rather than backing off to a safe distance? From the report, it is clear that the drone's operators were attempting to move away to a safe distance when they were pursued.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by rahvin112 · 2014-07-10 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is no information that the drone tried to ram the helicopter, you are making that up. What information we do have indicates that the helicopter rushed the drone then gave chase when it left the area. From this the police charged the people with reckless endangerment because their helicopter got close to the drone. If there was reckless endangerment it was on the part of the police.

Baring other details being released IMO this isn't much different than the police arresting photographers photographing them for wiretapping or violating their privacy and other such nonsense. The police created this situation deliberately so they could charge the guys. Not much different than the video's of them screaming stop resisting while they beat someone unconsciousness that isn't resisting.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 06:56 · Score: 0

Ok. Explain why it is LEGAL to fly small remote controlled aircraft, as large a 1/4 scale with jet engines, over populated areas?
Your argument is invalid as hobbyists have been flying these types of fixed wing and helicopters for well over the past 40 years.

Wayne

So... by saleenS281 · 2014-07-10 06:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The cops who falsified their reports are going to jail, right? If I am found falsely testifying under oath, that's my sentencing. What? They'll get off with a slap on the wrist and *MAYBE* a week's paid vacation? I wonder why citizens distrust police in this country.

Re:So... by smooth+wombat · 2014-07-10 07:03 · Score: 1

If Lloyd Blankfein and others who attested to the veracity of their financial reports even after they were repeatedly warned their mark-to-market was completely unrealistic, which in turn led to the largest financial disaster in over 70 years, are not being prosecuted for false reporting, I don't see why the police should be.
Especially as in this case no one was harmed. Can't say the same thing about the millions who lost their money or homes, can you?

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:So... by ClioCJS · 2014-07-10 07:19 · Score: 1

If being charged with a felony doesn't harm anyone, may I charge you with one? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear, right?

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:36 · Score: 0

If Lloyd Blankfein and others who attested to the veracity of their financial reports even after they were repeatedly warned their mark-to-market was completely unrealistic, which in turn led to the largest financial disaster in over 70 years, are not being prosecuted for false reporting, I don't see why the police should be.
Because they are two separate lies. You've made a great argument for why we SHOULD charge Blankfein with false reporting, but that doesn't mean that the law should be abandoned completely.

Especially as in this case no one was harmed.
Putting someone in undue risk by flying recklessly is harm. Wasting tax dollars on angry helicopter stunts is harm.
This is pathetic. Look, I'm mad about the financial disaster too. But that is not an excuse to crank on the same issue every time someone gets away with lying. You'd love for us to drop everything and just focus on your pet enemy.
Re:So... by saleenS281 · 2014-07-10 08:31 · Score: 1

I hope your "no one was harmed" thing was tongue in cheek. First off, for the rest of these gentlemen's lives, a simple search on google will associate their name with the original news stories that may or may not be updated to prove their innocence. But MOST importantly - they were taken into custody and held against their will, after doing nothing wrong. And the police did this KNOWINGLY. Under any other circumstances that would be called kidnapping, and they would have grounds to civil recompense. The *ONLY* issue here is that they can't personally sue the police officers, which is something that needs to change in our justice system to curb this behavior.
Re:So... by RyoShin · 2014-07-10 08:52 · Score: 2

Absolutely nothing bad will be done to them; if anything, they'll get commendation medals for bravely charging at a potential terrorist machine. If they were in California, they'd probably be hailed as heroes and had a statue put up in their honor, compared to six cops beating a guy to death, on tape, with audio of them saying things like "Now see these fists? They're going to (expletive) you up" with the two actually brought to trial being acquitted by a jury. (A third was scheduled, but after this trial his charges were dropped.)
The jury part is what sickens me the most; there are all sorts of examples of police abuse, but rarely do the police in question actually get taken to court over it. It finally happens, and 6-12 of my "peers" think they were just doing their damn job. People will rationalize their stances, often going into convoluted and twisted reasoning; I have no hope for humanity, but it doesn't seem I have to make such leaps to maintain that stance...
(And in case anyone was wondering, the Fox News link is intentional; it's basically the AP article, and if Fox News isn't willing/able to put a spin to make the cops seem like heroes then any cop supporters should have a hard time as well.)
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:54 · Score: 0

Actually, this is important to remember. You can sue a police officer personally. If they're giving you a hard time, sometimes it helps to remind them of that. At least in my state you can sue them personally.
Remember, suing is for a civil matters. If you feel you've been wronged for any reason, you can always file suit against anyone for any reason and demand a jury trial if you think a jury will vote in your favor. Just remember, they can also file a counter-suit.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 14:35 · Score: 0

You absolutely can sue a police officer, but to do so would require you finding an attorney willing to go against the status quo and essentially an entire law firm. Said attorney would probably want a couple hundred thousand retainer fee unless it was a fairly indisputable case, which this really is not.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by cdrudge · 2014-07-10 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

So would flying them over a large body of mostly unoccupied water be ok? Like perhaps a river that's 2/3 of a mile wide?

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:02 · Score: 0

Go ahead, drop a battery from a hundred feet on your head.

Why would drones drop batteries onto people's heads?

Could go both ways. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:07 · Score: 0

Generally speaking when it comes to the FAA's turf the cops are just that, another damn blade in the air, its not like on the highway where they just get to strut their shit all willy nilly.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:09 · Score: 0

" No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area."

You put the knife in your own argument with the word, "should."

That's right, it is NOT against the law to fly a remote controlled aerial vehicle in a populated area. Not any law at all. It sounds like you probably work for a regulatory firm who stands to make a lot of money on standards certification for remote controlled toys.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by EmagGeek · 2014-07-10 07:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is legal because there is no Law against it.

Everything is legal that is not prohibited by a Law.

Laws are a blacklist, not a whitelist, just like the Constitution is a blacklist of things government is not allowed to do, not a whitelist of things Citizens ARE allowed to do.

Why not just shoot the damn thing down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:11 · Score: 0

A hail of bullets is good enough for most any other situation. Bonus points if the falling bullets manage to cause any collateral injuries or deaths.

Re:Fix this like we fix education by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-10 07:14 · Score: 1, Funny

Schools not teaching, graduating kids that never learned to read or write but did learn how to put a condom on a banana (a very useful skill if you are approached by a sexually aggressive banana).....

Carl... tonight... YOU...

No, HandBanana, NO!!!

Couldn't help myself :)

Send them more money, the unions say it's the only logical approach here in pretend it'll get better world..

Isn't that basically the same idea behind the Mayday PAC? Yea, something tells me it's going to work just as well...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Jason+Levine · 2014-07-10 07:15 · Score: 2

No, they're the bad guys because they (to use the car analogy) saw someone slightly speeding, pulled in front of them, jammed on their brakes in such a way that the guy couldn't avoid crashing into them, and wrote it up in the police report that the guy started chasing them and crashed into them unprovoked.

In short, they lied on the police report to make it seem as though the drone operators were at fault when the police were. Were the drone operators doing something wrong? Possibly. But if they were, arrest them/charge them with what they actually did wrong, not what the police did wrong to come up with something to charge them with.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

NO ONE WAS HARMED? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:19 · Score: 1

Being falsely arrested, held and charged with a felony isn't harm?

Not only were they unlawfully deprived of their freedom but they also now have an arrest and felony charges on their permanent record.

Maybe your employer doesn't really care if you drop off the face of the earth for a couple of days, but mine would certainly mind if I did, and I imagine most other employers would too. And having an arrest record could damage their chances of getting jobs in the future, even if they're acquitted.

The cops should be fired, charged, and jailed. by grheller · 2014-07-10 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Filing a false report is a very serious charge as a civilian -- it should be even worse when a couple of cops do it. Lets take a look at this, false arrest, filing false reports, just generally conduct unbecoming, big payout to those falsely arrested.My hat is off to those folks over at the FAA. We can count on the FAA to be honorable and straight shooting, about the only Federal Agency that still cares about doing their job right.

Re:The cops should be fired, charged, and jailed. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:54 · Score: 0

you know this may be because they are the only TLA that actually has a mandate to protect millions of people each day.
Unlike other TLA the FAA has a mandate to protect the millions of people who fly every day and all those on the ground as well. They only have one job. keep the skies safe, or put more simply, "Don't Fuck Up".
Re:The cops should be fired, charged, and jailed. by Kaenneth · 2014-07-10 11:47 · Score: 1

The fact that they are liars should just be admissible in every court case they have or will testify in.
Every case in the past that depended on their testimony should be retried; and they billed for the expense.

Just typical of dumbass libertarians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:23 · Score: 0

They think that their small unmanned drones have the right of way in airspace over a manned helicopter. If the helicopter were carrying the Koch brothers instead of police officers, they'd be screaming for domestic terrorism and attempted murder charges against the operators of the drones.

Impressive climb rate for a drone by PseudoCoder · 2014-07-10 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

One of the helo officers claims this thing went from 0-2000 ft in 2 seconds. I'll believe that out of a model rocket, or maybe a Diamond Dust with a tuned pipe, but not out of a quadcopter loaded down with a camera. This officer was likely exaggerating what he saw for effect.

--
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."

Re:Impressive climb rate for a drone by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:17 · Score: 0

One of the helo officers claims this thing went from 0-2000 ft in 2 seconds. I'll believe that out of a model rocket, or maybe a Diamond Dust with a tuned pipe, but not out of a quadcopter loaded down with a camera. This officer was likely exaggerating what he saw for effect.
Clearly they thought it was Ironman and tried to get an autograph. When they realized they were wrong they didn't want to look stupid and fictionalized the encounter xD.
Re:Impressive climb rate for a drone by sjames · 2014-07-10 09:06 · Score: 1

I would suggest they do a drug test.
Re:Impressive climb rate for a drone by NormalVisual · 2014-07-10 10:50 · Score: 1

One of the helo officers claims this thing went from 0-2000 ft in 2 seconds.

Even model rockets aren't that fast off the ground. About the only thing that can do that from a standstill is a bullet.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US Constitution is not a black list it is a white list. It is a document stating which powers The People give the government. This idea has been lost on many people, and I believe is the source of many of the problems we see.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Megol · 2014-07-10 07:31 · Score: 1

This thinking that everything not explicitly listed as unlawful is legal is a strange one - and simply not true.

Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area doesn't mean one is allowed to. Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space - but one can still be arrested for doing that in some situations.

Re:Fix this like we fix education by visualight · 2014-07-10 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're a god damn idiot, trying to tie this to sex education in schools and labor unions. Not everything wrong in the world is connected to the handful of issues that literally define your identity. An identity made for you by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Freedomworks, and Americans For Prosperity ( and dozens more ).

I swear, for most of my life I've tried to be gentle when it comes to politics and religion, but look what that's got us. People like you who troll forums and try to find every opportunity to regurgitate the propaganda you're too stupid to see through.

Next time you feel like stretching the current topic into a place where you can insert a not-so-witty, not-so-clever comment on big-guvment or unions, just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

--
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.

w00t by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:38 · Score: 0

ask NSA for the satellite data of the flight

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:38 · Score: 0

I don't think you understand how laws work. And yes if there is no law explicitly stating something is illegal then it is legal. Otherwise rule of law could not be applied because the fact that it is not defined means that no one actually knows what the law is. That leads to nothing but chaos.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 07:47 · Score: 1

Actually, it's both.
The Constitution (as originally drafted) is, indeed, a white list of powers *granted* to the federal government.
The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is a black list of powers specifically *prohibited* to the federal government.
The remaining Amendments are a mix of the two.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:01 · Score: 1

Actually, that's exactly what it means in the US. If there is now law prohibiting an action, it is legal to take that action. For something to be illegal, it must be specified as such in written law as voted upon by the relevant federal, state, or local legislative body.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Attila+Dimedici · 2014-07-10 08:20 · Score: 2

What law were they breaking? And why weren't they charged with that? Why did the police lie so that they could charge them with something else?
The drone pilots may have been legally in the wrong, but that does not justify the police lying.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

It's a simple toy for crying out loud!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:21 · Score: 0

The drone pictured is a DJI Phantom... weighs about a pound and can may be go a few hundred feet away before losing the wifi signal. People use these all the time to get nice video from up high, and a bridge is a cool place to do that. They're not going to harm the bridge or the helicopter!! About the worst you can do with it is try to ram someone in the head... the blades could hurt. A little much drama, NYPD? No need to chase it... its battery will die in a few minutes and will have to be brought in for a landing. You can then walk up to the person who has it and ask them about it. Geeeezzzz...

Your tax dollars @ work by mrex · 2014-07-10 08:22 · Score: 1

Wow, NYPD runs ELINT vehicles capable of triangulating radio signals?

Re:Your tax dollars @ work by apraetor · 2014-07-10 09:08 · Score: 1

No. Radio cars are police cars, dispatched via radio -- the usual every-day panda cars. The officers in the chopper just guided them to where the drone pilots were located. Still a giant waste of resources.
Re:Your tax dollars @ work by Ksevio · 2014-07-10 12:49 · Score: 1

No, they just followed it closely enough to see where it landed

Jurisdiction by Animats · 2014-07-10 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm listening to the recording of the radio communications. The drone was over 2000' altitude. At first, the cops in the helicopter aren't sure what they're seeing, and they first think it's a fast-moving aircraft in a vertical climb, over the East River. It has red and green lights, like aircraft do. They ask La Guardia ATC radar what they're seeing. ATC isn't seeing it on radar. Then they get closer and see it's a drone of some kind. In a few minutes it's over the George Washington Bridge, miles from the East River.

Once the guys who were operating them were caught, the cops are on the air discussing what to charge them with. The cops on the ground call them "tiny little toys". There's some discussion of "if it's over 1000', it's reckless". The cops aren't quite sure what to charge them with.

The FAA can certainly have them prosecuted. They were operating a drone in class B controlled airspace. That's serious, and dumb. Here's the New York City airspace chart. (Yes, there's actually a VFR corridor over the Hudson River; it's permitted to fly along the river at up to 1300' altitude. There used to be one over the East River, too, but after some jock slammed a light plane into a Manhattan apartment building by going too fast there, it was closed to VFR traffic. These drone operators didn't stay in the VFR corridor, and probably had no clue where it was anyway.)

The drone guys were lucky. LGA has two intersecting runways, 4-22 and 13-31. The one in use depends on wind direction. The approach to 13 and the departure from 31 are over where the drones were operating. LGA happened to be using 4-22 that day. If the other runway had been in use, there would have been a large plane in the area ever 45 seconds or so.

Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 08:37 · Score: 1

If there had been a large plane in the area every 45 seconds, perhaps they wouldn't have flown there. Using common sense isn't being "lucky".
Re:Jurisdiction by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-07-10 09:25 · Score: 1

Keep in mind though that the turbulence from the helicopter may have pushed the drone over the George Washington Bridge.
In which case the hazard would be caused by police action.
Re:Jurisdiction by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 10:29 · Score: 2

The pilot were suffering from an optical illusion. They believed it was a must larger aircraft much further away and incorrectly estimated its speed, distance and altitude. In short, nothing they claim they saw should be given any credence. But as most people figure out with time, cops routinely exaggerate.
Re:Jurisdiction by slimjim8094 · 2014-07-10 12:05 · Score: 1

It's much easier to estimate altitude. Speed and distance, sure, but if it's at your level (i.e., the horizon - which is what you spend your days looking at if you're flying VFR) it must be approximately at your altitude. Even 100 feet of altitude is enough to make something visibly below or above you. So if the chopper was at 2000 (plausible clearance for that part of the river) and he saw something at his altitude, I'm willing to believe the drone was at 2000. The illusion may be responsible for the "rapid" climb - it's possible it was only a few hundred feet.
I concur with the GP. These idiots were lucky their toy didn't get sucked into a heavy's turbine on approach to LGA. I fly in this area with my Cessna 172 and it wouldn't do my plane any good to hit this thing at 110 knots. Probably go right through the windshield and into my head, or dent a wing or wreck a prop. I'd be pretty pissed if I was in the bravo and some traffic nobody knew about ran into me - that's why I got the Bravo clearance, to avoid that crap!
If I bust a Bravo, I'm in some deep shit. Wonder what the FAA will do to these guys? They don't have any cert to revoke, but I believe the FAA can levy fines...

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 12:53 · Score: 0

You most likely have about an equal chance of hitting a bird as one of these things. Both a bird and a drone like this are about the same size and mass. Assuming the pilot isn't purposefully trying to crash into you and occupying no more space than a bird does the chance of a collision between with either object are roughly the same.
Re:Jurisdiction by rahvin112 · 2014-07-10 12:56 · Score: 1

I sincerely doubt the controls on that drone would work at nearly half a mile altitude in one of the most congested radio locations in the US. For one thing the GW bridge is NOT 2000 feet in the air and they said it was near the GW bridge. If "near" is 2000' feet away I'm smokey the bear. The pilots also said the drone did a mach 0.9 climb. Again bullshit. Every measurement they gave is suspect because of those two items. The cops lied on their police report and said the drone approached them when the reverse is true. For that reason every claim in the charging document should be thrown out automatically.
If these drone pilots (and I mean if, the police statements are lies and should be treated as such) violated FAA rules they should be punished by the FAA, not local law enforcement. My reading of the transcript says they wanted to punish these guys so they made something up probably not realizing the transcript would prove them to be liars. If the cops thought the guys were violating FAA rules they should have contacted the FAA and let them investigate and punish the drone pilots.
As it is the cops in question should be fired and charged for making a false police report.
Re:Jurisdiction by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 13:05 · Score: 1

I disagree, an object that you believe to be much further away than it really is becomes very difficult to measure the altitude of. As proof, he estimated it climbed 2000' in 2 secs. Since it clearly did not, he either got the time wildly wrong or he very inaccurately measured it's altitude. I think it is clear he wasn't accurate in his altitude estimates and, as I said previously, nothing the pilot claimed should be given any credence.
Re:Jurisdiction by slimjim8094 · 2014-07-10 13:53 · Score: 1

The pilot was almost certainly at 2000 feet. The transcript doesn't show it, but if you listen to the recording (it's near the beginning) he was cleared down to that altitude. And for whatever he took off to look for in the first place, he probably didn't want to be much higher than 2000. So it would've been at his altitude, which is what I was saying it's much easier to estimate regardless of distance. He didn't say "it was at 2000 feet (and I'm somewhere else)", he said "it was (at my altitude, and I'm) at 2000 feet". It's like - it might be hard to tell the height difference between two buildings from the ground, but from the top of one it becomes much easier. Look out, and does it go above the horizon or not? That's what you do in an aircraft.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Jurisdiction by slimjim8094 · 2014-07-10 14:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm sorry, I'm not usually so harsh, but this is all completely wrong. I'm choosing to believe that you are just completely ignorant of aviation (most people are, I don't hold it against you). But please know the limitations of your knowledge especially when it comes to highly specialized fields with its own rules, customs, language, procedures, etc.
1) 1/2 mile line of sight is no problem for virtually any radio, not even for you cheap-ass blister pack FRS radios. Hell WiFi would probably work alright.
2) Nobody said the GWB was 2000 feet in the air. Listen to the radio recording, the guy was cleared for an altitude of 2000 feet (well, at or above, but for his purposes he wanted to be low). The GWB is how he's identifying his position to ATC - it's a VFR waypoint and mandatory reporting point for that part of the river. You're interpreting the "near" thing in the strangest way possible, at least in an aviation sense. Later on he mentions being at 800-1000 feet but that was much later.
3) They said nothing about Mach numbers. The guy thought he was looking at some military aircraft that was rather further away (and larger) than a tiny drone within tens of feet. The perspective information told him that the thing was basically coming from the ground, but it was probably just a few hundred feet below his altitude or less. Such a climb would certainly appear to be extremely fast if you were interpreting it as being some distance away. You know that commercial jets are going like 500 knots at 30,000 feet but they don't look that fast from the ground? Same phenomenon. This is one of a number of sensory illusions in aviation, most of which are more prevalent at night (this was midnight local time). People just aren't very good at dealing with large expanses of 3D in which things can be (almost) arbitrarily positioned - we do better with 2D and ballistics, which makes sense given our background, but isn't particularly useful for flight.
4) His "measurements" don't seem to be relevant to the arrest so I don't know why them being suspect matters very much. Knowing something is above, below, or at the horizon isn't a measurement - it's looking out the window. And if you're at 2000 feet, that's how you decide something is at 2000 feet. I'll admit that his relative measures are more suspect, as I'd expect them to be at night - but again they don't seem relevant. It's certainly far from evidence that they're deliberately trying to lie to arrest this guy. People fly into mountains because of these kinds of sensory illusions, you think they're just screwing with people when they do so? People really are eviscerating this pilot assuming he's their worst impression of a corrupt cop - if he's even a sworn officer, it's probably name only. I'd be surprised if he'd ever cuffed someone in his life.
5) Everyone seems to be repeating that the police approached the drone. Sorry, where is this coming from? That terrible Vice "article"? It has no citation for this, aside from the accused, and the transcript doesn't support it. Sorry to call you out specifically, since everybody's doing it, but I've seen no evidence of this particular statement. (Aside: it's pretty sad when the NY Post is far more informative than something at least trying to be legitimate.)
6) Every pilot knows everything is recorded, always. Everything. Always. The radios are recorded. All radar everywhere is recorded. The phones are recorded. If I call to get a damn weather briefing, it's recorded. The idea that they'd be surprised that there's a recording is beyond laughable.
I agree that this is more a FAA matter than a police matter. The police have no jurisdiction in the air, but that said the perpetrators were not in the air. This is, funnily enough, an area that the FAA is working on clarifying. That said, these guys should be happy that the city cops are the ones they're dealing with - the FAA would be substantially more unpleasant.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 16:10 · Score: 0

The cops' initial assessment of 2000 feet was based on their initial belief that the drone was a full sized vehicle.
And the drone went from Spuyten Duyvil (a bridge across the Harlem River) to the GWB; which makes far more sense than the East River, which is a least two miles away from Fort Tryon Park.
Re: Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 03:56 · Score: 0

It's much easier to estimate altitude. Speed and distance, sure, but if it's at your level (i.e., the horizon - which is what you spend your days looking at if you're flying VFR) it must be approximately at your altitude. Even 100 feet of altitude is enough to make something visibly below or above you. So if the chopper was at 2000 (plausible clearance for that part of the river) and he saw something at his altitude, I'm willing to believe the drone was at 2000. The illusion may be responsible for the "rapid" climb - it's possible it was only a few hundred feet.
They were tricked into believing that it HAD to be at 2000 feet because they assumed it was a plane and, relative to its size, it was moving extremely fast. Cop throws out a ballpark figure of 1000 feet per second, times two, it HAD to be at about 2000 feet.
When in reality, it was much smaller than he assumed, and therefore also moving much slower than he assumed, and therefore didn't HAVE to be at 2000' feet.
So now you're faced with the question: was the cop going off his very first gut impression, or did he stop to logically think it out and say "an object at my altitude will be above the horizon, so is that object above the horizon?"
My theory is that it was the former.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by BradleyUffner · 2014-07-10 08:26 · Score: 1

No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

So would flying them over a large body of mostly unoccupied water be ok? Like perhaps a river that's 2/3 of a mile wide?

You can clearly hear in the recording that it went between buildings. It wasn't constantly over the water.

The bigger issue here is the so called "reporting" by rallytales · 2014-07-10 08:42 · Score: 1

NYPD said the two flew their drone "very close" to a law enforcement chopper

NY Post or National Enquirer? I honestly thought I was reading the latter.

Unfortunately this is what the mainstream news media picks up on and thus what the average person sees and hears.

This anti-"drone" hyperbole will only grow with each "incident" (real or contrived) and with multi-rotor R/C machines being all the rage and easy for a novice to fly, there will be more incidents.

+1 nicely stated by careysb · 2014-07-10 08:46 · Score: 2

+1 nicely stated

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by sjames · 2014-07-10 08:49 · Score: 1

Wasn't the drone flying over a river?

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by PRMan · 2014-07-10 08:55 · Score: 1

Until last week with the Supreme Court's "Looks like a duck" ruling.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Lights and Siren? by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · 2014-07-10 08:59 · Score: 1

I hope the helicopter had those operating. That would make everything legal.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by apraetor · 2014-07-10 09:05 · Score: 1

And everything that falls outside both lists is left to the States to decide.

Re:Collision unlikely by Technician · 2014-07-10 09:22 · Score: 1

A crash is almost not possible unless the drone is way above the chopper and gets pulled down in the wash. A chopper chasing a drone will catch it in the down draft and get tossed under it. The police chopper was in no real danger if they had a visual on it.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by tomhath · 2014-07-10 09:25 · Score: 2

People have been killed by remote controlled model airplanes an several occasions

Re:So DON'T GIVE CHASE by Platinumrat · 2014-07-10 09:29 · Score: 4, Informative

In Australia the doctrine is Police do not give chase, EVER! If the suspect's car starts speeding, they have strict protocols in place to back off, radio in the situation and follow from a safe distance

Studies have shown that chasing only escalates the danger to property and the public. So the correct response, is to radio in for support and do everything to protect life and property. They can't really outrun a radio.

There was a recent, going back a few years now, chase that took five days from when they first attempted to stop a car, to the actual capture. There were gaps, but police had photos, videos, registration plates and descriptions of the suspects. They knew it was only a matter of time before the suspects would be caught.

And guess what, not a single shot was fired

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:32 · Score: 0

This thinking that everything not explicitly listed as unlawful is legal is a strange one - and simply not true.

What?
That is exactly how the law works.
If there is no law against it, it is legal.
There is no list of things that are legal.
There is the list of things that are illegal, and everything else is legal.

Re:Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:38 · Score: 0

Or maybe they just have different priorities than you do

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Bob9113 · 2014-07-10 09:39 · Score: 2

the Constitution is a blacklist of things government is not allowed to do, not a whitelist of things Citizens ARE allowed to do.

I get your sentiment, and support it, but I must quibble on a minor point: The main body of the Constitution is a whitelist of duties the government is charged with, and the means for doing so. The first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, is a blacklist of things the government is forbidden from doing without a constitutional amendment. The 9th and 10th amendments specify that the Bill of Rights, being a blacklist, is not to be interpreted as a whitelist of citizen rights.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 09:43 · Score: 0

From your post it is clear that you believe the statement about the drone flying at 2000' is truthful. Then it stands to reason that you also believe that the drone did a vertical climb in excess of 1000km/h. Please elaborate on the feasibility of that.

Re:Collision unlikely by Aighearach · 2014-07-10 09:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Helicopters might not be nearly as robust as you assume. They might in fact be very touchy, and prone to a wide variety of damage.

And what if that down-draft flips the drone over and it catches an eddy? It could easily get blown up by air being forced down, even if most of the time it would get blown down.

Sounds about right by Jeremy+Erwin · 2014-07-10 10:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you're assaulted by the police, they'll most likely charge you with assault.

Re:Sounds about right by messymerry · 2014-07-11 07:03 · Score: 1

Gorram perp assaulted my fist with his face. I feared for my life so I had to shoot himi dead. Let's go get some donuts and make up some filler for the probable cause affadavit...

--
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 10:26 · Score: 1

People have been killed by automobiles on more than several occasions. There are about 100 childhood drownings in buckets, bathtubs, toilets and water features around homes every year. The most recent, of the quite rare, incidents in the US of remote controlled model plane deaths were helicopters that have quite long, very fast rotating, dangerous blades. The drone in this article isn't going to chop off your head or your arms or probably anything else.

firefighters: not fighting fires as much by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 10:49 · Score: 0

Firefighters risk their lives on every call and are protected by nothing more than a thick coat and helmet and their brains.

Not really.

In Toronto, Canada at least, the majority of dispatches for firefighters are for medical calls. The paramedics/EMS folks and fire department have gotten in a bit of a pissing match in recent years because of the funding imbalance:

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/random-stuff-informer/2011/07/18/fire-vs-ems/

Despite fires dropping by 50% over the last few decades, the fire department has actually tripled, while EMS hasn't grown much—despite getting more calls.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar in other jurisdictions: building codes and constructions techniques have lowered fire risks. However, with an aging population (on average) in North American, medical issues are rising.

As for the police: crime rates have been dropping for decades. They can probably be scaled back as well.

Re:firefighters: not fighting fires as much by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:39 · Score: 1

Yes, and where I live the paramedics are more likely to get to the scene of an accident, homicide or assault before any cops. Our paramedics wear bulletproof vests.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:firefighters: not fighting fires as much by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 10:09 · Score: 0

Yes, and where I live the paramedics are more likely to get to the scene of an accident, homicide or assault before any cops. Our paramedics wear bulletproof vests.
Good point. I wonder if swapping most law enforcement firearms for cameras and arming the firefighters and ambulances with locked up rifles would be a better form of governance. As long as the rifles are inexpensive and well locked they won't be stolen. A minute to lock them is still a better response time than the cops manage in a mass shooting event, etc.
Most cops never fire their guns while working their shifts, so it might result in a more respectful society all around. I think we'd have a less unnecessary violence if people learned they might be able to outshoot a random patrol, but they won't outrun motorola. As for regular firearm justified law enforcement, let the guys who've been willing to walk unarmed for five, ten years volunteer for those squads. Maybe then we won't feel a need to send SWAT teams to arrest unpaid parking ticketees:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/79471310/sending-swat-team-collect-parking-ticket

Cops Civlians by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:04 · Score: 0

Filing a false report is a very serious charge as a civilian -- it should be even worse when a couple of cops do it.

Don't be fooled by the popular usage, Cops are civilians too.

When they call people "civilians" I think it's partly because they need a nice vague word to use when addressing people... and partly because it's a self-serving way to puff up with quasi-military glamor.

Wow, 1,364 mph? Supersonic at Mach 1.8? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:09 · Score: 0

To put that in perspective, the officer claimed it rose at about 1,364 miles per hour, a supersonic speed of about Mach 1.8.

Re: Wow, 1,364 mph? Supersonic at Mach 1.8? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 08:45 · Score: 0

They claimed 2000 feet in 2 seconds, only 1000 FPS. You're off by a factor of 2. 1000 FPS is about 681 MPH, or Mach 0.9.

Of course not by gelfling · 2014-07-10 11:15 · Score: 1

It's just more COP-RULES where everything everyone does everywhere at all times is HyperMegaSuperFelony where you run the risk of exterminating all life on earth if you're not arrested and given a trillion dollar bail. Jeez don't you follow the news? Can't even FILM cops w/o the Antarctic Ice Sheet falling the fuck off and drowning 1 million babies.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Obfuscant · 2014-07-10 11:16 · Score: 2

Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area

But there is. 14CFR91 is the basic regulation of aviation. It applies to:

Â91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

No exemption for unmanned aircraft. And aircraft are defined as:

Â1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That includes "drones". As for the "VFR separation rules" some others keep mentioning, here it is:

Â91.111 Operating near other aircraft. (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

Now, if the drone operator did a 180 to fly back over the helicopter, then the drone pilot broke this rule. Was he breaking any other rules prior to that?

Â91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

The bridge is a pretty tall structure, and I think New York City constitutes a congested area. If the drone was not higher than the bridge by at least 1000 feet, he's breaking this rule.

What about the helicopter? Continuing:

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surfaceâ" (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA

Since the helicopter pilot was in contact with ATC, one can assume that the FAA was ok with this.

In short, helicopters have a different set of rules than other aircraft, and drones are covered by exiting regulations.

Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space -

I really can't figure out what you are referring to here. What is "reversing in ones car"? Sitting backwards? Or parking on-street opposite the flow of traffic?

Re:So DON'T GIVE CHASE by Atzanteol · 2014-07-10 11:22 · Score: 1

You call that good TV???

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin

Impressive climb rate for a drone....or a UFO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:33 · Score: 0

ATC should have responded with "a 2000 ft climb less than 3 seconds is close to the speed of sound, are we talking about a UFO here?" What an idiot pilot.

Please tell me... by joocemann · 2014-07-10 11:43 · Score: 1

... that the Policemen involved will be charged with fraud or lying of some sort.

Please tell me that the police are not immune to law.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:45 · Score: 0

Ummmm, you might want to check reality. If you're charged with something, the first thing they have to tell you is what law you broke. If they can't name a law you broke, they have nothing to charge you with. Thus, anything there is no law for, they can't charge you for. For reversing a car in, I've never heard of anybody getting charged with anything for that, but my guess would be it'd be obstructing traffic if you take too long. RC aircraft, yeah, that's legal. Again, never heard of anybody getting in trouble for that unless they go into restricted air space.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 11:48 · Score: 0

I've only heard of that happening once. A guy flew it at his own head as a stunt and a poorly timed down draft caused it to not react like he was planning.

You can't hold the actions of idiots against the general population.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by DRAGONWEEZEL · 2014-07-10 11:55 · Score: 1

While most of your points are legit, I think we need to start making a distinction, you apply the Rules in two different ways against the "model aircraft" please stop calling these things drones.

Is a quad, hex, or octo copter a helicopter? is a model helicopter a helicopter? back in the day unmanned aircraft were still fixed wing, it wasn't until controllers became inexpensive that the idea of quads started to come to light.

FAA is already trying to impose some pretty severe restrictions against modelers.

--
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.

Everyone here is embarassing themselves by slimjim8094 · 2014-07-10 12:45 · Score: 1

I thought folks around here were supposed to be smart, not knee-jerk paranoids. I've seen very few comments from anyone with anything substantive to add - for the most part, just a bunch of people scoring points with the crowd by talking about "cops are all fuckin' pigs, man".

Has anybody actually listened to the linked recording? Or read the transcript on the Vice thing (the article is a crock of shit but the transcript seems accurate)? It doesn't indicate much of anything regarding the physical movement of the chopper, much less that the police helicopter chased them. The only reference to the position of the helicopter is "We are going to stay here and figure out where he puts it." and directing ground units (you know, police cars) to the place it landed. Much has been made of the "0 to 2000" thing too, which is pretty stupid of the pilot to say - but realize that that's before he thinks it's a drone, he thinks it's some military aircraft much further away. Within 50 feet, a small drone would absolutely look like it came from nowhere and climbed extremely quickly, if you were looking miles out for other aircraft. And if you're flying an aircraft mantaining visual separation, that's exactly what you're doing.

I mean honestly. I know this site's gone downhill recently but this is worse than Reddit. I know there's a lot of people here who are really hot for drones, but I fly in this country's airspace along with about 350,000 other people and I really don't want one of these things blasting through my window, or fucking up my prop, or denting a wing. Birds scare me enough - and I do know people who've had birds come through their windshield and knock them out while flying (both OK, thankfully - they regained consciousness a few seconds later in a slow spiraling descent). These drones are like birds with more metal. I, and every other certificated pilot, spent about 60 hours learning how to fly and a big part of that is all the rules and airspace classifications and so on - how much do you want to bet that these guys knew they'd busted a Bravo airspace and what that means in terms of safety? (Hint: you can't be in a Bravo without a clearance, so there's no surprise encounters at hundreds of knots closing speed - unless some drone shows up in front of you!) Do you think all these guys are mantaining at least 3 mile visibility, and staying 500' below, 1000' above, and 2000' horizontally clear of clouds (Class E VFR minimums)? Do you think they care, or are even curious if there's a cloud clearance requirement, or know anything about the difference between class E and class G airspace and when it starts?

Seriously. I see the same shit on here whenever there's a story about laser pointers and planes. All of you, go to your nearby airport, find a flight school, and do an intro flight. It's like $70, they'll let you fly the plane, it's really cool. But notice that these planes aren't tanks, and there's no failsafe like in your car. You can't just hit the brakes and have a good chance of everything working out alright. If something comes through the window of your car and knocks you out, you'll probably be basically OK - but it's a guaranteed fatality in an airplane. If some idiot blinds you with a laser pointer in your car and you can't see, same thing - just hit the brakes in a car, but also a guaranteed fatality in an airplane.

I mean really. Sorry for the rant but this is just out of hand.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.

Re:Everyone here is embarassing themselves by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 13:09 · Score: 1

I read the article, the police claimed the drone approached them, the pilots of the drone say their video shows it was not the case at all. That coupled with the wildly inaccurate claims of the helicopter pilot lead to the simple conclusion that he wasn't speaking the truth. While it is nice of you to spout a bunch of pilot stuff, the simple fact is that even the FAA says if you follow some simple rules all that other stuff simply doesn't apply to model aircraft operators. Your quad copter pilot flying at 300' doesn't have to comply with or know the difference between class E and class G airspace.
Re:Everyone here is embarassing themselves by slimjim8094 · 2014-07-10 15:00 · Score: 1

Alright then. Let's see the video and cut all this other bullshit. We're all wasting our time listening to this he-said-she-said.
I will say that it's hard to believe that the drone was below 300'. Those things can go much higher than 300' (citation) so their lawyer is wrong when he says it's impossible. And if you believe the chopper pilot at all (you don't, I know - see below) it's hard to conclude that this guy wasn't at least above 1000 feet.
People are extremely quick to conclude that this guy is deliberately lying out of malice (because... you know, how could the police do otherwise?), when the much simpler explanation is that he's suffering from a sensory illusion and/or telling the truth (probably a combination). This chopper pilot may be a sworn officer, but probably hasn't ever arrested anyone in their life. Lots of cops (not the majority) are basically bullies who wanted to find a way to beat people up after high school, and fancy themselves the "thin blue line" and so on. This guy spends his days flying around, watching cars trying to flee and pointing lights at people trying to flee and so on and trying to direct units on the ground. What, precisely, is his motive for this malicious and planned setup? Honestly I think he was pissed about someone interfering with his safety and wanted them stopped before they hurt someone. I would be too - and in fact, I was last week when I was trying to land while backyard fireworks were coming up into the approach path. (The tower sent the police over to have a chat with them.)
I'm going to harp on this. What's the logic? As far as I can tell, it's:
a) Pilot says some stuff and his numbers are wrong in ways that are at least mostly explainable as an illusion
b) The accused say "no, that's not true" and their lawyer lies about the whole thing being impossible anyway (the 300' nonsense)
c) Therefore, the pilot deliberately fabricated things to get them arrested.
I don't see how that follows. Even if you forego the malice and say that he was arrested because the guy got the numbers wrong, that doesn't appear to be what happened (please, citations if I'm wrong - I may be). The arrest appears to be for doing something dangerous - I don't see how the specific altitude was relevant to the charge.
But you're right, there's a lot of questions about what exactly happened here... if only we had a system for discovering the truth about criminal incidents and deciding what to do...

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re: Everyone here is embarassing themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 03:59 · Score: 0

I do know people who've had birds come through their windshield and knock them out while flying (both OK, thankfully - they regained consciousness a few seconds later in a slow spiraling descent).
I seriously doubt that the bird and the pilot were both OK after that little encounter.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 14:09 · Score: 0

Oh my god. Imagine the smear it would have left on the side of a building if it hit it!

The cops should be fired, charged, and jailed. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 14:27 · Score: 0

Cops do this all the time, and no one in authority cares. No one. Zero. Nada. Welcome to the new American police state where cops get away with pretty much everything a lot more often than not.

Re:So DON'T GIVE CHASE by Runaway1956 · 2014-07-10 14:34 · Score: 2

The US was beginning to move in that direction several years back. My memory is a bit foggy - it seems like California was leading the way, and maybe a couple of New England states. Time frame would have been the latter half of the '90's. Then, 9/11/01 happened, and cops were given carte blanche. At some point, fleeing and evading the police was made a felony, so that a cop could just shoot to kill anyone who attempted to flee.

IMHO, giving chase is often justified - but no one can justify chasing a bad guy into and through a school zone, or a hospital zone at insane speeds.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:41 · Score: 1

It's not legal. Nor is it legal to fly your helicopter in the vicinity of the other illegally operating vehicle. An illegal act does not justify another illegal act.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by naughtynaughty · 2014-07-10 14:42 · Score: 1

Congress explicitly exempted small radio controlled model aircraft that follow certain guidelines from what you are quoting.

Re:The bigger issue here is the so called "reporti by tompaulco · 2014-07-10 14:54 · Score: 1

Just like when a cop gets right up on your bumper to read your license plate before pulling you over. If you had to stop quickly due to some emergency in the road ahead and the copy smacked into you, you will be charged with driving too close to the officer.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

i applaud the chutzpah. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 14:55 · Score: 0

It is this kind of creativity that allows the u.s. Prison system to be the best and most profitable in the world. In other news Palestinian terrorists were arrested today after the fiends decided to unlawefully place their home n front of an israely bulldozer, knowing full well that such an obstruction was likely to interfere with its safe and efficient operation. Closer to home a deranged man was arrested to domestic abuse and battery after his head unlawfully intercepted his wife's fist causing bruised knuckles upon the part of the innocent wife.

Re: Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 15:53 · Score: 0

And you're not too stupid to see through yours. See, that's the problem... Your take away is that you're right and that everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong. You're no different with your BS, you just inserted it in a different manner in a different part of the conversation.

As much as you beat your chest and like to think yourself more rationale or more intelligent than your opposition, the reality is that there is more gray area in life than we'd like -> and the sad reality is that you probably don't truly live out the life you should based on the beliefs you espouse.

Oops, started reading the comments.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 16:18 · Score: 0

Ooops, started reading the comments (slap). Gotta stop myself doing that....

Re:Oops, started reading the comments.... by messymerry · 2014-07-11 04:27 · Score: 1

Here, let me help,,, slap slap slap. There, I feel better now.

--
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!

Re:Fix this like we fix education by phantomfive · 2014-07-10 18:21 · Score: 1

I'm just going to say that if we privatized it, you wouldn't need to deal with people trolling like that on slashdot et al. Your problem solved.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:So DON'T GIVE CHASE by Zeddicus_Z · 2014-07-10 18:35 · Score: 1

As an Australian I can tell you this is categorically untrue. Each state or territory in Australia has its own state-based police force. Each force has its own policy on high speed chases. In New South Wales (where I live) the NSW Police Force allows officers to pursue vehicles in certain circumstances. Individual officers are supposed to continuously evaluate the situation and call off any pursuit should it become too dangerous to the public. From what one reads in the papers this occurs from time to time. However, every few years or so innocent people are killed in accidents which occur during high speed police pursuits. These accidents are almost always caused by the fleeing vehicle.

--
Janie took my gun...

Re:Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 18:51 · Score: 0

I do so enjoy a good, "SHUT THE FUCK UP". Carry on!

Re:So DON'T GIVE CHASE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 18:58 · Score: 0

And how do you make a movie out of that???

Re: Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-10 20:21 · Score: 0

Nice contradiction in the middle there, smart guy.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by EmagGeek · 2014-07-10 22:54 · Score: 2

You are absolutely right. I should have thought a bit more about my comment, because it is absolutely both a white list and a black list. Thanks for pointing that out!

Drone position log? by Peter+Simpson · 2014-07-10 23:14 · Score: 2

Do these drones keep a log or recording of their flight path? That would be interesting to present at the trial.

Re:Drone position log? by messymerry · 2014-07-11 06:38 · Score: 1

They can if they are GPS equipped. Devices like this are well established as they are used by glider pilots to document their flghts.

--
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!

Not a drone by crmanriq · 2014-07-11 00:17 · Score: 2

Even under the FAA's proposed new stricter definition, what these guys were flying was NOT a drone. It was a model aircraft.

Ãoe(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.Ã

As a model aircraft, it is outside of FAA flight rules. (The FAA published suggested guidelines, but these do not carry any enforcement weight as they are only recommendations.)

--
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

Re:Not a drone by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 13:52 · Score: 0

Doesn't matter what the hell it is, you don't do that in Class B airspace without permission. Ever. End of story, no matter model aircraft, drone, model rocket, etc. I think NYPD should just turn them over to FAA for Federal charges and fines that will stick.

The NYPD Being Aggressive, Lying Douchebags? by hduff · 2014-07-11 00:35 · Score: 1

That's not news, even for Slashdot. The NYPD has a long history of egregious, illegal and violent behavior. It's almost a tradition for them.

The drone is just lucky the police helicopter did not have a toilet plunger handy.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert

courtroom credibity on other cases by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 01:09 · Score: 0

Ha ha - I'm sure such discussion of falsifying a report will and should be raised by the defense if these same police officers are ever testifying on any other cases.

The biggest f-up is not being at risk of charges for filing a false report, it's losing all your courtroom credibity on any other case that you've ever worked on.

Re: Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 03:30 · Score: 0

Then they need to learn that the rest of the world does not necessarily revolve around them and their priorities.

Creative writing by messymerry · 2014-07-11 04:19 · Score: 1

I took a course in creative writing once. It was called "Probable Cause Affadavits 101". The executive and legislative branche are contemptable liars, but justice always seems to get a pass. Why is that????

--
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by BradleyUffner · 2014-07-11 05:01 · Score: 1

Oh my god. Imagine the smear it would have left on the side of a building if it hit it!

The problem is more the smear on the sidewalk left when it falls on some 5 year old's head from 400 feet up.

Re: Obligatory Car Analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-11 05:48 · Score: 0

This thinking that everything not explicitly listed as unlawful is legal is a strange one - and simply not true.

Yes it is. And since you didn't quote one iota of fact, I don't think your silly comment requires much more than a "nu-huh".

Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area doesn't mean one is allowed to.

Unless there is some broader law that somehow applies to the situation (like, reckless endangerment) - then yes, just because there is no law means that yes, you are allowed to.

Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space - but one can still be arrested for doing that in some situations.

I'm assuming that you mean parking on the wrong side of the street, so your car is backward in relation to the way it should be parked?

No, I'm pretty sure you cannot be arrested, but there totally is a law for it. Your car can be ticketed, and possibly towed, because most places have a law that specifically requires you to park your car within a certain distance of the right-hand side of the street (the side to which traffic normally drives, so it'd be the left-hand side in locations where vehicles drive to the left side). Say for example that the law states that cars must be parked within 18 inches of the right-hand kerb. If the right-hand kerb (or edge of the street, if there isn't any kerb) is more than 18 inches away from the right-hand side of your car, your car is parked illegally. Plain and simple.

I suppose if they're feeling particularly unfriendly they can just watch until you get into your car and try to drive away, then nab you with both a non-moving violation for the way you parked, and a moving violation for driving wrong-way in the lane as you exited your illegally-parked spot.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by messymerry · 2014-07-11 06:32 · Score: 1

Government drones excepted of course.

This wasn't a drone, it was a model aircraft.

--
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Obfuscant · 2014-07-11 06:47 · Score: 1

please stop calling these things drones.

I'm using the term that was used in the summary, which was almost certainly a quote from TFA.

Is a quad, hex, or octo copter a helicopter?

If this thing was large enough to be hovering near the bridge and visible to the pilot of the police helicopter, it was almost certainly not a toy or model aircraft, so yes, in this case, it was a helicopter.

FAA is already trying to impose some pretty severe restrictions against modelers.

There is no indication that this was a "toy" or "model" aircraft. I would also appreciate a citation from the other commenter who said that toys were exempted from this, to see if the exemption covers something as large as this apparently was.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Obfuscant · 2014-07-11 09:22 · Score: 1

I read TFA. It was a Phantom. Yes, it's a toy. BUT, the exemption applies only to toys that are flown with visual contact. I.e., a tiny thing like this, two miles away, isn't being flown under visual control. The camera that it carries points only one way, and if the police helicopter approached from the rear the operators would not have seen it. It is quite possible that they did a 180 and flew back over the police helicopter (as the transcript from ATC says). If they did that, while not under visual control, and could have been sucked down into the chopper blades, it was reckless. It wasn't the police fault that they turned and flew back over, it was theirs, and it was only because they didn't actually have their aircraft in sight the whole time.

Also, the statement by the chopper pilot that he didn't know what to charge them with is irrelevant. He's not the one who arrested them, and he may not know the exact crime that was committed. He doesn't have to.

Re:Obligatory Car Analogy by Obfuscant · 2014-07-11 11:52 · Score: 1

Congress explicitly exempted small radio controlled model aircraft that follow certain guidelines from what you are quoting.

This was not a model aircraft. It was a toy. And one of the guidelines is it must remain in sight of the pilot, which this one didn't.

Re:Fix this like we fix education by drainbramage · 2014-07-13 15:27 · Score: 1

Thank you for the well reasoned response.
Always nice to meet a well educated gentleman.
Oh, and thanks for proving my statement, your mommy must be very proud.

--
No brain, no pain.

Re: Fix this like we fix education by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 02:49 · Score: 0

Are you always this fun at parties?

Slashdot Mirror

Police Recording Confirms NYPD Flew At a Drone and Never Feared Crashing

310 comments