Houston PD secretly tests unmanned aircraft ...

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
but the local TV station was there to spoil the secrecy. If you don't think a police state is coming ...

THE VIDEO

THE STORY

Local 2 Investigates Police Secrecy Behind Unmanned Aircraft Test
By Stephen Dean

POSTED: 9:03 am CST November 21, 2007
WALLER COUNTY, Texas -- Houston police started testing unmanned aircraft and the event was shrouded in secrecy, but it was captured on tape by Local 2 Investigates.

Neighbors in rural Waller County said they thought a top-secret military venture was under way among the farmland and ranches, some 70 miles northwest of Houston. KPRC Local 2 Investigates had four hidden cameras aimed at a row of mysterious black trucks. Satellite dishes and a swirling radar added to the neighbors' suspense.

Then, cameras were rolling as an unmanned aircraft was launched into the sky and operated by remote control.

...

Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by Montalvo.

<more>
 
No different than something I've noticed over the last few years and leaves me scratching my head.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, the local and surrounding county police departments, along with the State Patrol, sent a news release that increased checkpoints for DUI and speeding would be set up. This was being done, auspiciously, to "increase public safety".

At the bottom of the online edition of the local fish wrapper, you could click to find out where these checkpoints would be.

Umm...
 
No different than something I've noticed over the last few years and leaves me scratching my head.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, the local and surrounding county police departments, along with the State Patrol, sent a news release that increased checkpoints for DUI and speeding would be set up. This was being done, auspiciously, to "increase public safety".

At the bottom of the online edition of the local fish wrapper, you could click to find out where these checkpoints would be.

Umm...

Welcome to Amerika.
 
It's the law... same reason a police cruiser sitting there looking for something has to have some lights on. They have to publicize where the checkpoints will be a certain number of hours before it begins. But most drunk people would probably forget about the checkpoints anyway.

My favorite is when the cops say they're going to crack down on speeding on South River Road and not staying stopped for pedestrians in the crosswalk until they're all the way to the other sidewalk and off the road before speeding away on Spring Street... that means I should speed on Spring Street and stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk on South River Road. :D
 
Exactly how is this any different from a police helicopter in the air?

You can see and hear a helicopter. Not so with these UAVs.

The story states this:
HPD Assistant Chief Vickie King said of the unmanned aircraft, "It's interesting that privacy doesn't occur or searches aren't an issue when you have a helicopter pilot over you and it would not be used in airspace other than what our helicopters are used in already."

She admitted that police helicopters are not equipped with cameras nearly as powerful as the unmanned aircraft, but she downplayed any privacy concerns, saying news helicopters have powerful cameras as well.

So nah-nee, nah-nee they have 'em too is the mantra but what she fails to mention is that those news helicopters do not have FLIR and night vision as police helicopters do.
 
Wanna lay money on that one?

So the major beef with this is that the UAV is quieter than a helo? Shall we tramp out the environmentalists to discuss the reduced noise pollution? How about the fuel savings by not having to lift the pilot's fat ass off the ground? Reduced cost to the tax payer? Lower maintenance costs? No? Noone want to discuss the possible good points?
 
This has been done it Ga. for probably the last decade.
Mostly used by the forestry service to scan for fires.

At least thats my understanding, and I think I've even seen some a couple of times.
 
It's the law... They have to publicize where the checkpoints will be a certain number of hours before it begins.

You have GOT to be shitting me.

Cops being required to have some manner of light activated I can see. Entrapment claims, blah blah blah. But they're required to tell where the checkpoints are prior to?

Ron Jeremy said:
That's fucked.
 
No shit. It's the law that they have to disclose the locations. It's usually just a few hours beforehand, so the local fish wrapper won't have it in time, but the afternoon drive time shock jocks on Radio KRAP could mention something about it.

Even with that law, the cops still manage to snag a couple of DUIs, plus other assorted offenses (non-street-legal mods on rice rockets, seat belts, etc.)
 
Wanna lay money on that one?

So the major beef with this is that the UAV is quieter than a helo? Shall we tramp out the environmentalists to discuss the reduced noise pollution? How about the fuel savings by not having to lift the pilot's fat ass off the ground? Reduced cost to the tax payer? Lower maintenance costs? No? Noone want to discuss the possible good points?

I think maybe this guy had you in mind ...

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
 
No shit. It's the law that they have to disclose the locations. It's usually just a few hours beforehand, so the local fish wrapper won't have it in time, but the afternoon drive time shock jocks on Radio KRAP could mention something about it.

Even with that law, the cops still manage to snag a couple of DUIs, plus other assorted offenses (non-street-legal mods on rice rockets, seat belts, etc.)

The cops posted a sign on the road leading to a rock concert that read "DRUG CHECKPOINT AHEAD". Of course, there was no drug checkpoint; but they stopped and searched every car that turned around and tried to leave after seeing the sign.
 
This is the part that gets me.

Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by Montalvo.


The cops can lie to us with impunity but Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart get jail sentences for lying to the cops. The cops can say anything and tell any lie even during an official criminal investigation and they are immune. Just you try that and see where it gets you.
 
Jim, go back and read what I posted, using the english language to interpret it this time. Where, exactly, did I say those were my opinions?

Not to mention that ... I'm not your countryman. And by choice won't ever be. But my country knows far more about freedom than you know. Look up the Declaration of Arbroath. Your founding fathers sure did.

Freedom. This from the country that awards damage settlements to home invaders and jails the man defending his home for discharging a firearm.
 
Jim, go back and read what I posted, using the english language to interpret it this time. Where, exactly, did I say those were my opinions?

Sorry for any offense but I have re-read and re-re-read; and it still reads like a defense of these UAVs and a call to discuss their merits. It sure sounds like a personal opinion to me.

So the major beef with this is that the UAV is quieter than a helo? Shall we tramp out the environmentalists to discuss the reduced noise pollution? How about the fuel savings by not having to lift the pilot's fat ass off the ground? Reduced cost to the tax payer? Lower maintenance costs? No? Noone want to discuss the possible good points?

Not to mention that ... I'm not your countryman. And by choice won't ever be. But my country knows far more about freedom than you know. Look up the Declaration of Arbroath. Your founding fathers sure did.

Are you free to own the firearm of your choice? Not after Dunblane, that's for sure.

Freedom. This from the country that awards damage settlements to home invaders and jails the man defending his home for discharging a firearm.

These are being addressed every day here. More and more states are passing "Castle Doctrine" laws, shall issue concealed carry laws, etc,

The lawyers screwed this up and you need to realize that you have lawyers there, too. As screwed up as we are, you could find yourself as well.

I guess I have to bring up Tony Martin at this point even though he wasn't in your particular country; but it won't be long before you have a Tony Martin of your own. Who was sentenced to life in prison for defending his home; and who got legal aid in that case when he sued Tony Martin?

TIMELINE OF MARTIN CASE

LEGAL AID FOR BURGLAR SHOT BY TONY MARTIN
 
Wanna lay money on that one?

So the major beef with this is that the UAV is quieter than a helo? Shall we tramp out the environmentalists to discuss the reduced noise pollution? How about the fuel savings by not having to lift the pilot's fat ass off the ground? Reduced cost to the tax payer? Lower maintenance costs? No? Noone want to discuss the possible good points?

No offense, Jim. I'd assumed the bolded part was sufficient. And the point is ... that there are valid defenses available for discussion where these are concerned. And that they're significantly no different from what's already available in the field .... and not only from law enforcement, but also from the paparazzi.

As for owning a gun ... living in Canada as I do now, I can pretty much own any gun I want. The LAW of the land in place today requires that I apply for a permit, but I'm fully eligible for even the most restricted classes available to the public. Naturally I'm not allowed full auto, but then, neither are you, I expect. But I'm simply more comfortable with a 70lbs bow while I've got toddlers in the house. That's the only reason I haven't applied ... yet.


As for my opinion .... sheep need a shepherd. Pure and simple. While absolute freedom and rights for all is a noble concept ... the human animal hasn't evolved anywhere need as much as is needed for that to be even remotely possible. The problem is that your shepherd hasn't evolved enough yet either. You've got wolves guarding the sheep, with just enough dogs to convince everyone that they're not only guarding their next meal from the other wolves.

Feel free to ask my opinions on what a real good gov't would be sometime.
 
Naturally I'm not allowed full auto, but then, neither are you, I expect.

Nope. We are allowed not only class III full auto firearms but silencers and destructive devices as well.

Went to the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners .50 cal meet a couple of years ago and there was a guy there who was firing a 37mm anti-tank cannon. There was also plenty of class III hardware for the public to shoot.

Here is a full auto forum you might have fun perusing.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4
 
Back
Top