[HN Gopher] The NYPD is using drones 3 times more than it did la...
___________________________________________________________________
The NYPD is using drones 3 times more than it did last year
Author : jbegley
Score : 91 points
Date : 2023-11-13 15:10 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gothamist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gothamist.com)
| mcphage wrote:
| Who manufactured their drones? The article lists one
| manufacturer, but then says the NYPD hasn't received it yet. So
| what are they flying?
| latchkey wrote:
| There are several pictures of DJI products in the article.
| erellsworth wrote:
| Ironic, considering the DOJ has labeled DJI products as a
| threat to national security.
| pc86 wrote:
| Militarized police is also a threat to national security so
| it kind of fits.
| kube-system wrote:
| Which might by why they are acquiring drones from US
| manufacturers, according to the article.
| latchkey wrote:
| Years ago, I backed a US based drone on kickstarter. It
| took forever for them to send it to me. Eventually, I
| managed to get it and I took it for one single flight and
| it went out of control and crashed itself into the side
| of a building. Somehow I eventually managed to get my
| money back, thankfully.
|
| The company realized that consumer focus was wrong
| (nobody had a good experience with their product with
| tons of complaints in user forums) and pivoted to govt
| drones because they got millions in grant funding. I
| can't imagine these guys ever producing anything even
| close to the level of quality that DJI does.
|
| Needless to say, their website hasn't really been updated
| in years. The amount of grift these guys managed to pull
| off is insane.
|
| https://vantagerobotics.com/
| Arrath wrote:
| Having used several of the drones on the DoD's 'approved
| for use on/near military property' list or whatever it's
| called these days, they are generally speaking, flying
| pieces of shit[0]. Our domestic manufacturers have some
| catching up to do.
|
| [0]Problems run the gamut from excessive bootup times to
| extraordinarily poor station-keeping/wind fighting
| ability, low speed, clunky controllers, and more!
| willk wrote:
| They article show DJI. I know the local PD's in my area are
| also using DJI.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Reminds me of this is how the police behave on getting hardware:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo63QQsm5Dw&t=72s
| ipnon wrote:
| A natural extension of the Shot Spotter system would be to
| dispatch a small drone to go collect evidence immediately. I've
| actually witnessed a drive by shooting in New York. The police
| arrived in 2 minutes but the perps were gone in 2 seconds. If a
| drone could chase after people driving around the city wantonly
| shooting guns it would greatly improve safety of neighborhoods.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong
| jeron wrote:
| they drive under a bridge and lose the suspects
|
| that or the suspects shoot at the drone, which would be
| really cyberpunk
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Or the drone shoots the suspects, which would be really
| dystopian.
|
| We have two universes: 2077 or 1984
| kube-system wrote:
| Militarized human-driven drones _have_ existed since the
| 80s.
|
| Militarized automated drones are being used _today_ , in
| the wars currently happening.
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/2278852-drones-may-
| have...
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/2282656-israel-used-
| wor...
| tootie wrote:
| Arguably the V-2 rocket was the first unmanned military
| aircraft.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Sure but there are many military weapons that are not
| used against one's own citizens
| kube-system wrote:
| Right. I'm saying, 2077 tech exists today -- just some
| places decide not to use it.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Seems... a little misleading to me. Cyberpunk's central
| technical element is without a doubt the cybernetics.
| kube-system wrote:
| We have cybernetics today too, their aesthetic style is
| just more Medtronic than it is Blade Runner.
| gustavus wrote:
| I love the idea. We could be marginally safer and all it would
| require is a constant 24/7 aerial surveillance at all times.
| I'd feel so safe and secure, it'd be like having an older
| sibling that was always there to watch over you and make you
| feel safe, like an older brother perhaps.
| neaden wrote:
| This has been tested before, here is an example:
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baltimore-maryland-to-become-
| fi... there is no legal objection to it as far as I
| understand. The quality isn't super high but it let's you
| retroactively follow vehicles to see where they have been.
| adolph wrote:
| From a June 24, 2021 ACLU press release:
|
| _BALTIMORE -- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting
| en banc,ruled today that the Baltimore Police Department's
| (BPD) aerial surveillance program, which put the daytime
| movements of virtually all Baltimore residents under
| surveillance for 12 hours a day over six months, is
| unconstitutional._
|
| https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-appeals-court-
| ru...
|
| The decision is worth a read:
|
| https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
| courts/ca4/20...
| tootie wrote:
| I mean, they do it now with noisy, expensive helicopters.
| Drones are just cheaper and quieter.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Wasn't the Shot Spotter thing pretty useless in reality though?
| theultdev wrote:
| What are you referencing? Everywhere it's installed officers
| find usefulness in triangulating where shots are popped off.
|
| The alternative is an extensive investigation which is
| difficult to determine the location, if not impossible.
|
| I don't mind these shot spotters being installed vs CCTVs as
| the microphones are really just tuned for gunshots and can
| only serve one purpose (in the current form)
| meheleventyone wrote:
| It was widely reported a few years ago that the tech was
| pretty useless for triangulation amongst a bunch of other
| worrying behavior by the company and police themselves:
| https://www.techdirt.com/2021/08/26/chicago-pd-oversight-
| say...
| theultdev wrote:
| That article is quite a mess isn't it? Seems they found
| more of a problem with the Chicago PD than ShotSpotter.
|
| > If this result is attributable in part to missing or
| nonmatched records of investigatory stops that did take
| place as a direct consequence of a ShotSpotter alert,
| CPD's record-keeping practices are obstructing a
| meaningful analysis of the effectiveness of the
| technology.
|
| Should have been the end of the article right there, but
| techdirt decided to write one anyway.
|
| And false positives really aren't that big a deal anyway.
| You get false police reports, at least with the sensors
| you can recalibrate and adjust.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| "The study, which reviewed ShotSpotter deployments for
| roughly 21 months (from July 1, 2019, through April 14,
| 2021) using data obtained from the City of Chicago, found
| that 89% of ShotSpotter's reports led police to find no
| gun-related crime and 86% turned up no crime at all,
| amounting to about 40,000 dead-end ShotSpotter
| deployments."
|
| If only we took companies out to defend their product at
| face value we could waste even more time and resources!
| theultdev wrote:
| Yes and then they go to say there's missing data for them
| to attribute investigations to ShotSpotter due to CPD's
| lack of record keeping.
|
| So much so that it's "obstructing a meaningful analysis
| of the effectiveness of the technology". Their words, not
| mine.
| meepmorp wrote:
| That would undermine the original point you made, though:
|
| > Everywhere it's installed officers find usefulness in
| triangulating where shots are popped off.
|
| At best, cops are going on 'feels' here because,
| presumably, the data aren't sufficient to provide a solid
| basis for analysis. Or the police are withholding data
| that proves the system works well, which prima facie
| seems unlikely.
| theultdev wrote:
| I've only heard anecdotes of cops saying it worked well,
| and it does seem like a good investment and an achievable
| goal.
|
| I don't know what the real numbers are, but from that
| article it seems noone does...
|
| A proper reporting of numbers would be nice.
| kube-system wrote:
| You wouldn't want to waste officers time responding to
| those calls, but sending an automated surveillance camera
| is a different use of resources. Most surveillance
| cameras spend 99.99+% of their time watching no crime
| happening.
|
| I would rather the cameras go to the gunshot noises than
| stay bolted to a pole outside my house, which is where
| they are now.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Those systems wouldn't be that automated, you'd need a
| whole fleet of techs and others to maintain them. And why
| to chase the 10% change the alert is anything at all. To
| me it sounds like the tech improvement needed in this
| situation is being applied in the wrong place.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, and they have those systems (fixed cameras,
| shotspotter, and drones) now that they maintain. We're
| just talking about using them together.
|
| Also, a faster response could result in a better rate of
| finding crime. "89% of ShotSpotter's reports led police
| to find no gun-related crime" does not equal "89% of
| reports weren't gunshots". It could be that police show
| up too late.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| > Yes, and they have those systems (fixed cameras,
| shotspotter, and drones) now that they maintain. We're
| just talking about using them together.
|
| In a sort of magical way where there is a drone that can
| easily be dispatched from within it's range that has the
| intelligence to not only navigate to the scene through a
| complex city environment but also find and gather
| evidence. I bet any current drone deployment is likely to
| be slower than dispatching people patrolling and there
| will be far fewer of them than regular cops. It's
| basically fantasy when the Shot Spotter stuff doesn't
| even seem to work.
| kube-system wrote:
| Statements like "shotspotter doesn't work" are reductive.
| Let's be specific about what it does and doesn't do. Some
| departments have found the data to not be actionable
| using current response methods. However, the systems are
| good at detecting gunshot like noises. This data is much
| more actionable for placing a camera than how cameras are
| placed today, which is "this intersection is near where
| crime happened last year, let's bolt a camera to the
| pole"
|
| Drone navigation has been progressing quite a lot over
| the past decade, and law enforcement in some places is
| _already_ using them in an automated way, as the article
| mentions. Also, the suggestion above was forward looking,
| it wasn 't suggesting that the NYPD should glue these
| systems together today.
| vkou wrote:
| > Let's be specific about what it does and doesn't do
|
| It doesn't tell a gunshot from a dumpster lid slamming
| shut.
|
| It does produce almost entirely false positives.
|
| It doesn't identify the location of a gunshot to any
| useful level of precision.
|
| I suppose if you want to start a police state, and make
| every fourth resident a cop, you might be able to
| mitigate the 90% false-positive rate, and the horrible
| location-identification rate, but at that point, do you
| even need shot-spotter?
| kube-system wrote:
| Those are exactly some of the things that augmenting the
| data with video would help to address, which was the
| point of the above suggestion.
|
| Right now, police have data about where loud sounds
| generally come from, and video from fixed poles where
| crime happened in previous years. Both of these aren't
| great data points on their own.
|
| The intersection of that data: [Video around locations
| where loud noises just happened] is probably much better
| than disjointed data points of [video of where crime
| happened in previous years] and [general locations of
| where loud sounds are happening].
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yeah, I'd be very surprised to see triangulation work
| well. When you walk around neighborhoods where all the
| buildings are four to six stories tall, you can be
| totally deceived about what direction sounds are coming
| from, because there are so many sonic reflections.
|
| If you built towers for microphone above the cityscape
| you could get an accurate triangulation, but obviously
| nobody's doing that.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| You only have two ears, very close together. Would it be
| confusing if you had 20 ears spread out all over the
| neighborhood?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yes, because the signal will be equally confusing.
|
| A sensor 4 blocks away will often record a much louder
| sound than one half a block away, because of buildings
| that are variously absorbing or reflecting sound.
|
| That makes triangulation utterly useless.
|
| You can localize to maybe a 20 square block area, but
| that's not a whole lot for cops to go on.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Loudness isn't too important - timing is. Even with the
| 4-block-away mic being on a direct line of sight, and the
| half-block-away mic being around a corner, the half-
| block-away mic will perceive the event .5s or more before
| the 4-block away mic does.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| We have a neighbouring ground-floor apartment with a hot
| tub outside and when people are out the back there it
| sounds like they are chatting right outside a second
| floor window of our house. It's pretty spooky!
| josefresco wrote:
| Hot tub acoustics are wild. When my family is using ours
| and I'm not, I can hear every single word from... inside
| the house! At least our neighborhood is getting
| entertained!
| kube-system wrote:
| As I understand, the main limitation is the speed of human
| response after the fact and the limited number of officers
| that make false positives costly to respond to. Criminals
| don't tend to stick around at the scene of a shooting, and
| you don't necessarily want to waste a bunch of officers
| responding to bad data.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think false positives was the bottleneck as much as
| the fact that data on shots fired isn't especially useful
| of actionable.
| omginternets wrote:
| It's useful as a signal to dispatch a unit.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Maybe I'm cynical, but what would be the point if The
| criminals are long gone?
|
| I live near a lot of urban gunfire and I can't imagine
| what they would do unless there is a dead body.
| theultdev wrote:
| What if the criminals aren't long gone and the gunfire
| persisted long enough to kill more innocent bystanders?
|
| What if the arrival of the police or the sound of sirens
| dispelled the gunfire early enough to save those
| bystanders?
|
| What if that body they find isn't quite dead, but
| bleeding out and they are able to save them?
| omginternets wrote:
| Right? I'm at a loss as to how someone could think an
| unhurried response to gunfire is appropriate.
| omginternets wrote:
| I can think of several things:
|
| 1. Administer first aid
|
| 2. Gather witnesses
|
| 3. Preserve evidence
|
| 4. Coordinate with other units to grid-search for
| suspicious persons or vehicles
|
| 5. In some cases, gather evidence/testimony that enables
| immediate pursuit
|
| You know... police work.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I was speaking more in a practical sense, and I think you
| are responding more in ideal sense. I agree some of those
| things would be nice.
|
| However, at some point there are too many shots to even
| show up for, let alone do the more involved tasks you
| mention, and I think this is the situations some cities
| using the service found themselves in. At that point, it
| just becomes a data collection project, with unclear
| goals.
|
| For what it is worth, I think we have ShotSpotter in my
| location, but have never seen police physically
| responding to shots fired. That is not to say it isn't
| useful in other locations
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, but the above comment is suggesting that with video,
| the data could be more actionable.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Wasn't the Shot Spotter thing pretty useless in reality
| though?
|
| Depends on what you define as "useless".
|
| It was objectively bad at identifying gunshots (the precision
| and recall were horrendous) and at reducing gun violence.
|
| But it was really good at manufacturing probable cause,
| because the false positive rate was so high that police could
| use the sound of a dumpster lid closing as a legal reason to
| detain and search anyone who they wanted in that general
| area.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Wasn't the contractor managing Shot Spotter caught
| falsifying data outright to help cops who wanted probable
| cause?
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/its-time-police-
| stop-u...
| tempodox wrote:
| Yay, and the price would only be ubiquitous surveillance of
| everyone 24/7. What a steal!
| Angostura wrote:
| How does follow, from the police deploying a drone to quickly
| react to a call? I'm all for pointing out problema, but tht
| sounds like catastrophising.
| tamimio wrote:
| Criminal shooting the drone down, while non-criminals that
| are under surveillance won't. A police person cannot look
| inside of your house without a warrant, while a flying
| drone can have a 4K of what's inside. You shouldn't be
| Identified (asked for an ID) without breaking the law,
| while a drone can record and facial recognize you without
| committing any offense. List goes on
| kube-system wrote:
| Using shotspotter to dispatch them would be a limit on the
| way video surveillance is done now, which is to just leave
| them in fixed locations to record 24/7.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Realistically as the price of this technology goes down and
| as crime continues to exist, the only actual safeguards
| against ubiquitous surveillance will be laws. There's no
| reason you couldn't have the system proposed and have
| extremely strong laws around the use and retention of the
| acquired video, e.g. the captured video can only be used in
| cases against the people who triggered the initial
| activation.
|
| Inconvenient but there's literally no other way for this to
| go. Laws are our only hope -- technology will continue on its
| march.
| ender341341 wrote:
| I had this conversation with someone recently around
| ubiquitous traffic cameras to help enforce speed limits (in
| Washington the police seem to have basically stopped
| enforcing speed laws it seems and people are getting kinda
| crazy so we were discussing alternative options like
| tracking when you get on the freeway and off and
| calculating average speed as an option), the problem is
| it's easy to write the law today in a pretty acceptable way
| "Data can only be stored for x-hours unless speeding is
| detected then it's recorded as part of the record for the
| ticket", but the problem is once the system is deployed
| it's much easier for law makers to then slowly roll back
| those protections, and some of them aren't even that
| ridiculous, like tying it to amber/silver alerts, most
| wouldn't object there, but eventually they'll try for "we
| want to keep records around so we can get a list of who was
| driving in the area of a crime", and that'll start with a
| warrant but we've seen how willing prosecutors are to
| completely ignore violations of that.
|
| Somewhat rant-y I know, but just kinda a cautionary around
| the "well we can trust the government to keep laws as
| initially written and not remove all the parts that are
| there to protect are rights".
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| not to mention shot spotters don't work
| kube-system wrote:
| Define "work".
|
| They do indicate where loud noises are happening. That's
| might not be an actionable place to send an officer 15
| minutes from now, which is the status quo, but it might be
| a great place to have drone video in 60 seconds.
| thorncorona wrote:
| > They do indicate where loud noises are happening.
|
| The point of a shot spotter is to tell the PD _where_ the
| loud noises are happening. Which the shot spotter can 't
| do effectively.
|
| If you wanted to know something was happening, people
| already phone in when gunshots are heard.
| kube-system wrote:
| Right, that is the point of the above suggestion of
| adding fast-follow video to the equation.
|
| * If all know is that a loud noise happened, in a general
| area, you don't know much.
|
| * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see a
| video of kids lighting off fireworks, you have a pretty
| good idea that it wasn't gunshots, and that it isn't
| worth sending humans.
|
| * If you know that a loud noise happened, and you see
| people with guns or people lying in the street, you may
| have a good reason to send a human response.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| I wish there was a way to send all y'all who want to live in a
| 24/7 surveillance dystopia to live in one, and leave the rest
| of us to enjoy dangerous liberty.
| pixxel wrote:
| They'd be insistent on you enjoying surveillance, too.
| psychlops wrote:
| "Cause we're all in this together!"
| salamandersss wrote:
| Plenty of rural places like that. Many on HN would call them
| unregulated shitholes but it's not hard to find a place where
| police are an hour drive away and the residents are expected
| for better or worse to handle our own business.
|
| We like it that way, and we're glad the others feel unwelcome
| here.
| kube-system wrote:
| I have lived in both places. People in both places like to
| cheerlead for their chosen way of life, convinced that they
| are right and everyone else is wrong.
|
| The truth is that rural and urban living have different
| pros and cons and different wants and needs. There's no one
| ideal way of living.
| gosub100 wrote:
| your comment could apply equally to (urban|rural) areas. I
| see no distinction, "handle our own business" could mean
| the urban credo "stop snitching". police are an hour
| (-drive) away could mean police are investigating a more
| serious offense and won't show up to your 'hood.
| sneak wrote:
| Section 702 doesn't care if you live far away from police.
| You're still under total communications and economic
| surveillance unless you ditch your phone and payment cards.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| I'm skeptical this would ever be more cost efficient than just
| a series of cameras capable of tracking cars/people/objects
| from one view to the next.
|
| The cameras would also have the benefit of footage being
| accessed after the fact in the case of a carjacking or mugging
| or whatever, even if no shot was fired.
| adolph wrote:
| Similar to the "Persistent Surveillance Systems" deployed to
| Baltimore in 2016 [0]. The hypothesis was to deploy something
| similar to the military "Gorgon Stare" [1] program
| domestically.
|
| _Wide-area motion imagery (WAMI) is an approach to
| surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence-gathering that
| employs specialized software and a powerful camera system--
| usually airborne, and for extended periods of time--to detect
| and track hundreds of people and vehicles moving out in the
| open, over a city-sized area, kilometers in diameter. For
| this reason, WAMI is sometimes referred to as wide-area
| persistent surveillance (WAPS) or wide-area airborne
| surveillance (WAAS)._ [2]
|
| 0. https://www.wired.com/story/cities-curb-surveillance-
| baltimo...
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-area_motion_imagery
| 3seashells wrote:
| Need a getaway gimmick? Buy the master laster, a remote
| detonated drive by Sounds stem guaranteed to keep the little
| blue men busy. In your dark et stores now. Certified cartel
| tech quality.
|
| Tech will never solve the root cause of America's crime
| problem, the societal level hatred for the working poor.
| tamimio wrote:
| It will be used in a mass surveillance, a criminal will not
| hesitate to shoot it or take that drone down, while the law
| abiding citizen won't.
| peder wrote:
| And they're using drones infinity more than they did before
| drones were invented
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| We'll need more "automated" policing (and everything) as a
| larger share of local budgets goes to pensions instead of
| actually providing services.
|
| Unless life expectancy ticks up, unexpectedly and dramatically,
| the share of local budgets going to pensions should plateau in
| the next 5-20 years in most places.
|
| After that - the decline in public services might finally stop.
| anttisalmela wrote:
| Entire police force of Finland (~7300) is only about fifth of
| NYPD (~33000 officers), but they have over 10 times more drones,
| more than 330.
|
| https://poliisi.fi/en/unmanned-aerial-vehicles
| alex_young wrote:
| For the entire country? Finland is ~277 times the size of NYC,
| so drones / km is much lower right?
| Smar wrote:
| Good that count of polices is better than NY at least.
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| Good. There's a lot of unrest in the city, and cops can't be
| everywhere. I know HN is very anti-cop, but as an NYC resident,
| voter, and politically active person I support this.
| tootie wrote:
| I haven't noticed. I see a lot more mentally ill people on the
| loose, but not really any perceptible increase in crime. I'm
| hoping they hover one of these over Flatbush and Dekalb and
| ticket all the drivers weaving through pedestrians.
| lasermike026 wrote:
| Do you know what the NYPD is not doing? Upholding the law,
| maintaining a good diet, and exercising.
| b8 wrote:
| I wonder if protestors will make EMP guns or use umbrellas to
| avoid drones/cameras like the Hong Kong protestors.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| More effective than a heli
| tootie wrote:
| Unrelated, but I saw what I think is a quadcopter air taxi land
| at the seaport today. I assume it's got a pilot, but it's
| interesting to see the quadcopter format in something so big.
| whartung wrote:
| There may be an interesting space in "right to drone" (or however
| you want to put it).
|
| Simply, considering the one mention how they used drones to
| monitor protests, it may be fair to assume that these drones were
| being used in way or in places where it may well have been
| illegal for civilians to use such systems (I am not well informed
| on where civilians can or can not use drones, I just know,
| anecdotally, that it seems the air space for civilian drones
| continues to shrink).
|
| That suggests that the police have authority to use air space for
| their purposes, such as monitoring civilian activity, but
| civilians do not have a similar, legal, capability to use the
| same technology to monitor police activity.
|
| Police have always had extra powers. I don't think I can hire a
| private investigator to go to court, convince a judge, and get a
| writ, or warrant, or whatever to place a tap on another persons
| phone, like the police can.
|
| But, even still, its fair to argue that the separation of powers
| between the state and citizenry should be narrow. Police activity
| in public is, well, in public, and I think well within the
| purview of the citizenry to be able to watch and monitor freely.
| But, in specific regards to these drone uses, and restrictions
| there on, I don't know if that's a level playing field any more.
| adolph wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _Federal drone law says that "no person may operate a small
| unmanned aircraft over a human being." But the NYPD has an
| exemption waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration
| through August 2025 that allows it to fly drones in populated
| areas, at night, over 400 feet in the air, among other things._
| vondur wrote:
| Heck, they have the ability to have helicopters flying overhead
| whenever they feel, so drones are just an extension of that
| power. Or at least, that is how they would spin it.
| cristeigabriel wrote:
| it would be really interesting to sabotage these
| INTPenis wrote:
| Local police force here in Sweden too. It's kinda nuts for me to
| turn a corner and see a police van with a dude wearing a visor
| and a control panel.
|
| And sometimes I've seen the drones hovering in the city, just
| watching, getting a bird's eye view.
|
| I've also seen them track counter protests from the sky. And yes
| I did of course imagine some sort of radio jamming equipment, but
| the problem is that police are everywhere and if they see where
| you're at they will quickly scramble to arrest you.
|
| An optimal solution would be maximum distance, and covertness.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Sounds dystopian
| cheriot wrote:
| I wish SFPD used drones more often. Instead they say nothing can
| be done because they're prohibited from high speed chases where
| it endangers the public.
| tamimio wrote:
| > We're out there using drones to fight crime
|
| They will be used in anything but to fighting crimes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-13 23:01 UTC)