quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
These are objectionable to people who hold the conflicting philosophical positions of demanding more law enforcement but less government and smaller taxes to pay for crime prevention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bds2

I would like to fight crime in our cities buy using that very device...Superb

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Electronic surveillance by Law Enforcement such as Cameras, drones, or by tracking the gps in a cell phone has some proponents and protestors.

1) Drones

The only drones available to law enforcement except under special circumstance are just a little larger than a gas powered remote control helicopter, and makes the same amount of noise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Electronic surveillance by Law Enforcement such as Cameras, drones, or by tracking the gps in a cell phone has some proponents and protestors.

1) Drones

The only drones available to law enforcement except under special circumstance are just a little larger than a gas powered remote control helicopter, and makes the same amount of noise.

Predator drones are tasked to aid law enforcement only for searching for a criminal wanted for a heinous crime. The most recent case was the ex cop in California that was shooting people.

Otherwise the predators are being used along the Mexican border, which makes sense until you realize that there are not enough border patrol agents to respond to anything the drone might find.

2) Cameras

I am of two minds on these.
First the quality of the image is not the best, unless it is a hi def camera, so identification is not 100%. Secondly, who decides where to put them. Put them on every street in a city the size of New York would be cost prohibitive, not to mention the cost of manpower to monitor the cameras.

On the plus side, in some areas where the crime rate is high, it might be a factor in reducing crime.

3) Gps tracking.

Recently I saw something on the science channel that explained that unless the gps feature is set to law enforcement only, companies can track a cell phone owner's activities through out the day. Come use the information for marketing, and some use the information for researching traffic and pedestrian patterns to determine where to put various businesses.

Law enforcement can use the feature to find missing persons or criminals.

But I am not sure I want people to know everywhere I go.

quote:

In 1 yr drunk driving in the USA kills more people than 100 9/11's. Or more than all terrorists combine on the entire planet kill in 3 yrs. It is estimated by MADD 1/4 - 1/5 of the people murdered by drunk drivers are kids too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

In 1 yr drunk driving in the USA kills more people than 100 9/11's. Or more than all terrorists combine on the entire planet kill in 3 yrs. It is estimated by MADD 1/4 - 1/5 of the people murdered by drunk drivers are kids too.

(that's ten BTW, not 100,and MADD are a bunch of assholes, maybe they got good reason but what I said stands, and they are fucking liars)

If you want to start that bullshit then realize that medical MISTAKES kill a hell of alot more. The AMA's own figures are available on the net. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

Now 25 % of traffic accidents supposedly "involve" a cellphone. What abouit drunk drivers ON cellphones ? Is that a double statistic, an accident with two causes that are not direct causes anyway ? Knowing those assholes they probably count as two accidents.

DO NOT EVER start this "there should be a law" shit. Down south somewhere a guy was driving a pickup truck while texting and rearended a big truck. He fully deserved to have a smashed up truck and a bump on the head and all that cool shit, like his insurance going up.

However after he hit, he was rearended by NOT ONE BUT TWO schoolbusses. He died.

Last I checked school busses were up a bit higher than all but the most ridiculous of pickup trucks, so why didn't the FIRST school bus driver see the SEMI that this guy was smashed up against ? What's more why didn't the SECOND school bus driver notice that the first school bus had stopped and was going to hit it ? Did they even get tickets for following too close ? In my last wreck I got a ticket for assured clear distance even though I was doing about 30 on the highway in a 55 because of bad eather. I got that ticket for not knowwing there was ice on the ground under the water. I look at that as - shit happens. It was the luck of the draw. They BOTH rearended other vehicles, and I bet they didn't get tickets, that ANYONE else would have gotten. ANYONE except a judge or congresscritter.

The government's reaction ? Thier usual knee jerk was to propose a NATIONWIDE ban on texting while driving.

WHAT THE FUCK ? This guy texting CAUSED those assholes driving the school, repeat the SCHOOL busses to REAR END him ?

If more people STILL die by drunk driving then the laws are not working. I suspect it is because some people can drive and others cannot. If you just ain't good at it, you shouldn't even be able to have a fucking cigarette while driving. Some people can manage though, it is a combination of skills and visual ascertainment. That differs from accuity.

The solution is to forget DUI laws, but when peoiple fuck up, consider it an intentional act. You INTENDED to drive in that state. You INTENDED to do your fucking makeup or text or whatever and disregard the safety of others. Therefore any property damage is willful and intentional. Denting cars as in a fender bender is wanton vandalism. Causing an injury is assault and battery, and killing someone is of course first degree murder.

Make it that way, and outlaw seatbelts and airbags and all that shit, and in a few years there will be no car accidents. Put spikes and shit on the dashboards so if you run into something YOU DIE, in the meantime put super reinforcements in the doors so that if someone Tbones you, you live and they die.

Case closed.

Don't EVER say there should be a law about anything because if they suspect ANYONE would support another law they will turn it into another cash cow.

T^T

edited to addf fuck any more editing

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No, I am not trying to justify the use, I am saying they are not using Predator drones as so many people are claiming.

quote:

No. They are objectionable to people who understand what those differences are. The fact that you can't figure it out doesn't mean there are no differences and that those differences aren't meaningful.

quote:

I am willing to pay for crime prevention... to a point. I don't need or want the government to try to assure absolute safety. I am willing to pay more for crime prevention in certain areas if the cheaper solutions came burdened with nasty and unpreventable side effects. I'd be willing to discuss ways in which the US government could openly and honestly use these technologies with some sort of elaborate watch dog setup. I am not holding conflicting positions. I just don't think "big brother" is there to keep me safe.