Blogs May 15, 2013 at 6:00 am

Comments

1
Gosh.

2
You don't think SPD might have a slightly more valid reason for doing it?
3
Maybe it is because the police (a crucial public service) wanted to use the space for training and you guys just wanted to dick around?
4
@2

They're doing it so they can take away your guns. Your guns specifically, not ours.
5
Would the SPD even have to ask Parks for permission? I imagine that SPD might want to inform people about training exercises, especially if the training is going to be disruptive (for example, if they want to run a fake hostage rescue using the Egyptian Theater), but drones would be less obtrusive. Don't they have the authority to say, "We'll do this and you'll like it, Parks Department"?
6
I like this a lot, thanks for doing the research. Police are our neighbors and enforce rules they too should be held to. Public spaces either have rules for good reasons or the rules should be changed. The parks department didn't specifically refer to flying drones but watercraft etc. For safety, environment...? Not my area of specialty but maybe it should be looked at whether there is a reason at all.
7
Reminds me of the police car I saw waiting at a red light on Broadway a couple nights ago that decided to just go ahead and run it.
8
I saw a police car going really fast this one time.
9
@8: and a bicyclist.
10
I think this boils down to the term @3 used: "crucial public service." And yes, while the SPD could perform said services in the guise of stopping crimes, monitoring unruly demonstrations, tracking fleeing perps, and other such salutary actions, let us not discount the crucial public services The Stranger drone could perform: broadcasting images as it hovers over shirtless hotties in Cal Anderson, looks into the soccer team's locker room windows at Seattle U and live-cams the red hot action down in the Arboretum. For these reasons, I advocate an open skies policy.
11
And why do police get to enter crime scenes, and not the general public?
12
Maybe SPD just wants to patrol for off-leash dogs.
13
Eli, I think you're taking this drone thing a little too far.
14
Do these things have aerial meth detection...then fly one over Kent East Hill!!
15
@3 - DICKING AROUND IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
16
Obviously the First Amendment Stranger Drone should fly the SPD Drone flight path, to make sure everything is good.

And check for off-leash hamsters. Those are dangerous. I hear one took down a guy dribbling a basketball down the coast.
17
@13: Wasn't me!
18
Eli wrote, "before Mayor Mike McGinn squashed the SPD's drone program in response to public outcry"

Though I would like to think the mayor did this directly in response to concerns expressed by the people he serves, I think it would be more accurate to phrase that as, "before Mayor Mike McGinn squashed the SPD's drone program in response to the threat that his mayoral competitor Bruce Harrell would do something about it first."
19
I am not sure it is genuine to complain about attempted rapes in city parks, and also complain about city people patrolling city parks. I'm fine with drone patrols in public places.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.