Turkish cops shoot a protester's drone out of the sky

Discuss

28 Responses to “Turkish cops shoot a protester's drone out of the sky”

  1. brandonmwest says:

    Only a matter of time before protester’s drones shoot back

    • chellberty says:

      Incorrect they would cease to be protesters by becoming revolutionaries. 
      this message is not the representative of chellberty or their opinion just an observation so NSA you do not need to add this to my file?

  2. Doran says:

    So we’ve entered the time where drone designs need to anticipate these kind of attacks. Makers will need to include survivability mechanisms like armor or threat detection or resilient materials. Weird future indeed.

    • austinhamman says:

       probably don’t need to protect the drone, armour will just weigh it down and make it more expensive, instead you need to protect the VIDEO, the drone is unimportant. so the drones will need to send their data to some source for safe keeping. the video is the most important thing, it cannot be replaced.

      perhaps a mesh network and a team of cheap drones with wireless capabilities, or a single drone with a good enough connection to cover a larger area, or just a black box for the sd card. don’t know exactly.

    • Boris Bartlog says:

      No, the correct counterstrategy is more and cheaper drones. I await the implementation of Argus-in-a-box … a thousand little camera drones controllable by whatever base station has the right credentials.

    • chaopoiesis says:

      Stealth is what’s missing, not armor or weaponry.  In a big protest sound should not be an issue, so the problem reduces to making a drone look like sky, and stationary flight.

    • RElgin says:

      A camera with zoom so that the drone could stand off at a further distance would be a good start, however the cost would go up.

  3. jon_anon says:

    I’m sure those policemen made sure there were no people near the downward trajectory of any bullets that missed the target. Falling bullets, acting under gravity alone, can kill too!

    • Rindan says:

      I know this is a tangent, but a bullet shot straight up won’t kill you.  When it reaches the top of its arc, it hits zero speed, and then it will tumble down and quickly hit its terminal velocity, which due to its light weight is not high enough to do more than bonk you on the head and make you saw “ouch”.  On the other hand, if the bullet is shot at an angle, like say at 45 degrees, you could kill someone.  In that case, the bullet will maintain much of its velocity tangential to the ground even as it reaches the top of its arc and starts to descend back to the ground.  Most of the time when someone is injured or killed by a bullet from a gun shot into the air, it happens a couple of miles away from where the gun was shot.

      All of that said, don’t fucking fire guns into the air if you are inside of a city, no matter which angle you are firing at.

      • Petzl says:

        Luckily, Istanbul is a small city, well under 2 miles in size, so there was no danger.

      • jon_anon says:

        No, it’s much worse than “ouch”. There was an article from the Los Angeles Times about
        the problem of falling bullets in L.A. around New Year’s and the Fourth
        of July.  According to the article, doctors at King/Drew Medical Center,
        a major L.A. trauma center, published a report in a medical journal (Journal of Trauma, December
        1994) saying that between 1985 and 1992 they treated 118 people for
        falling bullet injuries around New Year’s Eve or the Fourth of July.
        Thirty-eight of the victims died.

        • Jardine says:

          Mythbusters did an episode on it. Their conclusion was that a bullet shot straight up would do what Rindan said. Those injuries and deaths weren’t from falling bullets, but from bullets shot at an angle that allowed them to maintain their speed in an arc.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        What about all those people who were killed by pennies dropped from the Empire State Building?

  4. soylent_plaid says:

    Oh don’t worry.  Authorities will just make it illegal to videotape police actions from a remote controlled drone under threat of being labelled a terrorist.   Problem solved!

    • austinhamman says:

      america has already made it illegal in a number of states to video tape an arrest. it’s also illegal to video tape a farm.

      • Jarrod Henry says:

        Yeah, but that has been overturned in almost every state it’s been challenged in, and as a result, more states have actually passed laws stating it’s NOT illegal to record police actions.    Be careful when you say “America.”  You don’t mean America.  You mean some states.    As for illegal to video tape a farm, I’m guessing you mean CAFO operations.  What’s not being told to you is that many of those filmmakers trespassed onto private property to film.  The filming wasn’t illegal.  The trespass was.  I assure you, you can film farms here if you are on property legally and have permission.

        • austinhamman says:

           im referring to the ag-gag laws being passed around the country:
          http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/terrible-price-ag-gag-laws-article-1.1346292
          there was a case recently when someone was arrested under this law for filming a farm from across the street (following the bad press, the charges were,thankfully, later dropped)
          these apply to whistleblowers the same as trespassers (which, trespassing is already illegal, this just adds another HARSHER punishment.)

          and i am happy to hear the anti-police filming laws are being overturned im not optimistic enough to believe they won’t be back.

          and as for “states” vs “america” seems a meaningless distinction. i can have cancer in just one limb but i still have cancer. the states are part of the united states of america, and if laws are passed in those states they are passed in america. and like cancer they tend to infect neighboring states.

        • Boris Bartlog says:

          The CAFO operations obviously already used trespassing laws to protect the secrecy of their operations. But, first of all, trespassing isn’t a big enough club for them, and second of all, a number of activists managed to get jobs at these facilities in order to smuggle in cameras. The intent here was both to add more charges to intimidate the videographers, and to plug the hole that was created by employees with cameras.

  5. Rindan says:

    I bought my nephew a pretty serious quadcopter for his birthday.  As I was watching an 11 year old boy easily handle this machine and take pictures from around the neighborhood, I couldn’t help but wonder how long it was going to be before protesters had them. 

    Sure, the police can shoot them down, but that is a pretty temporary solution.  You can only shoot them down now because there are only a few and they are relatively expensive (a few hundred dollars).  How long is that going to last though?  At the current prices middle class US kids can afford them.  What happens when you just 3D print the housing and throw a kit into that housing in a few minutes?  It might get cheap enough that a few hundred bucks buys who dozens, not just one.  Are the police going to aim their guns into the air and open in the middle of a city?  

    There are a lot of implications.  Protesters could now always know where police are and what they are about to do.  It is going to be easier to catch acts of abuse on camera.  I can also envision a bunch of drones slaved together dragging around large banners.

    Perhaps a little more ominously, it gives protesters, violent protesters, agent provocateurs, an police more weapons offensive.  A protester can now safely dump paint or stink bombs on the police.  Violent protesters and agent provocateurs  could easily arm these weapons bombs or guns.  Police can use them to chase down people who are fleeing the site of a clash.

    I’m not sure where this all ends in the balance.  I think more than a tool for protesters, it might just simply up the stakes by giving everyone another weapon to be used for good or ill.

  6. incipientmadness says:

    Every bullet used against a drone is a bullet that can’t be used against a protester. 

  7. user xyyyz says:

    how about strapping a cheap phone camera with live video to the drone  and record the video remotely

  8. Professor59 says:

    Knowing what we know, if you saw a drone flying over you in a crowded area, wouldn’t you want it sot down?  Why would police or anyone assume it was friendly?

    • andygates says:

      Why would you assume that it must be destroyed?  Rindan’s nephew is going to be in tears because of you, you big meanie.

  9. Knifesmith says:

    Note to self:  Tannerite drones…

    Note to NSA:  Totally sarcasm.  I in no way endorse sending out drones filled with an explosive that is stable enough that only impact by high velocity rounds can set it off.  (though it would be totally awesome to watch)

  10. Martijn says:

    I originally thought the title said that police drone shot down the protester’s drone. Drone dogfights! That would have been pretty cool, but I guess I’ll have to wait a few more years.

  11. jbond says:

    Life plays out near future SciFi. Walter Jon Williams – Deep State, Ian McDonald – The Dervish House.

Leave a Reply