3 ms·

You must not know anyone who does heroin, fentanyl or addicted to scrip. opioids, and therefore would have difficulty imagining how free and open access to thos

You must not know anyone who does heroin, fentanyl or addicted to scrip. opioids, and therefore would have difficulty imagining how free and open access to those substances would lead to something much worse than COVID for civilization, and therefore maybe don't get quite why in the 'Supply Demand' equation, that law enforcement in totality (not just Police) basically keep a 'lid on things' such that the cost (economic and social) for such things is quite high, resulting in only relatively marginal demand. Your statement also belies a couple of other misunderstandings in that 1) Police don't make the law and 2) 'go after organized crime' ... when almost all organized crime activity is actually drugs. Some drugs like mushrooms we can probably move off the watch list, others, like MDMA feel like there should be options, but we are just not structured well for it, but most of the more potent ones just won't work in society irrespective of how a relatively small group of conscientious burningman-ers can 'handle their stuff'. As for the drone - it was involved in some kind of operation, we have no idea the parameters of the situation or what kinds of risks were taken, why, or even where the civilian plane was at the time, hopefully we will. The Police obviously operate under a completely different set of parameters so it's hard to fathom what's going on. What's 'wierd' to me is how people can use such casual thinking to make such broad social assessments kind of devoid from reality. I think it has to do with the fact that all systems are imperfect, and when we see an imperfection from the outside, we tend to extrapolate that to the entire system and don't have a developed intuition at all for the material reality of it all. I'll bet anyone most police skeptics, were they to just ride with police for a few days, would be bored out of their minds at the relatively mundane applied pragmatic reality of it all.

bigiain 5y ago
> or even where the civilian plane was at the time From the CADORS report: "The instructor for a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna 172N (C-GKWL) reported that they had just turned from base leg to final for Runway 15 at Toronto/Buttonville, ON (CYKZ) and were established and stable at 1100 ASL, or about 500 AGL, when they felt a jolt that pushed them back on their seat. " Pretty sure there's an extremely narrow left/right window either side to the runway centreline and a somewhat less narrow but still quite accurate distance from the runway that the plane could have been at "about 500 AGL" during it's landing approach. There is zero doubt that the police were operating illegally and recklessly here. No amount of "operational security" or "war on drugs" or "qualified immunity" can _possibly_ apply to or excuse anyone, police included, for operating a drone directly in the landing approach flightpath of an active airport, and especially not without notifying the air traffic control and all aircraft in the vicinity. Any attempt to argue otherwise is without doubt an "assessment kind of devoid from reality".
- jollybean 5y ago
  I didn't say that cops should be able to fly dangerously 'because drugs'. I said 'we don't really know' - and objected to arbitrary arguments about cops complicity, and narrow arguments about 'because drugs' as some kind of justification of lack of credibility in policing. So you're 'pretty sure'? Well maybe there is some doubt. From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? Because if they were at 499AG they would breaking the law. So can we hate on civilians for 'always being so reckless?' if it were true. Or rather, even if that was true, we might want to assume it was probably a mistake? And those happen? The other key detail is that they reported '1 nautical mile' from Buttonville, funny, because that's the exact distance from the airport for which 'Advanced Operations' drone flight is allowed, and it's highly probably the Police wold have this authority. It seems slightly odd that the report was 'just within altitude' and 'just within' safety range for advanced op. drone flight. Because if the drone reported those numbers, they would be just barely out of legal bounds. If the drone reported 1NM and a slightly lower altitude, then they'd be totally legal, and the airplane would be doing the 'unsafe flying'. 1 NM seems a little arbitrary. Maybe it was 0.5, or maybe it's 1.5, in which case it wouldn't take much 'stretching of the envelope' of either party for an accident to happen. 'We'll know' about the specifics of the issue when Transport Canada has done the investigation - was it a civilian contractor? A poorly designed flight path? Was there tacit knowledge that someone was breaking the rules? Was something wrong, was the Pilot actually in error by flying too low? Was the drone just barely above ceiling and this happened? I don't think we do know yet, and there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline. I don't think it's reasonable to jump to arbitrary malicious conclusions and then pile on with low grade 'I don't like cops 'cause they stop me from doing things!' rhetoric. So we wait for Transport Canada's report for more details, and 'war on drugs' just isn't part of the equation.
  - bigiain 5y ago
    > From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? I will admit to not being an aviation law expert, but I'm "pretty sure" the "lower threshold for pilots" who are landing at an airport is zero feet above ground level, and that there is a well known path via which pilots pass through 500 and 499 feet on their way there. I live directly under a flight path, about 3km out. Do you know how much 'stretching of the envelope' there is on aircraft approach paths? Very very little, they are always flying down what I estimate to be a corridor probably less that 10m sideways deviation from each other, and as far as my untrained eye can tell always the same altitude. They're all aiming to hit the same near end of a ~2000m long runway that's about 50m wide. They are not "maybe 0.5nm short, maybe 0.5nm long" - where I am, 0.5nm short means they crashed into the houses on the airport outskirts. 0.5nm long is probably just a really bad landing - at least for planes that don't need more than 2/3rds of the runway to land safely. > there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline. Sure. But I fail to understand why you think there's _any_ reason at all to suspect the "accident" here involved errors on the part of the plane political, when it's so obviously a fuckup of the part of the drone operator that's 100% at fault here. Why is it that you're so insistent on exonerating the cops here?

bigiain 5y ago

> or even where the civilian plane was at the time From the CADORS report: "The instructor for a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna 172N (C-GKWL) reported that they had just turned from base leg to final for Runway 15 at Toronto/Buttonville, ON (CYKZ) and were established and stable at 1100 ASL, or about 500 AGL, when they felt a jolt that pushed them back on their seat. " Pretty sure there's an extremely narrow left/right window either side to the runway centreline and a somewhat less narrow but still quite accurate distance from the runway that the plane could have been at "about 500 AGL" during it's landing approach. There is zero doubt that the police were operating illegally and recklessly here. No amount of "operational security" or "war on drugs" or "qualified immunity" can _possibly_ apply to or excuse anyone, police included, for operating a drone directly in the landing approach flightpath of an active airport, and especially not without notifying the air traffic control and all aircraft in the vicinity. Any attempt to argue otherwise is without doubt an "assessment kind of devoid from reality".

jollybean 5y ago
I didn't say that cops should be able to fly dangerously 'because drugs'. I said 'we don't really know' - and objected to arbitrary arguments about cops complicity, and narrow arguments about 'because drugs' as some kind of justification of lack of credibility in policing. So you're 'pretty sure'? Well maybe there is some doubt. From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? Because if they were at 499AG they would breaking the law. So can we hate on civilians for 'always being so reckless?' if it were true. Or rather, even if that was true, we might want to assume it was probably a mistake? And those happen? The other key detail is that they reported '1 nautical mile' from Buttonville, funny, because that's the exact distance from the airport for which 'Advanced Operations' drone flight is allowed, and it's highly probably the Police wold have this authority. It seems slightly odd that the report was 'just within altitude' and 'just within' safety range for advanced op. drone flight. Because if the drone reported those numbers, they would be just barely out of legal bounds. If the drone reported 1NM and a slightly lower altitude, then they'd be totally legal, and the airplane would be doing the 'unsafe flying'. 1 NM seems a little arbitrary. Maybe it was 0.5, or maybe it's 1.5, in which case it wouldn't take much 'stretching of the envelope' of either party for an accident to happen. 'We'll know' about the specifics of the issue when Transport Canada has done the investigation - was it a civilian contractor? A poorly designed flight path? Was there tacit knowledge that someone was breaking the rules? Was something wrong, was the Pilot actually in error by flying too low? Was the drone just barely above ceiling and this happened? I don't think we do know yet, and there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline. I don't think it's reasonable to jump to arbitrary malicious conclusions and then pile on with low grade 'I don't like cops 'cause they stop me from doing things!' rhetoric. So we wait for Transport Canada's report for more details, and 'war on drugs' just isn't part of the equation.
- bigiain 5y ago
  > From my limited understanding but referencing government sources - 500AG exactly the lower threshold for pilots, don't you think it's odd that they reported that they were 'just' at the threshold? I will admit to not being an aviation law expert, but I'm "pretty sure" the "lower threshold for pilots" who are landing at an airport is zero feet above ground level, and that there is a well known path via which pilots pass through 500 and 499 feet on their way there. I live directly under a flight path, about 3km out. Do you know how much 'stretching of the envelope' there is on aircraft approach paths? Very very little, they are always flying down what I estimate to be a corridor probably less that 10m sideways deviation from each other, and as far as my untrained eye can tell always the same altitude. They're all aiming to hit the same near end of a ~2000m long runway that's about 50m wide. They are not "maybe 0.5nm short, maybe 0.5nm long" - where I am, 0.5nm short means they crashed into the houses on the airport outskirts. 0.5nm long is probably just a really bad landing - at least for planes that don't need more than 2/3rds of the runway to land safely. > there's a lot of ways accidents can happen in any discipline. Sure. But I fail to understand why you think there's _any_ reason at all to suspect the "accident" here involved errors on the part of the plane political, when it's so obviously a fuckup of the part of the drone operator that's 100% at fault here. Why is it that you're so insistent on exonerating the cops here?