zlacker

One is purposefully designed to surveil and kill (the Predator drone), while the other has a variety of uses. That’s where I draw the line: what was the purpose of creating it?

>>colejo+(OP)
The drone is also controlled remotely and thus has more of a disconnect between the “pilot” and the subject. The police helicopter has a human element to/in it so the pilot would feel more responsibility for the destruction they caused if it were right in front of their eyes.

>>colejo+(OP)
Actually the original Predator drone was meant strictly for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and didn't carry weapons. It was modified later to carry two Hellfire missiles. There are other far larger drones out there that were designed for carrying weapons from the get go.

>>bdesbr+X3
This seems speculative to me. Helicopter pilots are already hundreds or thousands of feet away from the action, they're not looking people directly in the eyes.

>>bdesbr+X3
This is unsupported by evidence. Drone operators have a high incidence of PTSD.

> Studies have found similar levels of depression and PTSD among drone pilots working behind a bank of computers as among military personnel deployed to the battlefield.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron...

>>outwor+ko
This is for ATTACK drones, where they are actually killing people or coordinating fire.

We are talking here about SURVEILLANCE drones.

>>koheri+ru
> The police helicopter has a human element to/in it so the pilot would feel more responsibility for the destruction they caused if it were right in front of their eyes.

This comment sounds like it's about attack drones. I concede that it's not necessarily about attack drones; a surveillance drone operator might facilitate and witness a lethal attack, and in that sense "cause" the destruction.

>>catalo+HI
Sure - but that wouldn't apply to police drones either since no one is getting shot by droned directed fire in the US.