zlacker

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.

>>bdesbr+(OP)
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+(OP)
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+nk
This is for ATTACK drones, where they are actually killing people or coordinating fire.

We are talking here about SURVEILLANCE drones.

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