That said, my immediate thought is they (cops) were fooling around with their new toy.
I guess my view would change if they lightened up on Revenue Collection, and solely zoned in on real crime? And what is real crime? I guess murders, white collar crime, organized gangs. It's not drugs.
This is the damage done to the airplane.[2] It will require body work and an engine tear-down (prop struck the drone). If the drone had been a bit higher, it could have done major damage to the prop or worse the windscreen and possibly pilot.
1 - https://www.toronto.com/news-story/5728426-york-regional-pol...
2 - https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/plane-hit-...
What you or I think of being the “real crime” that cops should focus on may or may not be what the laws define as real crime, which itself probably doesn’t map to what cops spend all their time doing
Most cops just let it slide while their "bad apple" colleagues do those thing. And are therefore complicit in perpetuating them. So you're still right about it being unreasonably generous to all cops, even if not all of them do that shit.
My cynical point is that socially we tend to define “real crimes” in such a way to reinforce existing power hierarchies. Steal from the register and face prosecution, steal from your employee and maybe be forced to pay it back (maybe). Shoot your neighbor and get executed by the state, poison the river and face a civil case, starve foreign infants and face no consequences whatsoever. Morally all of these are awful things, but which ones get criminalized and prosecuted is extremely selective. The rich and powerful often not only get selective treatment when prosecuted, but the kind of violence that can bring is often not even criminalized at all.
My most horrifying example is the fact that until the 1990s it wasn’t legally possible for a man to be charged with raping his wife in some states. 13 states still treat marital rape as a lesser crime than rape of a non-spouse. I think we’d all agree that punishing rape is a good thing for the justice system to be doing, but that’s hardly sufficient when the law has such obvious holes in it.
In general, people are more likely to believe the word of a woman over the word of a man. So if a woman accuses a man of something, unless he can prove his innocence, he's got I would estimate a 3/4 chance of being found guilty of whatever the crime is. I think we need some way to rebalance that.
All laws and prosecutorial systems should be designed with misuse in mind, because misuse will happen. We should always think, "if I felt wronged by some person and wanted to get revenge, using the system as a weapon and being willing to lie, could I successfully use the system to get my revenge?" And I think in many cases in our current systems the answer is yes, misuse is very much possible. I won't even bother to describe any scenarios, because I'm sure we can all imagine them. Well, here's one [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpvwWWzJuk
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLowHT_ytBs
Other links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGE-3ioAlmQ
Lots of people have lots of opinions on what those things even are. Most of those opinions are utterly ridiculous.
I was sideswiped by a car speeding and passing illegally, that then fled the scene. Dashcam caught the license plate. No charges filed. I was lucky they were insured, and that their insurance company socked them for my repairs.
Then I would suggest you do not look up the statistics on how many "real crime" cases get solved. Murders, most of which are done in the moment and not planned out at all. Even premeditated must be understood to mean "X tried to extort Y, fight ensued, knife was used, Y died", and very much not "the butler, after 2 years of slowly preparing for the moment, set in motion his plan ..." like in the books.
Of all murders, the police solve about 60% of cases. Every other crime it goes down significantly (and theft is far below 10%).
There's a reason actual premeditated murders usually make the news for a week.
The work of The Innocence Project makes me question how many cases they solve versus how many they found a targetable person to scapegoat instead.
Certainly a lot of the "science" that gets used to identify who the killer is pseudo-scientific bunk. Very convenient for looking for a conviction, very bad for actually catching bad guys.
If you find yourself in a suit before a jury you're likely to have a bad time.
For that, you need political change. Many a constituency has elected to rip off their people with absurd policing tactics - including asset forfeiture abuse - that primarily target poor people to fund their operations, instead of properly raising taxes, because raising taxes is a hard sell "thanks" to decades of small-gubmint, trickle down propaganda.
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.
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".
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.
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?