Police drones will respond to emergencies before officers in Detroit area

[midian182]

WTF?! Detroit, the setting of 1987 classic RoboCop, is getting a real-life robotic police officer – sort of. One of its suburbs is deploying a Drone as First Responder (DFR) program, which will see unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) deployed to incidents ahead of local law enforcement.

The DFR program uses drones from Skydio that can reach the scene of a crime in 2.5 minutes, according to the press release.

The drones, such as the Skydio X10 and smaller indoor-ready R10, can be launched from patrol vehicles or from strategically placed docking stations that keep the aircraft charged and ready 24/7. Once deployed, they stream continuous live video to officers and command staff through Skydio's DFR Command software.

Rather than going in guns blazing in the style of Robocop or ED-209 (which the docking stations resemble slightly), the drones are designed to provide authorities with real-time footage ahead of their arrival and as events unfold, helping them assess the situation.

Some examples of the type of incidents the drones will respond to include violent crimes, traffic crashes, missing persons, and vehicle and property break-ins.

The drones' footage will improve decision-making, reduce uncertainty, and help officers respond more safely and effectively to complex, fluid situations and emergencies, the release states.

Another suggested potential use is for officers to assess threats before entering environments, thereby "decreasing use-of-force likelihood" and resolving calls safely for all involved.

"By supporting our officers in real-time as critical situations develop, it acts as a force multiplier, ensuring we cut down on response time, allocate resources appropriately, and provide robust service every time," said Dearborn Police Chief Issa Shahin.

The drones will also be used to resolve situations remotely where possible, which could mean officers speaking through a microphone at incidents that don't require a police presence, at least not straight away.

This is far from the first time drones have been used as first responders. It was reported in 2024 that Colorado planned to use UAVs to respond to 911 calls, allowing them to gather information about an incident ahead of the arriving officers. The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office rolled out a similar program the same year, while a Florida school uses them to respond to shootings.

Those using and creating these drones as first responder programs like to emphasize the positives, but not everyone is convinced. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that using drones to get a view of the scene can become justification for over-surveilling neighborhoods that produce more 911 calls, as well as collecting information on anyone who happens to be in the drone's path.

The EFF also warned that drones could be used to police homelessness or low-level infractions that otherwise wouldn't merit police resources.

Permalink to story:

Police drones will respond to emergencies before officers in Detroit area

 

[ScottSoapbox]

We keep steadily marching towards the distopian ultra surveillance state warned of in movies and by liberty advocates.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

We keep steadily marching towards the distopian ultra surveillance state warned of in movies and by liberty advocates.

Everyone took the wrong lessons from that media. They took the idea that the dystopian ultra surveillance state was bad. What they SHOULD have taken was that people would abdicate responsibility of their lives to the point that said ultra state was justified. Nobody ever bothers questions how these states would come to be if the people in those states gave even one iota of a **** how their state was running.

But bread and circuses.....Even here, we have the EFF whining about them "over policing communities" and "policing homelessness". Yeah, no, if a neighborhood produces large amounts of 911 calls, especially for violence, it needs MORE policing, not less, yet the EFF wants to complain about police policing dangerous areas?

Heres the thing, those who value liberty are absolutely right to warn of this technology, but there is a flip side to the argument. We law abiding, tax paying citizens must follow the rule of law. That cannot co-exist with a large, growing number of people who practice lawlessness. If you do not fix the antisocial behavior, you will see more people adopt that same behavior, and since the honest person is not valued by the system anymore you are going to see them all want the order preserving surveillance state, because that is the only way that seems to work now to keep people in line.

 

[NumberNine]

Way to build trust with the community...

 

[noel24]

.

 

[Hotdog1n]

Strap a taser to it

 

[DrSuess]

Smart send a drone first and make sure everything has died down before sending officers, Protect and Serve at its finest.

 

[onebignerd]

These will lead to police force reductions, increased abuse of surveillance\data collection by police and Government, will lead to development of armed assault drones and (already common) more use of riot police to end even peaceful protests by force. Does this not smack of tactics used in No. Korea, China, Iran...etc. to monitor, control and suppress 'the people'?

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Imagine being afraid of drones.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Everyone took the wrong lessons from that media. They took the idea that the dystopian ultra surveillance state was bad. What they SHOULD have taken was that people would abdicate responsibility of their lives to the point that said ultra state was justified. Nobody ever bothers questions how these states would come to be if the people in those states gave even one iota of a **** how their state was running.

But bread and circuses.....Even here, we have the EFF whining about them "over policing communities" and "policing homelessness". Yeah, no, if a neighborhood produces large amounts of 911 calls, especially for violence, it needs MORE policing, not less, yet the EFF wants to complain about police policing dangerous areas?

Heres the thing, those who value liberty are absolutely right to warn of this technology, but there is a flip side to the argument. We law abiding, tax paying citizens must follow the rule of law. That cannot co-exist with a large, growing number of people who practice lawlessness. If you do not fix the antisocial behavior, you will see more people adopt that same behavior, and since the honest person is not valued by the system anymore you are going to see them all want the order preserving surveillance state, because that is the only way that seems to work now to keep people in line.

You are falling into the trap that we need more government policing to fix the problems that the existing excessive policing has not fixed.

We don't need more police. We need less government hand outs and less taxation.

Incentivize people to work rather than not work.

Fix problems yourself (or with your personal community) or it doesn't get fixed and suddenly everyone is more responsive to fixing things because their own work -rather than others money- is what solves their problems.

Society needs 1% of the government we have now to function properly (hell we're 3X as large as we were under Clinton), but too many people believed the lies that the politicians told. Foremost was that more of the same will fix the problem (usually caused by other bad politician ideas).

 

[airbornex]

RoboCop fans wanted a cyborg cop and instead we got a flying Ring doorbell with qualified immunity. Very on-brand for 2026.

 

[toooooot]

I think these could be very good after shootings (Chicago, Detroit...) or violent crimes. A criminal starts running but the drone quietly follows him. This could save days, thousands of expensive police labor. A lot of offenders would be caught immediately.

But I think that these drones would need much bigger batteries. They cannot just give up during a chase or following.

 

[toooooot]

Heres the thing, those who value liberty are absolutely right to warn of this technology, but there is a flip side to the argument. We law abiding, tax paying citizens must follow the rule of law. That cannot co-exist with a large, growing number of people who practice lawlessness. If you do not fix the antisocial behavior, you will see more people adopt that same behavior, and since the honest person is not valued by the system anymore you are going to see them all want the order preserving surveillance state, because that is the only way that seems to work now to keep people in line.

It seems like a lot of politicians today already found a solution--pretending certain problems do not exist. Crime, what crime? You mean racism, yeah, we doubled the budget to fight it. Now back to the drones and banning X.com.

 

[James Ryan]

We keep steadily marching towards the distopian ultra surveillance state warned of in movies and by liberty advocates.

You're looking at this all wrong. In most of these movies the government and the rich are living the dream. It's just the rest of us that are screwed. So following these movies is typically a great idea for the 0.1%