GRPD uses their podcast program to disseminate misinformation about their plans to purchase and use drones

In their ongoing effort to dictate the narrative around the use of drones, the GRPD podcast, Behind the Badge, interviewed Chief Winstrom about the Police Department’s plan to purchase and utilize drones.

The podcast was recorded on June 4th and posted on the GRPD’s Facebook page late Monday evening. The podcast is 31 minutes long, with the host lobbing nothing but softball questions at Chief Winstrom. In fact, the host was openly endorsing the GRPD’s plan to purchase drones with public money.

What follows is a summary of the podcast, with the questions highlighted. One can easily see how there was nothing that challenged Winstrom, since the show was designed to provide Winstrom with yet another platform to control the narrative about why the GRPD wants to purchase drones and how they would use them.

What is the interest in drones from the GRPD? Winstrom said that the “culture here in Grand Rapids is skeptical of government surveillance.” The Chief of Police essentially was arguing that since other police departments already have them, the GRPD should too.

Do you have stats or success stories from other cities where drones are being used? Winstrom very matter of fact said, “We are using drones, like the recent case of a shooting, where the Kent County Sheriff’s Department brought their drone to help us evacuate a building quicker.” Winstrom went on to say, “Whether or not we get approval to obtain drones, we are going to use them, since we have relationships with other law enforcement agencies in the area.”

Lots of other industries use drones, so why not the GRPD? Winstrom agreed with the intent of the question, but then spoke about some of the people who are opposing police use of drones. Winstrom said there was about 10 people who spoke against drones at City Commission meeting. Actually, there were 28 against and one in support who spoke during the public hearing on April 25th. Winstrom then went on to say that he supports their right to free speech, but then went on to share that a local news outlet spokesperson came over during that City Commission meeting, and told him  they had two drones in their vehicle. Like this matters or makes sense. News agencies do not enforce the laws of the state, like cops do, which often involves using force. 

Winstrom then talked about how one objection is that drones could chill free speech, like at protests, which they have already been using to monitor large protests after Patrick Lyoya was killed (by the GRPD) but never to identify people or read sign messages. Winstrom claims that drones used during protests are to reduce the need for cops and to assist in determining protest march routes. Of course there is not verification or evidence to support such a claim, because the public does not have access to what was filmed by the drones during said protests. 

Winstrom did say that they have civilian oversight and public accountability, which is Brandon Davis’ office. Davis will look at the footage and make a determination if the drone footage is used unconstitutionally. Again, the public has no say and there is no real transparency. 

If I saw a drone fly over my house, there must be a reason for it? Winstrom said that some places are using drones in response to 911 calls. The GRPD wouldn’t be using them for this, but for specific ways to respond quicker to certain circumstances and as a tool for public safety, whether it is the Riverbank Run, a protest or a 4th of July event. Winstrom then said that It also keeps cops safer, without any real concrete evidence to support such a claim and of course the host never asks, “shouldn’t the goal be to keep the pubic safe?”

We are not here to invade your privacy, it’s to catch the bad guy, right? There was talk about helicopters being used for surveillance, etc, but Winstrom essentially said, ee just want to put a camera in the sky.

Does Brandon Davis’ office engage the community? Winstrom said that his office does, but never states how. The Police Chief then went on to announce the public form at Lifequest Church on June 6th. 

Take the protests – if you protest peacefully – when they see drones, what are they going to do with them?  Here Winstrom engages in some serious misinformation and outright lies, when saying that in the protests since the officer involved shooting (which is code for GRPD cop shot Patrick Lyoya in the back of the head), Winstrom said there has been no real violence, no property destruction and no arrests. In fact, there have been numerous arrests made by the GRPD against those protesting the murder of Patrick Lyoya.

So you are just waiting for City approval? Winstrom says yes and that if approved there would be initial costs, with about $120,000 annually for training and updates. However, Winstrom did not provide a clear timeline for when this might happen.

Hope this conversation provides answers for the public. Drones would just be another tool in your toolbox? Winstrom agrees.

Final comment from the host…..You should probably throw away your phone if you are concerned about surveillance. Winstom chimes in as well about date mining etc, which are real issues. However, when the State engages in surveillance and data mining it can often lead to the harassment, arrest, imprisonment and even death of members of the public, particularly members of the public that considered a threat to the interests of the State.

Lastly, it is important to have access to resources that provide a counter-narrative to what the GRPD and Grand Rapids City officials have been saying about drones. Here is a link to an excellent toolkit put together by the autonomous, grassroots group Defund the GRPD.