Mechanized Warfare against U.S. Citizens on Domestic Soil?

They ran afoul of public opinion because of the "rights" craze, not "white people." However, I favor cameras on every busy traffic area as well as high crime neighborhoods. Drones fast enough and with enough range could reduce the mayhem in high speed car chases because the drone would be able to help police seal off the roads at the least perilous point -- or explode in front of or under the offending vehicle.

Big Brother is here, and we have no way of curbing its intrusiveness. Therefore, let's use it to cut down on criminality while trying to find some way to keep it from keeping us in lock step with the reigning government.

 

I am not sure it is. I don't see the difference between using this, and using any other weapon. So...what is the difference? If it would have been ok using a sniper rifle here (and I don't think there is any disagreement it would be), then why is using this weapon so different? The only difference I see is that it prevented said snipers from being exposed to return fire.

 

The militarization of PD without any apparent rules or to leave each PD on how to use is troublesome. But when criminals have access to powerful weapons, when terrorists within the state is rare but a reality, I can support providing additional tools to law enforcement. However, there should be clear rules on how, when, where to use such dangerous weapon.

PD already want drone with ability to shoot. It's going to happen. There is a real concern that when you kill from afar without direct human to human contact, it might get too routine and too easy. Again, that's where I think you have to have very strong rules in place.

I'm all for modernizing PD with newer and smarter weapon, under strict guidelines and accountability for their use.

(for example, video recording of their use should be accessible by the public)

 

Not really a robot...human controlled. It's just a weapon, like any other. It's not like they unleashed the Terminator, or anything.

I really don't see the issue here. What is the difference between using this weapon, and a sniper rifle, for example, other than that the sniper rifle exposes the shooter? I don't see anything TO soft pedal.

FWIW...the concern shouldn't be WHAT weapons the police uses, but rather HOW they use them. Using this weapon in this circumstance seemed completely appropriate, to me. In other circumstances, maybe not.

Would any of those upset about this really be happier if they had shot him instead? If so...why?

 

I have no problem with this...should be policies in place for everything police do. Clearly, the use of weapons like this should only be called for in very rare situations, and with appropriate controls and sign-offs.

 

What makes using this device in this fashion a bad thing?

 

What is the actual discussion here? The use of the robot in general or using it specifically to kill someone?

 

The issue is summary justice versus the rule of law, the use of excessive force versus restraint and due process, the risk level civilized people will accept to be civilized.

It's a valid discussion.

 

It comes down to if you think deadly force is justified in order to stop an armed terrorist that is claiming to have bombs on him and their only goal is to kill white cops.

In this instance, just about any other action puts the lives of cops at risk so I'm fine with using the robot to blow him up. They could have used gas like I suggested when it was going on live, but if he had bombs he could still trigger them as cops moved in to grab him.

I think they need to be careful when they use force like this, but in this instance it was VERY justified.

 

No, I don't think that is it. Had it been a sniper shot that killed Micah, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not that the ones you mention aren't very valid discussions. But if they are being interjected here, they are straw men, IMHO. This is specifically about the weapons being used.

FWIW, I don't think one could even call this 'militarization'. The military uses pistols and guns, too...does that make pistols and guns military weapons? I do think miitarization of police is the discussion here, but I'm not sure it fits this scenario. It's more the 'technologization' of the police.

 

I looked for the demographics of support for the referendum, but I guess it's been too long.

I agree with this. If deadly force is warranted, it's warranted. I do agree with txtony that drones may end up getting overused if cops find it's much easier and safer to kill people with drones than it is to arrest them in person. That's also true of sniper rifles though. We already have rules about appropriate use of deadly force and they can be applied to drones too.

Of course, we've seen some generous justifications of deadly force already, so we may see some suspicious drone kills just like we see some suspicious kills in face-to-face interactions. But, it can also go the other way. If a cop can drive a drone up to a perp and say, "put your weapons in this drawer" no cop needs to have an itchy trigger finger if the perp makes a sudden movement. In war, I absolutely think drones make the incentive to fight and kill higher. But, in policing we don't in principal want to kill anybody.

I do wonder, since we have this technology, why a bomb is the only thing we could think to attach to it. Could we have outfitted it with some taser technology, or pepper spray, or a flash grenade, or some other incapacitative device that would have enabled an arrest? Sniper rifles necessitate a kill order, but a drone might allow us to try some new nonlethal approaches.

 

Don't want to be blown up by a police bomb?

Don't take out weapons, murder 5 police officers, shoot 7 more, wound nearby civilians, refuse to surrender, and stay in a protracted hours long gun battle while threatening to kill more cops.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

From the distorted opinions on the D&D, I swear we're headed towards the future from Demolition Man.