Slashdot Mirror
North Dakota Legalizes "Less Than Lethal" Weapon-Equipped Police Drones
According to the Daily Beast, writes reader schwit1, North Dakota police will be free to fire 'less than lethal' weapons from the air thanks to the influence of a pro-police lobbyist. That means beanbags, tear-gas, and Tasers, at the very least, can be brought to bear by remote. It's worth noting that "non-lethal" isn't purely true, even if that's the intent behind such technologies. From the article, based partly on FOIA requests made by MuckRock into drone use by government agencies: The bill’s stated intent was to require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to use a drone to search for criminal evidence. In fact, the original draft of Representative Rick Becker’s bill would have banned all weapons on police drones.
Then Bruce Burkett of the North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. “Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones.
They'll only kill you, a little.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
The Drone Wars Have
Letter To Iran
I can't fathom how they think this makes sense, or that there won't be pushback. Welcome to the police state.
Can I shoot at your "non-lethal" drone with my non-lethal weapons?
If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety, how does an armed drone possibly fit into that logic. Was the suspect threatening the officer from 1/2 mile away?!
... So we're talking about poorly regulated government officials using flying robots to spy on and electro-paralyze people from the air.
How exactly is this not a dystopian sci-fi novel come to life?
Don't get me wrong, I think civil use of drones can be a great thing. Even police use of drones - tracking vehicles during a car chase, fast response to a breakin or robbery, etc. But this is just ridiculous.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Enjoy this little remote delivery of pain courtesy of DPRK and Teledyne systems, citizen!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
FAA says no... firing an object from the air intentionally is illegal... maybe tasers could be allowed since the wire stays attached to the drone, but even then I suspect it'd need to be able to retract them... but bean bags are out.
industries that cater to law enforcement are playing a rather dangerous game. in this case a politician was greased to allow this technology through, seemingly with very little regulatory oversight. The politician has nothing to lose thanks to constituents who dont question lock-step tough on crime policies. The industry, in turn, fully expects lucrative future contracts from a proving ground/municipality it can exploit in the future in advertisement and case study. But what does it mean for crime?
these drones will be seen as a threat to personal freedoms and liberty interpreted by the constitution and beaten like a dead horse every other year by politicians. fugitives knowing these systems are in place will trade up their knives and pistols for shotguns, just as we do in Half Life 2 when the hacks approach. determined futitives will don chemical protection and equip their clothing in makeshift faraday decor to defeat these drones. it cannot be stressed enough that drones do not contribute to the de-escalation ethos of law enforcement. However, far more effective strategies are also far more likely to be viewed as 'soft on crime.' De-escalation in practice gets police chiefs fired and politicians run out on a rail, whereas we championed madness like 3 strikes and mandatory minimums for 25 years before wondering why we led the world in citizens incarcerated. Drones will beget more powerful weapons, which in turn will beget more lethal drones, and so the knot will tighten until police are dealing with 3d printed swarms of gun toting quadrocopters that respond from anonymous command by Tor node to riddle a target with rounds from similarly 3d printed mounted firearms.
Good people go to bed earlier.
...and you are not seating in a flying car, but it exists and is firing on you.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
They just have significantly better chance than not of not killing you. They are, in fact, "less lethal", but definitely not non-lethal.
For what it's worth, getting shot by a gun is statistically only fatal about 5% of the time. While a taser is lethal even less often than that, it's still clearly lethal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The dystopian novels may concentrate on the methods, but the real reasons for gloom are the governments behind them. A vibrant democracy arming its peace officers with effective tools to help them fight crime is starkly different from a repressive dictatorship doing the same.
And, although the US is not any longer the vibrant democracy (republic) we once were, it is not the brutal police force, that is used by our overlords today to keep opposition at bay. Not yet, anyway — for now they still use the IRS and other "civilized" tools to suppress would-be challengers. Possibly, because their support among actual police is not all that high.
The Sci-Fi writers didn't see any of that coming.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Cowtippers look out....
really what does North Dakota have issues with beside the new influx of oil riggers
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Drone Wars Have [] Begun
It's Bode's Ramdove.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If the justification is that the officer fears for their safety, how does an armed drone possibly fit into that logic. Was the suspect threatening the officer from 1/2 mile away?!
Police are not armed merely for self defense. They are expected to stop someone that is threatening to kill or severely injure anyone.
Will the drones be required to play a continuous loop of "STOP RESISTING! DONT REACH FOR MY GUN! STOP RESISTING! DONT REACH FOR MY GUN!" while they remotely zap people?
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Tasers are lethal. There are many cases of police killing citizens using tasers. We have had two in our area and in both cases the police should not have been shooting anything. They justify the tasering by saying they think it is non-lethal but people are getting killed. They justify the tasering by saying they felt threatened but an officer with a drone is threatened in no way what so ever.
It is very bad to be giving police drones.
It is very bad to be giving police 'non-lethal' weapons that they're then killing people with because of the perceived non-lethality.
Worst is to combine the two.
It would be useful both for disrupting "business as usual" that they don't like and herding crowds into range of a more lethal device.
I can imagine several of them being flown into, and triggered in, sessions of a legislature that authorized them. But I somehow doubt that would actually happen, even in tyrannical foreign regimes. If the legislature is giving the tyrant and his security forces what they want, why use it on them? And if the opposition can get them in there with "less than lethal" weapons packages, "more than lethal" would be even easier, and have a more lasting effect on future legislation. (Realpolitik is a bitch.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, when founding fathers discussed reason for 2nd amendment personal defense was not the concern, but rather "Tyranny at home, enemies from abroad". The implicit right of The People to violent revolution against an evil government was the principal intent. Mark it down, a good American politician will agree with that, an evil police state thug will not. Guess what 98% of federal level politicians are?
It's one thing arming drones with mace, tazers, etc....it will be another HITTING someone with said tasers, mace, etc. I guess they could hire a bunch of professional RC flyers out there that have excellent skills in pinpoint piloting, but training Roscoe P. Coltrain to be able to fly a drone well enough to hit a moving or running target is another can of worms altogether..... LOL
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
The Drone Wars Have (original subject)
Out of curiosity, what do you think you're actually gaining with the juvenile drama queen theatrical stuff? Really, I'm genuinely curious what that does for you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm wondering what happens in North Dakota that requires drones with non lethal weapons to fly around? Are they planning on using this on the Native American population? Or maybe the wildlife? Or is it to keep them pesky Canadian rapists who illegally cross our border in check?
Be seeing you...
and shooting a laser at one will only add a federal charge to whatever the local porkers hit you with for destroying their toys...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I remember the old non ultra paranoid internet. It was interesting and you could have reasonable and intelligent debates. Maybe they are putting something in he water.
Except that 'Wordsmithing', in most of your examples is actually useful in professional terms. Let me break it down:
Lethal Force - Force that death is a reasonable, even 'usual' result from. Standard firearms, fragmentary explosives, etc...
Nonlethal - The use of this term is actually depreciated in the force-continuum. It's a sad fact that humans can be both incredibly resilient and incredibly fragile. A disabler that works on a guy able to cut his own arm off that's trapped by a boulder and apply a tourniquet before hiking 26 miles to get to medical care is probably going to be lethal to a 90 year old diabetic great-grandmother. Worse, it's not always apparent who's 'fragile' and who's not.
Less-lethal - The replacement term. It's still potentially lethal, so care should be employed in it's deployment, but as long as you follow the directions, your department shouldn't kill anybody with it any given year.
WMD: Weapon of Mass Destruction. Now, I'm old school with this one, and demand that it be NBC - Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. And the last is iffy as well. In order for me to count it as a WMD, it needs to be able to destroy city blocks of people, or at least kill more people than any individual practical conventional bomb. I dislike calling a pressure cooker bomb a 'WMD'. So I'd say on a 'killzone' requirement to be a WMD: Several blocks radius OR 'significant' primary duration in time. IE, as a direct intended effect from the bomb, it will keep killing people who enter the area for a significant amount of time after deployment, not just from hazards like structurally compromised buildings.
IED: Improvised Explosive Device. As opposed to a non-improvised one. A very important distinction during my time in the military. Standard munitions have standard means of disarming and disposal. EOD(Explosive Ordinance Disposal) rolls up on a Mark 82 500 pound bomb(or it's Russian equivalent), they know how to make it safe. All that goes out the window when it's an IED. Think of it like a paperwork thing - for a car you put make & model. For a bomb you'd do the same, but IED = 'home built'/unknown/unlisted. So your going 'It's a BOMB' is like saying 'It's a CAR' when I say that a Honda Civic was in an accident.
I don't read AC A human right
A bigger part of the intent was the idea that a standing army tends to lead to abuse, but that a populace with experience using firearms and able to quickly join a well-trained militia was necessary for preservation of the republic from enemies abroad and within.
Keep in mind that we're talking about North Dakota here. I lived in Minot for some time - their second largest community. It still wasn't that large.
As such, they're unlikely to exploit the 'less lethal armed drone' legality. Just not enough call, not enough money. You might see a cooperative test project with a manufacturer, but that's about it.
Meanwhile drones are probably more interesting to the counties - where it might be 30 minutes to get a deputy to an accident scene from driving distance alone.
I find the possibility of them being used for S&R purposes to be much more common than law enforcement.
And yes, the legislator is already stating that he'll be pushing to ban non-lethals in 2 years anyways. Knowing that, again, I don't see much beyond 'research deployment' where the developer has to provide the armed drone, for free. Not worth the capital cost otherwise.
I don't read AC A human right
Massive outbreaks of cow tipping.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
I would absolutely, without reservation, shoot those down.
A predator drone can be equipped with no lethal ordinance. In that case the predator would be legal for police use according to this law. But you still wouldn't take it out with a super soaker. How something is equipped is not the sole determining factor of how large the device is or how high it can fly.
and able to quickly join a well-trained militia
." yet I don't see the NRA agreeing every person who owns a gun being regulated in any sense of the word nor claiming the same group is part of a militia and should be called up for training by the government.
And thus, "a well regulated militia. .
After all, if you're going to call up a group of people you need to have them registered and that is the last thing the NRA wants despite what the 2nd Amendment says and implies.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
You have some misconceptions.
The militia was all able bodied males, and today is all able bodied males and females age 18 and over. Your state constitution likely will have such wording as my Illinois one does.
"well regulated" in 18th century English meant "properly functioning". Like a "well regulated" watch was one that worked and kept correct time.
You are assuming things without historical and legal context.
Well regulated militia does not apply to the people, but the tyrannical standing military that the people are supposed to stand against. Check rulings from the supreme court on 2A for the last 200 years. It hasn't been in question.
and that purpose would be much better served by the presence of an actual officer, not a quad copter that took 30 minutes to get to the scene counting setup time and evaluation.
First off I am not advocating armed drones, either lethal or less-than-lethal, I personally think a lot more thought and research needs to be done before deciding to go that route. However it is easy to conceive of a situation where a drone can arrive on scene faster than an officer, note we are talking North Dakota here. Linear distances, or in this case as the drone flies, can be extremely misleading with respect to someone traveling by ground. A drone may be able to arrive on scene much before an officer and do something useful.
Take some of the emotion out of this topic, consider a search and rescue situation. A drone may be able to drop water, a space blanket and a first aid kit to someone long before a rescuer can get to them due to distance and terrain.
And thus, "a well regulated militia. . ." yet I don't see the NRA agreeing every person who owns a gun being regulated in any sense of the word nor claiming the same group is part of a militia and should be called up for training by the government. After all, if you're going to call up a group of people you need to have them registered and that is the last thing the NRA wants despite what the 2nd Amendment says and implies.
Actually the NRA is very much in favor of "regulated" in the 18th century sense that the word in the 2nd amendment means: trained and practiced to the point of being effective. The NRA is the premier organization for firearms safety and proficiency training. They train civilians, law enforcement and the military. This is their primary mission. The political lobbying a secondary mission they feel "forced" into.
Part of the "federal militia" is what is considered "unorganized", no obligation to sign up nor show up for training. This "unorganized militia" may be the legal foundation for conscription. You are being transferred from "unorganized militia" to "active duty reserve" when drafted. Note that various states have similar laws on the books so many able bodied men are technically in a "state militia" as well as a "federal militia". Also note that the National Guard is only **part** of the militia, in the organized part, the unorganized part exists separately, so the 2nd amendment is not solely for the benefit of the National Guard as some would argue.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
...but tear GAS is addressed "To Whom It May Concern".
As for those other "less lethal" weapons... aiming skills are not the issue.
Fact that they are LEGAL means that should they want they can employ any kind of technique to achieve that hit with a drone.
Be it "painting" the target with a laser by a human or any and all AI or assisting technology available EVER in the future... Doesn't matter.
The fact that this legalizes drones equipped for "less than lethal" drone strikes against civilian population is what matters.
Drone strikes against civilians. It has a certain ring to it, does it not?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No, "regulated" when discussing a group of people or a business means "subjected to regulations". Using the definition for a timepiece seems ridiculous, but I guess it's the closest definition to what you want it to mean, even if clearly incorrect in this context. The watch was "well regulated" as the pieces moved at regular intervals.
Surely the drones will have flashing blue lights on?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So if tasers are non-lethal and still have killed people, what constitutes as less than lethal? scary
I think they're using the definition of "non lethal" as being "not lethal 100% of the time" which, usefully, also applies to firearms.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, control or direction by a government NOT implied, only control or direction by something
regulate: 1. to adjust by rule or method 2. to direct -- Samuel Johnson 1755 English Dictionary
No, "regulated" when discussing a group of people or a business means "subjected to regulations".
In the days of the Bill of Rights "well regulated" meant operating efficiently, operating at a desired level. How, in part, was that efficiency obtained? By allowing the militia members to possess their own weapons and powder, so a trip to the armory was not necessary.
Don't omit that word "well", it changes the context of regulated and leads one to the wrong definition of the word.
Don't like the watch analogy. Go with air flow. Various devices regulate the flow of air, some of these are named "regulators". For example scuba. The first stage regulator (on the tank) regulates (operates at desired level) the flow of air from about 3,000 PSI to 150 PSI, then a second stage regulator (in your mouth) regulates the flow of air from 150 PSI to ambient (whatever the pressure your lungs are at, varies with depth).
Regulate does not necessarily mean bury in government oversight and paperwork, and preceding it with the word "well" indicates that is the wrong definition to adopt and that a performance related definition applies.