Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Connecticut May Become First US State To Allow Deadly Police Drones (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the death-from-above dept.

According to Reuters, Connecticut lawmakers are considering a new bill that would allow police to equip drones with potentially lethal weapons. The bill, which was approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday, actually aims to ban weaponized drones, but exempts the ban from law enforcement agencies. From the report: Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to allow law enforcement agencies to use drones equipped with deadly weapons if a bill opposed by civil libertarians becomes law. The legislation was introduced as a complete ban on weaponized drones but just before the committee vote it was amended to exclude police from the restriction. "Data shows police force is disproportionately used on minority communities, and we believe that armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities," said David McGuire, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Connecticut. "That's not the kind of precedent we want to set here," McGuire said of the prospect that Connecticut would become the first state to allow police to use lethally armed drones. If Connecticut's Democratic-controlled House passes the bill it will move to the Senate, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

42 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who needs republicans when democrats arm the police like that. RIP civil liberties.

  2. Ad here we realize... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Skynet's army was built by the humans.

  3. the drone itself is potentially deadly by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    CT just wants it to realize its potential

  4. Story is exactly the opposite of headline by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    SO the real story is that Connecticut is going to outlaw you and me using weapons on drones, but just omits police from the restriction. That's not "allowing" the police to do anything, it's just not restricting them... the same way that I don't think any other states restrict police/drone use either. So they would hardly be the "first" since police are not really banned from doing this anywhere else either.

    On a side note I think its a really bad idea to ban weapons on drones for private citizens, as they could make really good self-defense units. Why can't, for example, a gated community or large ranch be patrolled by armed drones?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Liability. Just because something is "gated" doesn't give extra rights to kill beyond personal defense. There is no personal defense with a drone, so some remote operator killing with one is just committing the crime of murder.

    2. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      the same way that I don't think any other states restrict police/drone use either.

      You're saying the police are under zero control by any elected officials?

      Then again, you probably think that's a good thing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Self-defense isn't the only situation in which lethal force can be used in most states. In my state, it's also legal to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony, which includes "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

    4. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Exclusion from prohibition is the same as permission. Maybe not as much an endorsement as a bill ordering taxpayers to buy the killer robots for police, but the lawmakers made their intent clear so a judge will not prosecute police for killing you from a mile away.

    5. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why can't, for example, a gated community or large ranch be patrolled by armed drones?

      Go read "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson and think about your question.

    6. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by anegg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I underwent firearms training in a US state that also permitted, according to statue law, deadly force to prevent a variety of felonies in addition to severe bodily harm to us or someone else. We were advised in class that any such use of deadly force by us, mere citizens, would most likely result in a homicide conviction. Statute law is one thing, case law and jury outcomes are another. Heck, in some US states you can be found guilty of homicide for using deadly force to protect yourself from death or grievous bodily harm if a jury (making a judgement after the fact and not in the heat of the moment) determines that you had the opportunity to flee and did not avail yourself of that opportunity - sometimes even if you are in your own home. So-called "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws address these in some US states, but not all.

      The police are generally not under any such limitations. There was a case in Maryland (when I resided there) where an officer used deadly force against an unarmed, naked man, and that was thought to be be ok because the officer, standing in the doorway of his cruiser, was able to determine that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself from that extreme threat. I was under no illusion as to what result I could expect in court if, as a homeowner, I used deadly force against an unarmed, naked intruder in my home. I would be laughed all the way to jail if I claimed I had reasonable (not bare) fear of death or grievous bodily harm from the unarmed, naked guy.

      I don't think allowing drones to pack deadly force is a good idea at all, not for private citizens and especially not for the police. The militarization of police in the US is already a big problem, and his (robot-deployed lethal force) is a line that we (our society) is crossing, and it is not a good one. The use of the police robot armed with explosives to kill the guy in Texas http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/opinions/dallas-robot-questions-singer/ was the first foray across this line, and others will probably follow. Not good at all, in my opinion.

      Another step towards making subjects out of citizens.

    7. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by knightghost · · Score: 1

      A mile away or up and close... if our local peace officers have to resort to lethal force then you damn well deserve what's coming.

    8. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      Why can't, for example, a gated community or large ranch be patrolled by armed drones?

      Takes all the fun out of it. Shooting trespassers in person is much more gratifying than doing it by remote.

    9. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      A mile away or up and close... if our local peace officers have to resort to lethal force then you damn well deserve what's coming.

      Did you "sieg heil!" after hitting "submit"?

      Yes, police are infallible, and are never ever corrupt, murderers, or suffer psychological problems. /s

      http://photographyisnotacrime....

      Imagine guys like that with access to drones with a rocket launcher or an automatic weapon.

      I want all police restricted to shotguns, .38SP revolvers, and bolt-action rifles, with body armor, armored vehicles, automatic and/or crew-served weapons, and any explosive/incendiary devices like flash-bang grenades banned for use by domestic law enforcement. Police already have more than enough advantage in training, organization/communications, and numbers over any criminal or gang. It keeps them honest and respectful of those they police when they know they *can* be taken out by those in their community if they go too far.

      Sorry, if those terms are unacceptable to any LEO's, there are other jobs. TSA is always looking for screeners and it's much safer.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There is no personal defense with a drone

      Well, there could be. If the drone could be ejected, say, upon pressing a panic button, from very nearby and distinguish you from a threat next to you...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by swillden · · Score: 2

      I underwent firearms training in a US state that also permitted, according to statue law, deadly force to prevent a variety of felonies in addition to severe bodily harm to us or someone else. We were advised in class that any such use of deadly force by us, mere citizens, would most likely result in a homicide conviction.

      That seems unlikely. All you'd have to do is to demonstrate in court that a reasonable person in your shoes may have believed the action necessary to prevent the forcible felony. Note that I don't doubt that your instructor told you it would most likely result in a homicide conviction; I'm sure he did. But there are a lot of concealed carry instructors who say a lot of incorrect things. Try to find an actual case where someone was convicted for using deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. I'll bet you can't. There are a lot of these urban legends floating around the gun community.

      FWIW, I'm a concealed carry instructor... but one with an academic bent, meaning I prefer to do the research to verify a claim, rather than just repeat the scary stories that float around. I actually began teaching precisely because I discovered that *my* instructor had spouted so many falsehoods (he was a former cop, and they are the worst instructors, by and large).

      OTOH, I do teach my students that it's wise to assume that if they ever shoot anyone they'll go to prison for it, because it biases the decision in the right direction. If you assume that shooting will send you to prison, then you'll only shoot if whatever would happen if you don't shoot is worse than prison. If that's your standard, you're very unlikely to actually go to prison because you won't shoot in marginal circumstances -- and if you do end up going to prison, well, you'd already decided that was the best outcome.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline by TheAngryArmadillo · · Score: 1

      I was under no illusion as to what result I could expect in court if, as a homeowner, I used deadly force against an unarmed, naked intruder in my home. I would be laughed all the way to jail if I claimed I had reasonable (not bare) fear of death or grievous bodily harm from the unarmed, naked guy.

      So you don't think an 'unarmed' naked guy can do you serious bodily injury? I don't know about your state, but where I am I don't need to fear death to use deadly force, only serious bodily injury. If a guy is in my house and coming at me I don't give a shit what he's wearing. I will stop the threat.

  5. Land of the... by GrahamJ · · Score: 2

    America - where every day is April fool's day!

  6. April Fools Day by stikves · · Score: 1

    You got me there for a minute. This story is much better written than the other C vs C++ April fools prank.

    (hoping that this is so, but not a real thing, or maybe the police is just trolling).

    1. Re:April Fools Day by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The story links to a serious Reuters news. I am not sure how to judge it a prank or not.

  7. TFA is lite on details by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    it says their Democratic governor previously opposed the measure, but it doesn't say who sponsored the amendment. It just notes Democrats control their State Senate. If the bill passes you might have a point. The Dems are tight with the police, so that could be where this is coming from. If so my party just done fucked up. But OTOH if the bill fails then, well, nothing to see here. It might also be a poison pill meant to kill the bill. Who knows. Politics is a mess.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: TFA is lite on details by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Peace officers have demonized themselves by acting like criminals and thugs.

    2. Re:TFA is lite on details by dryeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you any citations for drones saving lives? All the stories I hear involve extra judiciary killings which usually average 50 innocents killed per suspect.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:TFA is lite on details by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      A missile is a weaponised drone. Fine you want to arm you police with missile launchers just so they can be safe, go right ahead. Don't door knock, just fire a tow missile, done and finished and if you are a member of the public dead and guilty and don't even bother with the cost of a court. Perhaps demarcation borders, on the rich so no armed drones aka missiles on the poor side, kill, kill, kill, make sure the rest know to obey. Fuck why bother with the drone just go with helicopter gun ships and hell fire missiles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (and that sick freak has yet to face charges, I'll bet they animal still masturbates over those killings, probably related to a politician and is no a law enforcer, kill, kill, kill, listen to the sick fuck, he had fun and was shooting all over the place especially in his pants).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:TFA is lite on details by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Have you any citations for drones saving lives? All the stories I hear involve extra judiciary killings which usually average 50 innocents killed per suspect.

      Unarmed drones for thing like SAR (Search And Rescue), fire and natural disaster monitoring, border protection.

      There are a lot of use for drones that will help or save lives.

      Armed drones deployed for "civil protection" indicate a society is broken.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re: TFA is lite on details by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      No broad brush there. Nope. Not at all.

    6. Re:TFA is lite on details by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I hate the idea of armed drones, however.. cops in TX did use a bomb robot to take out an armed, barricaded subject that had already killed a number of cops and wanted to kill more. Considering the risk to the police if they were to try to take him directly by force, I can't fault them for using the robot. That is the only case I've heard where this seemed appropriate.

    7. Re:TFA is lite on details by dryeo · · Score: 1

      No arguing that unarmed drones have been a positive, but the comment I responded to specifically said "Weaponized drones have already been used to good effect and saved lives."

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  8. What could possibly go wrong? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, the security on police kill drones will be so good that they can't possibly be taken over by hackers. Innocent citizens will never he injured or killed by hijacked police drones, and if that does by some remote chance happen, the police will certainly not deny responsibility or disclaim liability. So I guess it's all good.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  9. Huh? WTF? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    are you doing the Karl Rove thing of accusing the other side of what you're doing or something? But even that doesn't make any sense. Nobody goes after the police for much anything. The Dems mostly ignore the BLM movement. If anyone's after the police it's the right with their anti-union politics. I guess we like to forgot that policemen have a union...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Nothing new by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The cops have used robots for quite a few years to kill barricaded, hostile criminals. Those robots might drag a cable behind them or use some sort of radio link but the end effect is that they can kill when need be. I think what is behind the article is an objection to flying robots that remain under the control of a human operator. The next move might be a totally automatic hovering or stationary device that instantly fires at the flash from a gun muzzle. All in all, it is going to be harder to be a criminal every year from now on.

    1. Re:Nothing new by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      ...or, at least, an Enemy of the State.

    2. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Flash from a gun muzzle...
      Or from a lighter.
      Or from a camera.
      Or from reflections.

      It's not getting harder to be a criminal every year. In fact it gets easier every year. Criminality is just changing. Now, the proper way is to wear a badge, or become an elected official. Crime does not just pay now. It comes with a pension. Just, don't forget the turfs are owned and organized.

  11. Re: Excellent by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    IMO we should start building cylons.

  12. Even less responsibility by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    That would allow even less responsibility. It seems that US police already shoot first, determine whether they are in actual danger second. Allowing them to shoot by remote-control seems insane. At most, weaponized drones belong in the hands of the military, not the police.

    On the other hand, it's certain that bubba is going to strap his shotgun to a drone, just to see what happens. No law is going to stop that.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re: Even less responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shoot first, assess personal danger later, is no longer applicable when you have a remote drone operator. In addition you cannot conveniently have a camera malfunction (or forget to turn it on), since the drone cannot be controlled without that footage. So at least two flaws addressed, and hard to see the reasons in support of more trigger happy officers. It may permit vastly superior efficacy, which is a problem depending on who is in charge.. but that issue already exists, just to a lesser degree.

  13. Gangster Computer God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gangster Computer God worldwide SECRET CONTAINMENT POLICY, made possible SOLY by worldwide Computer God Frankenstein Controls, especially LIFELONG CONSTANT THRESHOLD BRAIN WASH RADIO ( quiet and motionless, I can slightly hear it; repeatedly this has saved my life on the streets ). FOUR BILLION worldwide population ALL living have a Computer God CONTAINMENT POLICY BRAIN BANK BRAIN, A REAL BRAIN, in the Brain Bank Cities on the far side of the Moon, we never see.

  14. Re: Excellent by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Finally! It took them long enough to go after the ACs.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. Please put down your weapon. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    You have 20 seconds to comply.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  16. Don't travel to or through CT by movdqa · · Score: 1

    If they can guarantee that there are no accidents, highjackings or other problems, then sure. But what happens when they launch a missile at a vehicle and it misses and hits an apartment building or a school?

  17. Re:This is exactly what the gov said they wouldn't by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Any idiot can propose legislation. It's up to we the people to say no. This is part of our process.

  18. Dark Angel by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    Hoverdrone

  19. Yet, FIRSTLY... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Should we not FIRST ensure we have police departments that are fully staffed with MATURE, level-headed, impartial persons?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.