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

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.

Comments

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Ad here we realize...

[SeaFox]

Skynet's army was built by the humans.

Story is exactly the opposite of headline

[SuperKendall]

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?

Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline

[anegg]

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.

Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Story is exactly the opposite of headline

[swillden]

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.

Land of the...

[GrahamJ]

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

TFA is lite on details

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re: TFA is lite on details

[PoopJuggler]

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

Re:TFA is lite on details

[dryeo]

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.

Re:TFA is lite on details

[rtb61]

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).

What could possibly go wrong?

[jenningsthecat]

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.

Even less responsibility

[bradley13]

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.