Connecticut May Become First State to Allow Deadly Police Drones

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,004
North Dakota already allows for police drones with non-lethal measures (e.g., tear gas), but Connecticut lawmakers are taking things one step further by legalizing drones with guns and other lethal weapons for law enforcement use. I wonder who gets blamed when there is the inevitable malfunction.

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, approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday, would ban so-called weaponized drones in the state but exempts agencies involved in law enforcement. It now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration. 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.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,769
i guess we know what state officials are watching the TV show APB, lol.
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Texas already killed someone with a non-flying version.
http://www.livescience.com/55331-dallas-shooting-bomb-robot.html
Which was wrong, just as was the Tulsa bombings by police, or the Kent State shootings. If we're going to be using our technology and to deal with crime, which is done by human beings with inalienable rights, it should be focused entirely on non-lethal methods. Letting police become judge, jury, and executioner has always, and will always lead to chaos and tyranny. If we don't stop and regulate the eventual spread of drones and their uses, we'll be no better than some 3rd world country that murders its own citizens when its perceived they broke a law without a trial. Screaming "blue lives matter" only gives authorities more of an excuse to crack down on constitutional rights, and to see what they can get away with. (Like bombing the Dallas shooter which was cornered and trapped)
 

Tiberian

DILLIGAFuck
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
5,725
When drones can carry weapons inside US borders and fly over the US population with said weapons targeting the US population itself that's when it's time to start mass producing drone killing devices of any and all kinds writ large.

Or revolt.

Your choice.
 

fightingfi

Look at Me! I need the attention.
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
2,813
This has to be a April fools joke connecticut is one of the worst states to Violate The Constitution and its gun laws and make fireworks illegal also i know i used to live there Its funny because Connecticut IS The Constitution State......
 

TechLarry

Can't find the G Spot
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,193
When drones can carry weapons inside US borders and fly over the US population with said weapons targeting the US population itself that's when it's time to start mass producing drone killing devices of any and all kinds writ large.

Or revolt.

Your choice.

Maybe Skynet isn't how it all starts after all. Maybe THIS is it.
 

iamjanco

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
441
ED-209: Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Dick Jones: I think you'd better do what he says, Mr. Kinney.
[Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 steps forward and growls menacingly.]
ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply. You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
[Everyone in the room panics; Kinney tries to hide among them, but is pushed back into open range]

ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply. 4. 3. 2. 1. I am now authorized to use physical force.
 

Obi_Kwiet

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
3,858
I feel like the FAA may have something to say about this. I'm pretty sure that states don't have sufficient sovereignty to just up an arm aircraft with weapons.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
6,624
This has to be a April fools joke connecticut is one of the worst states to Violate The Constitution and its gun laws and make fireworks illegal also i know i used to live there Its funny because Connecticut IS The Constitution State......
yeah, is this a joke or what
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,769
to be honest i'm all for it as long as they're not autonomous drones and they're used by swat teams instead of patrol officers for say a hostage situation in a multi-floor building and the safest way to get to them is from the outside or something along those lines. all i care is that it's being controlled by trained police officer that can be held accountable for that drone.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
You know, remote controlled weapons run the risk of being hijacked and attacking the wrong targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this

iamjanco

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
441
The physics associated with recoil ought to make for some interesting viewing (drones bouncing off the walls?).

Then, there's always the drone-mounted railgun.

OTOH, if we start talking "rayguns," one equipped with something like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3179045/The-Death-Star-weapon-Japan-just-fired-world-s-powerful-laser.html

probably would require a very large drone; not to mention a very large SWAT Team van to haul it around in, if it's not launched from some major airfield.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
You know, remote controlled weapons run the risk of being hijacked and attacking the wrong targets.
So now when cops kill people, they have plausible deniability if it turns out later they shouldn't have. Everybody wins!
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
So now when cops kill people, they have plausible deniability if it turns out later they shouldn't have. Everybody wins!
I was thinking that criminal organizations will invest in high powered directional antennas to take control of the drones and execute high profile assassinations
 

Madoc

Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
944
It's all fun and games until the unhackable drones get hacked. Then the fun *really* starts.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,445
What people are forgetting here is that we are not giving autonomous robots that ability to execute someone.

This is a remotely controlled police firearm, and a police officer is still pulling the trigger. What difference does it make if the police officer has the gun in his hand, or if the gun is on a turret on top of the vehicle or mounted to a RC vehicle?

The next time there is some cracked out hoodrat that is holding some innocent family hostage, and they could have used a drone up high to snipe him, you'll be glad for the option. Police are already allowed to fire from helicopters, but the problem is that the helicopter is expensive, exceedingly loud which gives away the fact that its there, and no helicopter pilot is going to want to stick around if the criminal starts shooting back. With a remotely piloted drone, it can be a very stable platform with no threat to the police officer, so the only way a shot would be fired is with cool heads when its appropriate (since there is no "self-defense" justification, and obviously everything is on camera).
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,353
Which was wrong, just as was the Tulsa bombings by police, or the Kent State shootings. If we're going to be using our technology and to deal with crime, which is done by human beings with inalienable rights, it should be focused entirely on non-lethal methods. Letting police become judge, jury, and executioner has always, and will always lead to chaos and tyranny. If we don't stop and regulate the eventual spread of drones and their uses, we'll be no better than some 3rd world country that murders its own citizens when its perceived they broke a law without a trial. Screaming "blue lives matter" only gives authorities more of an excuse to crack down on constitutional rights, and to see what they can get away with. (Like bombing the Dallas shooter which was cornered and trapped)
It was a bit of a gray area, but he was armed and dangerous, having just killed a number of officers. And he was still armed and did not seem willing to surrender. Tear gas/flash bangs/tasers do not always incapacitate someone. Given the situation, they had to throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly. Although robots with CS dispensers and flash bang launchers may be something sought after now.
 

File

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
844
Whats the cost ratio between enforcement drones and drones just big enough to kamikaze intercept those drones? Reminds me of the article a month ago about using a $20k missle to blow up a 200$ drone.
 

AK0tA

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
813
May be they can just shoot poison darts or drop nano insect robots on target to overwhelm them. Surely the end is near.
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,371
So........drone goes off course, lands in my yard.......and explodes......

So drone mistakingly shoots down my Amazon order of .....(you fill in the item).....do I get a refund??
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,925
Is the drone going to identify itself with a badge and read you your Miranda rights? Because I assure you any apparently armed drone that enters my zone of control is going to find itself.....probably in perfectly good shape because I'm not a very good shot...but dammit if I wouldn't give it a run for it's money.
 

iamjanco

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
441
Ever since the election and you know who's loss, the country's been half full of drones, some of whom have since armed themselves and proven they can be dangerous. Putting mindless drones in the hands of police with full control over them seems like a great idea... :)
 

swimming pool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
198
It was a bit of a gray area, but he was armed and dangerous, having just killed a number of officers. And he was still armed and did not seem willing to surrender. Tear gas/flash bangs/tasers do not always incapacitate someone. Given the situation, they had to throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly. Although robots with CS dispensers and flash bang launchers may be something sought after now.
There wasn't a necessity to "throw together some hastily configured device to end the situation quickly".

The guy was injured, cornered, and surrounded.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,136
It's all fun and games until the unhackable drones get hacked. Then the fun *really* starts.
This.
Or it gets BB'd out of the sky and converted into somebody elses weapon.
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,829
What people are forgetting here is that we are not giving autonomous robots that ability to execute someone.

This is a remotely controlled police firearm, and a police officer is still pulling the trigger. What difference does it make if the police officer has the gun in his hand, or if the gun is on a turret on top of the vehicle or mounted to a RC vehicle?

The next time there is some cracked out hoodrat that is holding some innocent family hostage, and they could have used a drone up high to snipe him, you'll be glad for the option. Police are already allowed to fire from helicopters, but the problem is that the helicopter is expensive, exceedingly loud which gives away the fact that its there, and no helicopter pilot is going to want to stick around if the criminal starts shooting back. With a remotely piloted drone, it can be a very stable platform with no threat to the police officer, so the only way a shot would be fired is with cool heads when its appropriate (since there is no "self-defense" justification, and obviously everything is on camera).


If you give a man a hammer...........or a satchel charge......


Osage Avenue, Philadelphia



 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,445
What's the possible real justification for this?
Pfft, its roach and rat infested and the cops that come nearby are getting shot at AND the criminals have an armored bunker on the roof? Sounds like judicious use of bomb to me! ;)

You wouldn't see my ass as a cop going into a friggen diseased warzone with pillboxes with just a 38 special revolver and shotgun... nope my ass right out of there. When criminals escalate and start using tanks and crap, cops gotta escalate too.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
3,966
What people are forgetting here is that we are not giving autonomous robots that ability to execute someone.

This is a remotely controlled police firearm, and a police officer is still pulling the trigger. What difference does it make if the police officer has the gun in his hand, or if the gun is on a turret on top of the vehicle or mounted to a RC vehicle?

The next time there is some cracked out hoodrat that is holding some innocent family hostage, and they could have used a drone up high to snipe him, you'll be glad for the option. Police are already allowed to fire from helicopters, but the problem is that the helicopter is expensive, exceedingly loud which gives away the fact that its there, and no helicopter pilot is going to want to stick around if the criminal starts shooting back. With a remotely piloted drone, it can be a very stable platform with no threat to the police officer, so the only way a shot would be fired is with cool heads when its appropriate (since there is no "self-defense" justification, and obviously everything is on camera).
No but it becomes an argument that can have legal weight. It was an equipment malfunction.

I think a lot of people are just picturing these things swarming about the neighborhoods but in reality it would be for special encounters likely needing authorization to deploy. I think it could be a very useful tool, could also be very handy in high speed chases where it becomes dangerous to persue, deploy drone to follow or tag the car.
 
Top