• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones

DA60

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
 
DA60 said:
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It was inevitable. To protect officers lives, instead of them being in the line of fire, it'll be a piece of hardware.
 
DA60 said:
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it could be a good tool for law enforcement if used properly. It would certainly help the safety of police officers in the field.

Those against the bill believe that "armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities" But I have to ask, is that where most of the daily crime happens? So it would make sense that they be used in those areas.
 
Run a red light and there will be a laser target painted on your car right before the Hellfire missile arrives.
 
I swear in the next 4 years we are going to invent Skynet. Get ready for judgement day y'all.
 
DA60 said:
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty sad when a state like CT offers offensive combative weapons to it's police forces, while infringing on the rights of it's citizens when it comes to firearms.

Just more nonsensical liberalism running amok!
 
RetiredUSN said:
I think it is pretty sad when a state like CT offers offensive combative weapons to it's police forces, while infringing on the rights of it's citizens when it comes to firearms.

Just more nonsensical liberalism running amok!
Click to expand...

Of course, one does understand, why politicians might feel nervous about precision guided assassination tools flitting about with no one to know the finger on the trigger.
 
holbritter said:
I think it could be a good tool for law enforcement if used properly. It would certainly help the safety of police officers in the field.

Those against the bill believe that "armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities" But I have to ask, is that where most of the daily crime happens? So it would make sense that they be used in those areas.
Click to expand...

It's also that minorities are more likely to be arrested and have violence used against them by cops even for crimes they do at the same rate as whites, such as drug use, and generally serve longer sentences. Inevitably we're going to end up seeing a lot of killer drones used very generously in "urban" neighborhoods while very sparsely in white neighborhoods. I think this is a terrible precedent to set and I'd much rather see it reserved for the most extreme situations, such as hostage situations.
 
DA60 said:
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

From the article it's not clear that any departments in Ct are looking to use armed drones only that the legislation wouldn't forbid it.
 
holbritter said:
I think it could be a good tool for law enforcement if used properly. It would certainly help the safety of police officers in the field.

Those against the bill believe that "armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities" But I have to ask, is that where most of the daily crime happens? So it would make sense that they be used in those areas.
Click to expand...

Depending on the type of weapon and the accuracy - or lack - of the thing you can potentially put a lot of innocent people at risk. Gun fights in crowded city streets are bad enough. Now your gonna have a drone bouncing around in unsettled air and being driven by someone looking at an iPad sized screen shooting at stuff?
 
DA60 said:
'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.'

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones | Reuters


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Drones could be quite useful for police forces. The necessity I see is that someone to spot to try to ensure civillians aren't caught up in such strikes.
 
For use (armed drones) in high risk applications where officer's are at risk for death or serious injury and there are proper protocols in place I
think it could be a great tool to help protect law enforcement officers.
 
I think it was more or less inevitable. The real worry will be potential semi-autonomous drones, in the future. (See earlier Skynet references).

We may never be able to program a fully self-conscious AI, but there's still plenty of room for dangerous outcomes.
 
I can see lives on all sides being saved by drones with "less lethal" weaponry like tasers. I would prefer they focus on that before arming them with lethal rounds.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's also that minorities are more likely to be arrested and have violence used against them by cops even for crimes they do at the same rate as whites, such as drug use, and generally serve longer sentences. Inevitably we're going to end up seeing a lot of killer drones used very generously in "urban" neighborhoods while very sparsely in white neighborhoods. I think this is a terrible precedent to set and I'd much rather see it reserved for the most extreme situations, such as hostage situations.
Click to expand...


I normally wouldn’t reply to post like this but, damn. Your assertions are completely false, you do know that anyone can google the FBI crime statistics.
 
woodsman said:
I normally wouldn’t reply to post like this but, damn. Your assertions are completely false, you do know that anyone can google the FBI crime statistics.
Click to expand...

Sure, go ahead. It is a fact that blacks use marijuana at roughly the same rate as whites but are over twice as likely to be arrested for it. They're more likely to have a violent confrontation with the cops even when acting non-violently and they're more likely to serve harsher sentences than whites that commit the same crimes. What's total bull**** is any claim that race plays no part in our justice system and justice is administered evenly and colorblind.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Sure, go ahead. It is a fact that blacks use marijuana at roughly the same rate as whites but are over twice as likely to be arrested for it. They're more likely to have a violent confrontation with the cops even when acting non-violently and they're more likely to serve harsher sentences than whites that commit the same crimes. What's total bull**** is any claim that race plays no part in our justice system and justice is administered evenly and colorblind.
Click to expand...


You do get that higher crime areas means more police presence, which equates to more arrests. I’m unclear of this diversion tactic of drug use but it is as nonsensical as your original post.

We both are going way off topic here, if you would like to start a thread about social injustice for blacks have at it.
 
woodsman said:
You do get that higher crime areas means more police presence, which equates to more arrests. I’m unclear of this diversion tactic of drug use but it is as nonsensical as your original post.
We both are going way off topic here, if you would like to start a thread about social injustice for blacks have at it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point. Non-violent blacks are arrested far more than whites because their neighborhoods are over-policed. You seem to be taking the position that because blacks as a whole statistically commit more crimes that all blacks in urban neighborhoods deserve to be subjected to harsher treatment and punishment.

Drones, like no-knock raids will be disproportionately used on minorities because it's more politically acceptable to do so. We should oppose this as the police state overreach that it is. Local police departments should not have up-armored tanks and killer drones, they are not soldiers. Don't we already kill enough unarmed civilians in the third world with drones we really have to start doing it here too?
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
I think it was more or less inevitable. The real worry will be potential semi-autonomous drones, in the future. (See earlier Skynet references).

We may never be able to program a fully self-conscious AI, but there's still plenty of room for dangerous outcomes.
Click to expand...

Basically, there's a human operating it, so I'm not terribly concerned. BUT, it is simply not acceptable if some related technology we use, even if human operated, ends up killing innocent people. (Not that it's acceptable for us to end up killing 50 civilians at a time trying to get one terrorist in a foreign country)
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That is exactly my point. Non-violent blacks are arrested far more than whites because their neighborhoods are over-policed. You seem to be taking the position that because blacks as a whole statistically commit more crimes that all blacks in urban neighborhoods deserve to be subjected to harsher treatment and punishment.

Drones, like no-knock raids will be disproportionately used on minorities because it's more politically acceptable to do so. We should oppose this as the police state overreach that it is. Local police departments should not have up-armored tanks and killer drones, they are not soldiers. Don't we already kill enough unarmed civilians in the third world with drones we really have to start doing it here too?
Click to expand...

Which is a particularly absurd position for him to take, seeing as the fact that black neighborhoods are overpoliced guarantees the higher arrests rates, which are then used to justify the over-policing.

Talk about a feedback loop...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That is exactly my point. Non-violent blacks are arrested far more than whites because their neighborhoods are over-policed. You seem to be taking the position that because blacks as a whole statistically commit more crimes that all blacks in urban neighborhoods deserve to be subjected to harsher treatment and punishment.

Drones, like no-knock raids will be disproportionately used on minorities because it's more politically acceptable to do so. We should oppose this as the police state overreach that it is. Local police departments should not have up-armored tanks and killer drones, they are not soldiers. Don't we already kill enough unarmed civilians in the third world with drones we really have to start doing it here too?
Click to expand...


As I said you are going way off topic and I don’t wish to follow. Again, start a thread about social injustice in the black community. Be warned though, It will not go well unless you bring better facts than you have shown here.
 
Mr Person said:
Which is a particularly absurd position for him to take, seeing as the fact that black neighborhoods are overpoliced guarantees the higher arrests rates, which are then used to justify the over-policing.
Talk about a feedback loop...
Click to expand...


Yep, when we kill unarmed arabs in the middle east or unarmed blacks in the US, most people just assume they "had it coming". I think people would be a lot more concerned when the wrong white families are being shot by a flying death machine operated by "law enforcement officers".

woodsman said:
As I said you are going way off topic and I don’t wish to follow. Again, start a thread about social injustice in the black community. Be warned though, It will not go well unless you bring better facts than you have shown here.
Click to expand...

Or you can just **** off. I made a statement on topic, you showed up calling it "bull****" without explaining yourself and now you're too lazy to attack any of my points or make any of your own. I could not possibly care less about what you have to say if you're not here to discuss the topic, but just hurl insults at me, roll along then.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Which is a particularly absurd position for him to take, seeing as the fact that black neighborhoods are overpoliced guarantees the higher arrests rates, which are then used to justify the over-policing.

Talk about a feedback loop...
Click to expand...

The key word/phrase is “over policed” I suggest they are not, you suggest they are. Irrelevant of skin color disadvantaged urban centers need more policing because there is more crime, what part of this is a mystery?
 
Mr Person said:
Which is a particularly absurd position for him to take, seeing as the fact that black neighborhoods are overpoliced guarantees the higher arrests rates, which are then used to justify the over-policing.

Talk about a feedback loop...
Click to expand...

Over policed?

Is the murder & assault rate in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, DC, Richmond, directly tied to over policing or the lack of fear of the local authorities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom