Well, technically, if you go by the legal limits on when an officer is allowed to use deadly force, that would ONLY be in a situation in which the perp has put the life of an officer or other human in jeopardy. So, for the drone to be used for weapon purposes, only if the drone pilot witnessed the criminal actively pointing his gun at the clerk in the store, but if the perp already exited the store and was no longer pointing his gun at any people, the drone could not be used to kill him. But what if, after the store had been robbed at gun point, the drone hit the perp with a taser to subdue him until the police arrived on location, or, the drone just flew overhead unobserved by the perp for observance, until the police could catch up to his car and stop him at a later time? I think either of these methods would be an effective tool. One thought I've come to, was, what if police just used a small drone instead of giving a car chase, which can end very badly a lot of times. If using a drone to follow the suspect, they could rendezvous on his/her location once the car is parked, and avoid a dangerous chase scenario. But yeah, as far as what Rand has said, drones flying over innocent families backyards=bad, drones being used to follow and possibly even subdue known active criminals=good. (Honestly I'm not too keen on the subdue part, I'd rather they be used for strictly observation.)
If we didn't pull out of iraq, it might be stable by now.... LMAO http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=800_1370241983
Here the police doesn't really do high speed car chases for exactly that reason. Way too dangerous. They often just let the guy go and hope to find him later by license plates or whatever. Not ideal either, but at least innocents don't get hurt that way. About a year ago they did purposefully create a traffic jam to stop someone who stole gas from the gas station and he hit the back of the traffic jam killing an innocent. It created to much backlash that they don't do that anymore and they got more apprehensive in car chases in general since then too.
James makes a valid point. Assuming the law already has justification for killing someone, what difference does it make what weapon is used? I don't fear drones I fear the police that use them. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Sorry to hear that man. What happened to the "drunk dumbass"? </blockquote> I'm not sure but both he and the guy he killed were in the Army and I know they are pressing charges. Hopefully he is court martialed, sent to Levenworth and dishonorably discharged.
I completely agree. I am not comfortable with this new tech either, but you can't uninvent the drone. Now I don't support drones with missiles flying overhead, but I am sure they will have drones the size of a pumpkin that can swoop in a hostage situation for example, and neutralize the criminal one way or the other. And I agree a tazer or tranquilizer gun or something would be preferable to killing even a criminal.
I'm still not sure how to fit this in libertarianism. Are you talking about privately operated drones or something?
I'm still not sure how to fit this in libertarianism. Are you talking about privately operated drones or something? </blockquote> Its hypotheticals man. He is just saying that a drone is no different then any other weapon regardless.of.the situation Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
But if small drones can resolve a hostage situation then that's a good thing, no? </blockquote> Hypothetically Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
But who would own and operate them? </blockquote>Does it matter? The same people who have the guns of coarse. The point is a drone is a weapon. A gun is a weapon. Who's going to own and opperate guns? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Could you legally get a chopper with mini gun legally in the us? I mean if they would be legal separately to own...are they? Lmao
Of course it matters. Libertarianism strives for little to no government. So these kinds of technologies would either not be used or be used by private organizations.
Of course it matters. Libertarianism strives for little to no government. So these kinds of technologies would either not be used or be used by private organizations. </blockquote>Correct. The point is asking who will opperate the drones is like asking who will opperate the guns. If I had my way and there was no government, private police and militia would have most of the drones, and other expensive weapons that individuals can't afford like tanks and planes No government doesn't mean no police no army and no weapons. It means a decentralized privatized version of these things that are subject to consumer demand (true democracy) Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I see. I wouldn't be comfortable having private militias and armies flying drones and whatever else but then again I'm not a libertarian.