Get ready for police drone strikes

[aerius]

CNN link
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/us/connec ... bill-trnd/

Connecticut bill would make weaponized drones legal for cops

By Amanda Morris, CNN

Updated 10:23 PM ET, Fri March 31, 2017

(CNN)Connecticut police officers would have the ability to use drones equipped with lethal weapons under a bill now pending in the state House of Representatives.
The bill authorizing police use of "deadly" weaponized drones passed 34-7 in the state legislature's joint Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. It was then sent to the House floor for debate and a vote, neither of which has been scheduled.

The law was originally written to ban the use of weaponized drones after a Connecticut resident, Austin Haughwout, attached a handgun and flamethrower to his drone on separate occasions over the past two years. The state government has tried and failed to pass legislation on drones three times since then.

However, the bill includes an amendment that would allow police officers to attach weapons to drones. Committee co-chair Paul Doyle, who helped add the amendment, said law enforcement should be able to use drones, but only as a last resort.

"It's conceivable that it is a positive resolution in an emergency, aka terrorist situation," he told CNN. "If a terrorist is in the middle of an operation, in theory, the drone could kill him."
Another co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, William Tong, told CNN the entire bill is intended to improve public safety. The amendment allows law enforcement to use drones if they feel it's necessary, but it prevents citizens from weaponizing drones on their own.

"The bill establishes basic standard guidelines for the use of drones," he said. "We don't want to limit law enforcement's ability to use drones, but we want them to have regulation as well."

Supporters: It will protect citizens

Tong explained that under this law, the state's main body of regulation for police, the Police Officers Standards and Training Council, would be responsible for creating guidelines on how officers should use drones. The guidelines would be sent back to the state legislature for final approval.

The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association supports this allowance. Farmington Police Chief Paul Melanson told CNN that if police were to use drones, it would be to defend, not harm, citizens.
"No one is looking for law enforcement to arm drones for offensive purposes," Melanson said. "The police didn't want to preclude any possibility in the future of using the drones to protect citizens."

Melanson told CNN that he could envision police using drones in situations such as defusing bombs or disarming drones used by terrorists or criminals.
At least one lawmaker who voted on the bill, Sen. Gary Winfield, said he didn't agree with the amendment but thinks it merits further discussion.
"I don't think it's been completely thought through," he said. "But I voted yes because I didn't want to kill the bill. I want to rework it."

Opponents see potential for abuse

The new controversial proposal is already facing opposition from civil rights advocates.

The head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Connecticut, David McGuire, said the group is troubled by the potential for police to misuse drones if the amendment becomes law.
"We've seen some police in Connecticut use disproportionate force against people of minorities, and we think that drones would exacerbate this problem," McGuire told CNN. "We've been working hard to try and reestablish trust in law enforcement, and this bill sends the wrong message."

The ACLU of Connecticut is working together with the Connecticut NAACP to change the bill before it comes up for a vote.
The state NAACP president, Scot Esdaile, told CNN that if the bill passes, there will be protests.

"We don't want these new technologies in our neighborhood because we know that eventually they will be abused and turned against us," he said.
Some police officers, such as Hartford Deputy Chief of Police Brian Foley, also expressed worries about the use of weaponized drones.

"When you begin to automate things you begin to invite technical glitches," Foley said. "It seems like in this day and age too many things could go wrong."
Connecticut would not be the first state to allow police to use weaponized drones. North Dakota passed a bill two years ago that allows their use, though it says the weapons must not be lethal.

If this bill passes, the federal government will no longer have a monopoly on droning people. Gotta love that shit for brains senator, "duh, it's not really thought through, so I'll pass it anyway so we can rework it".

[Gandalf]

I guess the one upside is that the drone probably doesn't have the "it looked like a gun, I was terrified" defence for shooting minorities.

[Simon_Jester]

Of all the states likely to abuse this, I'd put Connecticut near the bottom of the list, but once armed drones are on the market they're going to proliferate.

[Sea Skimmer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokzbkAairQ
The Iraq Federal police are 200 million percent ahead on this right now.

As far as the US goes, this is just formalizing what we saw in Texas, the method killing doesn't change anything on if your allowed to do it. I'm a lot more concerned about the wide area surveillance pods some US police including here in Philadelphia, already have on manned aircraft. The literal point of these is to track everyone in a vast field of view, all the time.

[Joun_Lord]

In the hands of responsible, reasonable police armed drones could be used for some real good. Allows police to engage hostiles without putting any of their own in danger. Would allow them to be more patient and less likely to kill someone if what is in danger is a 200 dollar piece of hardware rather then a more expensive piece of human. Might allow nonlethal to be used in situations where the option is not used because it would put police lives in danger. Gives them a much smaller and less noticeable platform to take out belligerents without spooking them and risking potential causalities from hostages, innocent bystanders, or LEOs as some cops trying to bust in with enough tactical gear to make even a hardcore geardo airsoft player think they are overdoing it would certainly do. Craptons of mag pouches, drop leg bajillion point tactical holsters, armor plates, and whatever random doodads are considered tactical necessities aren't exactly conducive for stealth.

However far too many police in the US have shown themselves to not be responsible enough to use this responsibly. Not all of them, maybe not even most. But still there are plenty who abusive dickholes who would just use armed to drones to kill minorities and the mentally ill that much easier, don't even have to leave the air conditioned comfort of their cruiser to kill somebody.

Leaving aside police abuses, there is probably concerns about how dangerous armed drones can be made even when used properly by the operators. Drones are not hack proof, quite the opposite in fact. Even military drones with no doubt far better security get hacked to varying degrees. Some modified quadcopter with a Glock mounted to it is going to be incredibly vulnerable to hackers. Even the cops should be worried about the potential of their own weapons being turned against them.

Like any new and potentially deadly technology the tech really needs to be taken slowly and not put out on the streets overnight.

[Col. Crackpot]

I guess the one upside is that the drone probably doesn't have the "it looked like a gun, I was terrified" defence for shooting minorities.

Correct. Instead, Skynet PD will truly be color blind and kill all citizens equally.

[PREDATOR490]

It would be nice to know exactly what kind of weapons and drones that are being proposed before I reacted poorly. In theory, I can see a valid use for drones equipped with weapons even by the police but the issue is what kind of weapons and restrictions are they going to put in place.

I do not think drone technology is up to putting out ED-209 yet.

That said, are there any examples of what kind of actual armed drones they would try and field ?

[Gandalf]

I guess the one upside is that the drone probably doesn't have the "it looked like a gun, I was terrified" defence for shooting minorities.

Correct. Instead, Skynet PD will truly be color blind and kill all citizens equally.

It'll certainly make the next WACO/Ruby Ridge/Bundy Ranch standoff more interesting.

[Sea Skimmer]

Probably not, because of the 900 reporter UAVs that will be buzzing around making police act lame, and not Phily PD air strike like. Also as the article says, in Connecticut civilian armed drones are already legal by lack of ban, and the only reason this is even a topic is because of a debate on if banning those should also include banning law enforcement too, or not. Right now drone season is wide open for everyone! Mantraps are illegal, but a drone that only kills on command is not a mantrap. The ED-209 would run afoul wide ranging bans in every state on man traps. You would need to prove it was acceptable, it would certainly not be allowed by default. Well, maybe Alaska, but I doubt it, generally everywhere bans man traps for if no other reason, then to protect firefighters.

I bet a close examination of the law would find it the same in the other 49 states. Armed drones not banned, mantraps illegal. You kind of would have to go out of your way to ban armed drones, because a gun is a drone in a sort of way already. Laws generally concentrate on when you can use force, not what it is. Most bans on true military weapons in the US stem from the 1934 national firearms act, amended a bit by the 1968 gun control act, and these laws actually allows US civilian guided missiles as long as the payload is very small (a spotter charge is what they had in mind, so this wouldn't ban sounding rockets), so that leaves it down to the states if they want to care or not. If terrorists weren't all worthless loser morons we'd actually have to worry about people selling hit to kill MANPADS on Ebay, as it would be legal until the rocket motor got so big you ran onto explosive hazard laws on those....