Connecticut Lawmakers Vote To Give Police Drones With Guns
from the Death-From-Above-2017 dept
Connecticut's legislature has managed to back into legalizing law enforcement use of weaponized drones. In writing a new drone law, lawmakers banned the use of weaponized drones, but made an exception for police. It's not a case of "Hey, let's give the cops weaponized drones!" as much as it is a case of not wanting law enforcement to be unable to have that option.
As for how police will or won't be able to deploy weaponized drones, that's still up in the air (I am so sorry):
Details on how law enforcement could use drones with weapons would be spelled out in new rules to be developed by the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council. Officers also would have to receive training before being allowed to use drones with weapons.
All well and good, but police officers also receive training in things like civil liberties and proper force deployment, and we see daily how much good that has done. The more encouraging parts of the bill -- one that would see Connecticut join North Dakota in police use of weaponized drones -- are the reporting requirements and warrant stipulation.
It would require police to get a warrant before using a drone, unless there are emergency circumstances or the person who is the subject of the drone use gives permission. It also would require police to report yearly on how often they use drones and why, and create new crimes and penalties for criminal use of drones, including voyeurism.
Unfortunately, Connecticut's bill isn't as limited as North Dakota's. North Dakota's forbids the use of lethal weapons, but it's easy to see some less-than-lethal rounds becoming much more lethal when fired from a few hundred feet in the air. This bill would allow lethal force to be deployed from police drones. One lawmaker sees a pretty rosy future for airborne police weaponry.
"Obviously this is for very limited circumstances," said Republican state Sen. John Kissel, of Enfield, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure Wednesday and sent it to the House of Representatives. "We can certainly envision some incident on some campus or someplace where someone is a rogue shooter or someone was kidnapped and you try to blow out a tire."
The problem with tools like these is they lend themselves to mission creep and abuse. Certainly, no law enforcement agency wants to take home the record for "First Civilian Killed by a Drone," but once the seal's broken, lethal force becomes easier and easier to deploy.
And it's not as though this is a necessary step to take. Law enforcement often complains about being left behind in the tech race, but it's not as though criminals are taking to the air and endangering citizens with weaponized drones. This would put the police ahead of everybody and move them one step closer to being a military force. And there's no warrant in existence that grants police the license to kill -- only to apprehend.
But that might be good enough for airborne Drug Warriors, etc. who believe many criminal acts are punishable by death, should the suspect be unwilling to immediately surrender himself into custody. We've seen plenty of senseless death and destruction stemming from overuse of vehicle pursuits. This is the next step: flying guns shooting at suspects as they flee through "civilian" traffic. Law enforcement officers aren't great shots with both feet planted on the ground. Giving them a gun in the air is a bad idea.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: connecticut, drones, guns, police, weapons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
above the law
If something is illegal for normal citizens to do -- it automatically should be illegal for government employees to do.
Think about that. It goes to the very core of representative government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: above the law
That means they can be controlled by outsourced labor in another country. Heck, people sitting in California have been tele-killing people via drones in Afghanistan and Yemen for years!
Outsourced drone pilots will be far cheaper than police officers, there'll be no police union, and they're easy to replace with another anonymous hire if they screw up. It makes deflecting the blame in a wrongful death a lot easier too.
They might even locate the drone "call centers" in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to provide jobs as part of the rebuilding process. Abundant cheap labor; folks who have already been taught the concepts and potential of drone operations.
The outsourced drone cops won't be normal citizens *or* government employees. Equality problem solved.
Hope This Helps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: above the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can imagine the situation there: "sir, do you allow us to shoot you with an armed drone?"
"And there's no warrant in existence that grants police the license to kill -- only to apprehend."
No need for a warrant when you know that no judge will find a cop guilty of murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If so, guess you wouldn't mind having to replace your TV, refrigerator, any computers, cell phones, dishwasher, probably your heating and cooling panel, your electrical box and other fun stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Through the use of the drone, we followed the CI to the meeting. At that point, the drone's cameras allowed the officers to observe the suspect reaching for what they believed to be a weapon.
Believing their informant's life to be in immediate danger, the officers activated the drone's weapon and engaged. The suspect was struck four times in the chest and head with small arms fire and died at the scene."
And that's only the first way to skin the "permission to use" cat that I thought of off the top of my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Your honor, during a routine urban flight training operation, the drugs were clearly visible from a publicly accessible space outside the 10th floor window."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dallas Sniper killed by robot
It is just another ratchet in the power being removed from the people of the police state of America.
If your police department finds itself in a situation where they think they need remote controlled weapon platforms, they need to step back and let someone else handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dallas Sniper killed by robot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dallas Sniper killed by robot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you sure about that? I bet more than 50% of law enforcement would actually herald it stating that they were able to use advanced technology to keep officers safe so they can easily put down... erm criminals... from a position of safety, yea that's right!
Like the first AC said... the police should not be allowed to use anything a civilian cannot use. Otherwise you just created a work around of the posse comitatus act. Which, is just exactly what they have been working for.
Only a corrupt government sees the need to give its forces an armed advantage over its civilians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The less government the better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The less government the better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-pendulum-with-quadrocopters/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armed police drones? What can go wrong?
Let me correct: what can't go wrong? Or rather: what did go wrong?
At least now I know why the U.S. sigil animal is an eagle: when you have a completely derailed train hurtling into an abyss, it's really time to crank out some large wings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mission Creeps
Uhm, have you met police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wait for the lasers! In any case it seems blue lives need not to fear anymore, they can kill at will without ever being threatened!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might as well paint a bullseye on themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Might as well paint a bullseye on themselves
But then the whole idea of police killer drones has "wrong script" written all over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinetic energy
A drone free-falling from that height IS a lethal weapon, something that is consistently overlooked in all these analyses. And a drone accelerating downward under power could do a lot of damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I'll stay in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like the tanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, one would imagine that the police wouldn't use the same type of drones as the military/CIA. Not like they will be targeting crooks with missiles. Shooting an individual person with a bullet is a little more difficult than shooting a building or vehicle with a missile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2017 @ 10:52am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2017 @ 10:52am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect this idea won't fly for two simple reasons:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not far off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]