Unmanned Drones to be used against U.S. Citizens by Police

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

Well, Robert.. I thought you've be able to figure out from my last post that I was saying they don't need "Tanks".. I thought you'd be able to figure out that I was saying from the beginning of the thread that they don't need to be using Military Drones against civilians for surveillance, like we are the frigging Taliban. Yes, the same company makes both.. They have those now.. If things are that bad, the Governor can activate the National Guard, Police & FBI don't need to be ramming through buildings with Tanks. That is a Military action. Do you know what Posse Comitatus is? I'm not being sarcastic.. Perhaps you really don't understand the concept..

[C. Richard Archie]

Robert, I guess I should clarify that it makes no difference if it new technology or not. If they wanted to fly the Blackbird, (which is old technology) I would still be against the local PD using that.

Your assertion that an operator spying a car with two white guys in a black neighborhood, seeing their broken tail light and generating probably cause for a stop, could have been accomplished by having a squad car on the street as well, and I suggest that you could place several of them on the ground for the cost of a drone program.

Then there is the chance the drone goes nuts and crashes, injuring people on the ground. No hands on to mitigate it's decent as would be the case with something under direct human control.

We spend money and FBI personnel on the battlefield to give Miranda rights to terrorist, when I feel that they would be far better used to investigate crime against us as is their charter. Let the military deal with the battlefield.

Imagine telling General George Patton that he could not ask a German captive a question without giving him a lawyer during the Battle of the Bulge. What is happening is a move away from common sense and toward Big Government control of every aspect of our lives.

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

I already answered you Robert. NO military hardware that isn't readily available to the average citizen. No hi-tech drones (Leave that to the Border Patrol at least if it's necessary for their work), no tanks or Armored vehicles, No Flash Grenades, No CS Tear Gas.. (A Chemical Weapon that can kill, & is much more potent than "pepper spray".) I don't mind Police having pepper spray, because I can buy what they can here in TN. If I or any citizen can't buy it, then they should not have it either.. It's that simple.. They are a CIVILIAN Police Force, & should not be using military grade weapons that the rest of us can't have..

"Syracuse police used CS gas, a chemical the U.S. military has agreed under international treaty not to use in warfare."

All about abusing CS gas, & what can go wrong: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... er_sy.html

" The young emergency room doctor didn't know anything about gas exposure. He looked it up on the Internet, Malay said. Nurses gave her oxygen.

After six hours, Malay was released with suggestions she drink water and get plenty of rest.

On the way home, the police officer gave her a $1,000 check on behalf of the department and apologized for what happened, Malay said. Police and City Hall officials would not discuss the money."

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

You answer is illogical and Illogical arguments need to be ignored regardless of what is being argued.

Because you don't like "some" technology, you would deprive law enforcement of technology based on the exact same (and very flimsy) argument that anti-gun nuts use when they seek to to “ban” certain firearms such as those that look “too mean”…you would ban certain technology from law enforcement because of what some MIGHT do with it just like anti-gun nuts advocate banning all guns because someone might use one to perpetrate a crime or have an accident with one.

Applying your argument uniformly, all technology of any kind should be banned from use by law enforcement because it's highly likely that any technology that has ever existed or ever will exist that has been or will not be misused by some one sometime.

Limiting your exclusions to "it's military" and private citizens can't get it doesn't hold water either...much of the technology we take for granted and is widely available was likely, at some time, designed for and was only available to "the military"...for the most part, all it takes to have armored vehicles and the like is money.

By the way, I don't begrudge law enforcement armored vehicles...modern day vehicles will NOT stop a bullet...a typical police vehicle is not only NO PROTECTION against incoming fire but they are also something of a bullet magnet...were I going after an armed criminal I'd want some armoring too.

Have a nice day.

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

I say...you don't need to yell...have a nice day...perhaps take a chill pill before you worry yourself into an MI.

[Dan Lee]

I'm not worried Robert. I'm concerned for my Constitutional Rights, those of You & my other fellow citizens, & as an American, I reserve the right to expose attacks on the Constitution whether they are foreign, or domestic. That's what I'm doing.. Worry & concern are two different things.. But before you go, can you at least tell me what you think of Cops with hand grenades?

[RobertNashville]

I think you should read the entire article and try to understand what is written in whole and why...then I I think you need a chill pill.