North Dakota Becomes First State to Legalize Weaponized Police Drones

we should not be surprised really.

things are not going to go up from here on out. Is the next step not inevitable?

this is what this country is becoming, call it a modern day ____________ (insert 'ism')

the land of the free
and a lot of *'s in the footnotes

a reply to: xuenchen

Whew! We are safe! Phasers set to stun.

What Bush's saying is for sure nothing but lies bacause his lips are moving.

Bastage.

a reply to: infolurker

"He threatened the drones life so we had to shoot him"

originally posted by: hknudzkknexnt
a reply to: infolurker

"He threatened the drones life so we had to shoot him"

#droneslivesmatter

a reply to: infolurker

Among the many things causing concern about this development is the further disconnect between LE and the public. Police response to potentially lethal situations are dependent on training, and in many cases restraint. "Less than lethal" weapons used on suspects in the past have resulted in death, and if proven non-effective in the minds of LE brass, the escalation to a more lethal weapons load will be a distinct possibility.

Imagine a drone pilot many miles removed from a crime scene, relying mainly on camera views to make decisions on weapons dispersal. The lack of any other sensory input is a disadvantage, possible deadly in decision-making. Thus the disconnect. The element of trust between LE and the public is fragile, the chasm at this time vast. This move and the possible outcomes will further the strain, and abuse of these weapons systems will lead to dire consequences. IMO the bad outweighs the good by far on this Bill.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
IMO the bad outweighs the good by far on this Bill.

Understatement of the year.

I thought you guys wanted to see more less lethal options used by police?

The police don't make the laws they just enforce them. Isn't that what we're always being told?

Well...

Then Bruce Burkett of the North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons.

But I'm sure it's an isolated instance, the exception to the rule...

Just run Signal jammers and keep nets up around your house, then they aren't so pesky

originally posted by: SPECULUM
Just run Signal jammers and keep nets up around your house, then they aren't so pesky

1984 on Steroids

a reply to: infolurker

What could they possibly need tasers on drones for? They allready have armored SUVS , assault rifles, and fully militarized units..

Now they need flying cattle prods. Next will be sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads.

Anybody with a heart condition living in North Dakota.... best not to leave your house ever ever ever again.

Well this ups the arms race citizens are gonna need AAA.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: infolurker

my prediction
I give it 12 months before the roll-out to fully lethal drones - capable of extinguishing citizens with extreme prejudice.

lobbynomics at work again - lucky the citizens / taxpayers get a say in these sorts of "upgrades" /sarc.

Welcome to the New World Order, where weaponized drones are here to protect you and stop crime before you can think it.

So it begins. The slippery slope to allowing the popo to unleash drones capable of killing or maiming people. So I guess we should carry our guns,to shoot down these Skynet bastards!
The Dystopian future is already here. Wow!

Looks like a live action skeet shoot is on the horizon!!

a reply to: infolurker

Drones and military/police robots will be used increasingly over real soldiers/officers. They can kill people in foreign countries and the American media barely reacts. Killing people, whether by armed soldiers or drones sent out, is still killing people, but the general public has a distanced view of it. Look at all the cop beatings, and shootings. What if that was done by police drones or robots? There would be an emotional distance because such machines do not have faces, badges or accountability. Someone is behind it, or is in some way responsible, but people aren't sure who and so it lacks the same sense of reality. We've seen such technology in so many science fiction films over the years and I think that also adds to how people see drone/robot strikes as unreal (as if it's only partially happening.)

After all, if a bank cash machine isn't working you don't get mad at the machine, just annoyed in general. If a teller for some reason isn't assisting you, you may get mad because there is a face and a personality there. Computers and hardware are not viewed in the same way psychologically as human wrongdoers, thus actions carried out by them are not psychologically perceived as wrongdoing in the same way. This disconnect makes military and police crimes easier to get away with.

Somehow, people need to get that the intent and the actions behind such choices carries great weight to it. News reports about such things should put a face to it; be it the politician who pushed for it or what official asked for it. We should also see the bodies, the voices of the victims' families. The current dehumanization of war and State-sanctioned murder needs to be humanized. People need to see (FEEL) the human connection, the reality of these decisions. And tough questions should be put to those responsible.

I've heard pro-gun advocates argue: "Guns don't kill, people do." This is indeed how we perceive it (right or wrong.) We need to see the people behind the machines.

They've been around for a while now: www.abovetopsecret.com...

What was once a hoax is now reality.

LOL on that.

so i guess in a few years it's "all drones are bastards"

a reply to: infolurker



Coming through your window very soon, skip to 1.11. Now imagine those armed with lasers.

Reminds me of the 80's movie Blue Thunder

I just assume it was a sinister helicopter instead of a drone, because who in the 1980's Hollywood movie business would have foresaw drones?

This is very troubling. I do not fear the future, but it does concern me.