North Dakota Becomes First State to Legalize Weaponized Police Drones

a reply to: infolurker
Why are drones, or, I mean lobbyists allowed to get their hands on and amend bills? This is exactly the time where people need to rise up and slam this back down, right now!

a reply to: infolurker

Maybe they can hire lots of Tom cruise clones to keep them flying b

I'm trying to think of any situation where this would be beneficial and/or appropriate.

I'm coming up with nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero.

So this must mean they have facial recognition programs.
This must also mean that they can monitor cell phones. (whatever happened to privacy?)

What about probable cause?
Won't they have to have drones monitoring us to identify means and motive?

This is ugly. Draconian.

And stinks of a police-state mentality.

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm trying to think of any situation where this would be beneficial and/or appropriate.

I'm coming up with nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero.

So this must mean they have facial recognition programs.
This must also mean that they can monitor cell phones. (whatever happened to privacy?)

What about probable cause?
Won't they have to have drones monitoring us to identify means and motive?

This is ugly. Draconian.

And stinks of a police-state mentality.

Control.

That's the only reason I can think of.

The more they tighten their grip...

Where are all the people that kept telling us that if you're not doing anything wrong, what does it matter?

When the drone issue first started, many of us said it was going to lead to this. Only to be told we were paranoid. Now look, armed drones buzzing around.

This is messed up on so many levels it's flat scary. And we told you this would happen.

SMDH!!!

SHEEPLE: You've been misled


This is the text of the Bill:

Use of force. A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit
to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including
firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound - based weapons.

HB 1328 North Dakota

a reply to: infolurker

Did you read the bill, or do you get all your news from biased sources:

Use of force. A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit
to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including
firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound - based weapons.

Here's the SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR VERSION: "SECTION 5.
Prohibited use.
1. A law enforcement agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an
unmanned aerial vehicle armed with any lethal weapons."


IT DOES NOT GRANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO ARM DRONES. IT, in fact, BANS ARMED DRONES.

There is no express permission granted to use non-lethal weaponry of any kind.

This was very difficult to find. I typed "North Dakota HB 1328" and clicked on the link. Jesus, people...........

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.

Quoting this for emphasis.

When you have an Administration like the current one, that openly assassinated 5 Citizens without due process (with people actually cheering it on) ; And then fought tooth & nail to assert they have such AUTHORITY there is really one outcome. Escalation.

I know, there's no way they could do this in America without reprocussions.... Or is there ? You have partisan hacks who will defend anything, if their 'side' does it. Even if it was something they hated under a different administration, they'll defend their team & think it was a great idea. What about everyone else ? Easy to overcome I'm afraid. The target was a "terrorist" boom huge segment of the population instantly supported assassination without due process. The target was a pedophile narco terrorist, boom even bigger segment supports the action...

I agree it won't take long before lethal munitions are mounted, but I think it'll carry on even further. It'll become common place... Before you know it, conventional guns mounted to drones won't be enough to fight the Right-Wing Narco-terrorist Pedophiles assaulting our sensible freedoms... They'll need more fire power, more collateral damage (the neighbors sympathized with them ! They have to go too!) and before you know it the "Beast of Khandahar" is flying over your neighborhood.

a reply to: emsed1

Firstly ease off on the Sheeple bit. OK?

My version reads a tad bit differently:

Section five specifically mentions

SECTION 5.
Prohibited use.
1. A law enforcement agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an
unmanned aerial vehicle armed with any lethal weapons.*

*bolding mine.

HB 1328

Doesn't seem to prohibit less than lethal, at all.

I knew my homemade deflector shield would come in handy one day

'You can't stun what you can't hit, tee hee! (skips away laughing maniacally)

In all seriousness this is disturbing. Who knows what this could lead to.

Don't be surprised when you see armed drones patrolling the US/Mexico border, taking out groups of Mexicans as they attempt to cross, essentially deterring illegals from attempting to cross over...

a reply to: seagull

What am I missing here?

I don't see section 5 in your link.

a reply to: beezzer

(Picturing an aimable pulse EMF weapon as I read that Beezzer!) Where are our Tech people here?! (Now wishing I had actually paid attention in electronics class as a youth...) LOL!! ...

So it's just Taser Drones ?

Here is how they work

Watch This Drone Taser a Guy Until He Collapses

source


Bye bye America, Hello Americanistan!

a reply to: CheckPointCharlie

I didn't either for a minute, which was kind of weird...

Here it is below:

SECTION 5.
Prohibited use.
1. A law enforcement agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an
unmanned aerial vehicle armed with any lethal weapons.
2. This Act prohibits any use of an unmanned aerial vehicle for:
a. Domestic use in private surveillance. A law enforcement agency may not authorize the
use of, including granting a permit to use, an unmanned aerial vehicle to permit any
private person to conduct surveillance on any other private person without the express,
informed consent of that other person or the owner of any real property on which that
other private person is present.

a reply to: seagull

I found it. You gotta click the link next to 'download' in the middle of the page.

I always felt like Half Life 2 was too realistic...drones that scan your face and can attack you, militarized police (the combine) that enter your homes without warrant and beat citizens...
It's kind of like how the book 1984 became more of a manual for the elite, except now the more horrific dystopian fictions are their muse for our futures

originally posted by: emsed1
a reply to: infolurker

Did you read the bill, or do you get all your news from biased sources:

Use of force. A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit
to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including
firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound - based weapons.

FYI - Maybe this will explain it a little better:
www.washingtontimes.com...

A new bill passed in North Dakota’s state legislature in April — originally designed to limit the use of drones — requires law enforcement to secure a warrant if they want to use surveillance drones to gather evidence in a criminal investigation, and an early draft of the bill banned equipping drones with weapons.
But Bruce Burkett of the North Dakota Peace Officers Association successfully pushed an amendment that limited the ban to only lethal weapons, The Daily Beast reported.

The amendment allows law enforcement officials to use nonlethal weapons such as pepper spray and rubber bullets — which can still cause serious injury or even death.

At least 39 people have been killed by police stun-guns this year in the U.S., according to the Guardian.

Republican state Rep. Rick Becker, the bill’s sponsor, said he was wary of the change and wished the language had stayed the same to prohibit all weapons on drones.

“This is one I’m not in full agreement with. I wish it was any weapon,” he said in a March hearing, The Daily Beast reported. “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized.”

www.forbes.com... me/

But, then local law enforcement managed to sneak in the right to equip drones with tasers or rubber bullets by amending the original prohibition against lethal and non-lethal force to just limiting lethal weapons. Becker worries that this new franken-bill will have dramatic unintended consequences.

“I think it’s important to maintain the humanity in making decisions to deploy weapons against another individual,” he tells the Ferenstein Wire. “We can’t depersonalize it and make it like a video game.”

a reply to: infolurker

Wild! "THE FUTURE IS NOW".... I can't imagine walking down the street on a beautiful evening with my girlfriend being stalked by an arm drone.