North Dakota Becomes First State to Legalize Weaponized Police Drones

a reply to: beezzer

He is right in that respect. The "Establishment" of both parties are supportive of Surveillance and a Police State.

It is about the only time you see "Bi-partisan and usually overwhelming Support" in passing Orwellian bills

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: beezzer

He is right in that respect. The "Establishment" of both parties are supportive of Surveillance and a Police State.

It is about the only time you see "Bi-partisan and usually overwhelming Support" in passing Orwellian bills

I'm aware of the treasonous acts by both parties.

Patriot Act
NDAA

I have no problem calling out the spineless weaklings in DC.

But try to get a criticism about the left from the fan-boiz, and you'll be waiting longer for that than you would an intelligent conversation from a Kardashian.

a reply to: jimmyx

You do know that fully half of the dems in the ND legislature voted aye, too, right?

Better hold off on the canonization, Jimmy.

They're all a bunch of, not to put too fine a point on it, treasonous bastards. GOP/Dems alike.

a reply to: infolurker

This is all I think whenever hearing these stories, because almost daily it's something new...

originally posted by: glend
Hasn't US used drones in other countries for strikes that have killed innocent people.

Perhaps its time for a poem

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I've been thinking / saying this for years. Well, to be completely honest all I've been stating in comments is [and then they came for me]. In-fact I haven't said it for awhile because nobody ever seemed to take me seriously.. but now that I think about it, I believe they probably did take it seriously, just said nothing.

Most people don't take things too seriously until it affects them directly.

The thing is, They are coming for us and have been for some time. The bar has been lowered.

Instead of death by 1,000 cuts, it's now death by 10,000 cuts, and that's just fine [for some] until it hits close to home--or even home for some folks.

originally posted by: flyandi
Ohh bull-crap. This will never go through.

The FAA is the legal entity that regulates NAS and it's clearly stated that no public or citizen aircraft can eject an object while operated in the air except for certain special exemptions (like a tow plane).

ND can pass that law but they can't operate it legally under federal law. Like in California with that BS bill 142 the states have no authority over national airspace.

I hope you are right.

See how much everyone cares? I Am Cait gets way more flags, stars, comments..... and outrage [or not]

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: jimmyx

You do know that fully half of the dems in the ND legislature voted aye, too, right?

Better hold off on the canonization, Jimmy.

They're all a bunch of, not to put too fine a point on it, treasonous bastards. GOP/Dems alike.

half the dems?...what does that have to do with it?....the republicans have the majority, vote for freedom, the constitution, and the flag.....where's the patriotism, where's this foaming-at-the-mouth rant about BIG GOVERNMENT? they have the majority....what do they care if half the democrats voted aye...the other half voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS...AGAIN, I ask you....WHO HAD THE MAJORITY!!

Yes, let's get outraged about who voted for this, instead of doing anything about it.
Blame
Blame
Blame

a reply to: jimmyx

Because it wasn't just the evil Republicans that voted for it.

Should I say it again?

It passed with majority votes from both parties...which would seem to lead to the conclusion, at least in North Dakota, that both parties are the problem. Not just the evil Republicans.

But you, of course, may draw whatever conclusion suits your bias.

a reply to: infolurker

Great. The newest batch of Adderall-fueled, empathy-lacking recruits will be sitting behind their drone computer screens and joysticks, delivering heart attacks via taser done to fulfill their ever-increasing need to fire their diminishing dopamine receptors.

Well it seems that the citizens can use constitutional rights to fight the execive force of armed drones in the State or any state.

Brian Owsley, a former federal judge and current law professor at the University of North Texas, expressed similar concerns.

"Drones, like stingrays [or cell-site simulators], were designed for military applications and are now being sold by manufacturers for use by local law enforcement because they need to expand their market," he told Ars by e-mail.

"I question in what circumstance there would be a need for a use of force administered by a drone," Owsley said. "I think that people may file claims regarding excessive force, especially be targeted for non-lethal force when the recipient is not even near anyone to cause them harm. There could arguably be an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim."

There you have it, I guess the constitution is not such an old piece of paper after all.

And yes non legal weapons still kills people

arstechnica.com...

a reply to: RobinB022

The thing is, They are coming for us and have been for some time. The bar has been lowered.

Yes, they can no longer appease our egos with failing economies so will use the whip instead.

a reply to: infolurker

But, but, what about all those people who claimed this would never happen?

Eventually these would be used not only against real criminals, but what the "state" has labeled as "possible extremists"...

You know, after all, if you are in favor of the U.S. Constitution, including the second amendment you are a "possible extremist"...

If you don't agree with all of Obama the King's policies, including immigration you are a "possible extremist"...etc, etc. You can't disagree with the King and his thugs after all...

a reply to: marg6043

But the King and his thugs have claimed that the King has the right to use military drones in U.S. soil to murder American citizens.

Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically

The problem is not the state going after real extremists who want to kill innocent Americans. The problem comes when the King and his thugs use drones, among other ways, to go against "political dissidents" that the state has deemed as "possible extremists" for not agreeing with the King and his policies.

Napolitano is Lying to Americans About Her Department’s Rightwing Extremism Report; TMLC Files Suit

There's no government over site or operator liability with these police drones. Its just removing the human element out of it so "They" feel less guilty when they use them on the public.

Soon every light pole will be weaponized to ensure Public Compliance

a reply to: infolurker

Ah! Another fine and absolutely necessary gift from the lobbyists in Washington. What would our democracy be without them? (Putting joking aside, probably a freer and less corrupt country.)

a reply to: infolurker

Absolutely nothing in ANY of this drivel gives the state of North Dakota the right to arm ANY drone with ANY weapon. Just because something is not banned, doesn't make it legal.

This is utter paranoia.

a reply to: emsed1

Ah... Newspeak, innit?

Just because something is not banned, doesn't make it legal.

One simply has to avoid the term "illegal" in any deliberate attempt to obfuscate the utter nonsense of this statement. Pretty neat!

A fine example, carry on please! We don't put up or shut up here, do we?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: emsed1

Ah... Newspeak, innit?

Just because something is not banned, doesn't make it legal.

One simply has to avoid the term "illegal" in any deliberate attempt to obfuscate the utter nonsense of this statement. Pretty neat!

A fine example, carry on please! We don't put up or shut up here, do we?

FAA regulations prohibit the launching or dropping of any object from an aircraft that is capable of endangering a life. So that's illegal.

Tasers, and other less-lethal (yes I've worked in public safety for over 20 years and they had to change the term 'less than lethal' to 'less lethal' because people were killed) weapons have, in fact, killed people.

The law reads:

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."

There is no getting around it.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Mattos v. Agrano, ruled that Taser use must include the following, or it will be a violation of the Fourth Amendment:

the officer must give warning before each application, and that the suspect must be capable of compliance, with enough time to consider a warning, and to recover from the extreme pain of any prior application of the Taser; nor should Tasers be used on children, the elderly, and women who are visibly pregnant or inform the officer of their pregnancy

So the real issue is (and back to my original complaint) whether the headline of this thread is 1 - true, 2 - accurate and 3 - deserving of a place OTHER than Skunk Works.

To point 1: The headline says ND legalizes weaponized drones.

Legalize: To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law (American Heritage Dictionary)

So, no, armed drones were not legalized. In fact they were prohibited. So the headline is untrue.

2: The cited sources are all sketchy and required extensive research to even find the facts. So, no, it's not accurate.

3: Does it deserve to be in the "Police State" forum? In my opinion, no. It's sensationalized, inaccurate, based upon unacceptable sources, and diverts attention away from actual problems.

a reply to: emsed1

There is no getting around it.

Yes it is, via using non-lethal weapons aka tasers. Anything else?
I think you didn't catch the scope of things and thus reduce this matter to paranoia.

Agreed to disagree then.