Rand Paul Backs Drone Killing Of Hypothetical Armed Robber

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Heres the Problem M8.

We all recently saw, in Boston, Where there were SEVERAL suspects who the Cops Arrested , who they THOUGHT were the Hunted Terrorist.
Had Rand Paul, and You had the Trigger on a Drone, Those INNOCENT People, Would Be Dead.

I agree with that being a problem. I'm all for reducing the number of lethal takedowns. I also agree that the abstraction provided by drones has a very strong potential for increasing the frequency of lethal takedowns.

However, I think the problem underlined above is exactly the same as the issue of high capacity magazines having a strong potential for increasing the severity of mass shooting incidents. I still don't support gun control and I don't support drone control either.

I like freedom and technological advancement.

Our leaders should focus on solving the underlying problem rather than engaging in reactionary suppression of symptoms and/or tools.

If we embrace freedom and the future, but adhere to our foundational and Constituional principles, we'll end up in the best place possible.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Rand Paul is a total shill and will say/do anything to progress his political career.

This is the same guy that sold out his own father for Romney.

All the Paullites will come here and make excuses for him tthough. All of a sudden they will support armed drones in American skies.

edit on 23-4-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Paulites? You feel like some political trolling today? (they kind of frown on that on ATS FYI)

There is no defending his words, he just destroyed any good will he made with his filibuster earlier. Seems like the "support Romney clown" is the type of man Rand is and this libertarian won't have anything more to do with him.

The only Thing in Common with Rand and Ron, is the Same last Name.

Rand Paul is just another Bought and Paid for Politican.

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Since when did armed robbery become a death sentence?

50 bucks...really Rand Paul?

When did life become so cheap

Originally posted by PointDume

I agree with Sen. Paul on this.

The distinction is not the technology used.

The distincion is that armed drones are used for extra-judicial military applications...NOT civilian.

Extra-Judicial....On foriegn soil which does not recognize US law, nor has the capacity or willingness to arrest or try terrorists or miltary targets.

On American soil we have a robust body of US Law in force, enourmous law enforcement resources to aprehend and try suspects in a court of law and a constitution that demands we do exactly that rather than have a military drone assasinate them.

It is unconstituional to use armed drones to strike Americans on American soil (Jurisdiction)...of the US Constition and it's laws.

VS.

Some desert on foriegn soil in a failed state with corrupt miltary and government that shelters active terrorist leaders plotting to kill Americans. We do not have legal jurisdiction to arrest and try folks, nor the FBI, Police, Courts ad infinium in place to apprehend those people.

American Soil vs. Extra-Judicial

Even the most fevered supporters of the Drone program hold to that crucial distinction...Rand Paul does not care for the constituion, only his political career IMO.

reply to post by PointDume

that works fine in theory, but what is the drone doing when not being used to take out armed robbers?

it's fine and dandy to say that we should use the technology that we have, but armed drones in the us will not merely be used to take out bank robbers.

due process is the law of the land, and this would be a convenient way to say "there was no other option but to take him out". no more defense, no more justice.

Originally posted by bphi1908
Bravo Rand, let's argue for privacy rights but screw due process, huh?

I'm not sure of your point...

Are you saying that in an imminent danger situation cops should use only a gun as their soul tool to protect themselves and the public?

I kind of agree with Rand in it doesn't it really matter how you take some guy out once you reached the point that deadly force is required.

I could see drones do this, but it would be very limited situations. Cops do fire 100s of bullets at times in a gun battle, but situations get real ugly when collateral damage is involved. So unless a city/states wants its ass sued off I would say that a drone strike would be an extreme situation, and one that presents a very isolated position. It is just like even though cops have full auto they can't just pepper a crowd to get the bad guy, but everyone is suggesting with drones they would go all retard and reenact a Iron Man move scène.

Originally posted by PointDume
The counterpoint, I think, is that allowing the use of a drone in situations where otherwise an agent of the government would be required to personally pull the trigger is that it abstracts the killing process and therefore renders it more likely that the agent will use deadly force.

On the contrary. Using a drone (or manned aviation asset) allows the law enforcement agency to maintain surveillance on the subject for as long as is needed. The LE agency can then choose to effect the arrest at a time and place convenient to them--while the subject is asleep in bed, perhaps, instead of walking around with a loaded firearm. Better situational awareness also reduces the amount of stress felt by LEOs, thereby reducing the probability of an old-fashioned shooting. Having a calm, responsible officer viewing the feed and commanding/advising the aviation and tactical units can't be a bad thing, either.

Paul is correct that there is no difference between someone shot by a cop with a Glock and someone shot by a cop with a drone. Dead is dead.

Originally posted by cconn487

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Since when did armed robbery become a death sentence?

50 bucks...really Rand Paul?

When did life become so cheap

Well that gun kind of signs the deal....What does a cop do when he yells put the gun down and the robber doesn't? An off the cuff statement by Rand didn't go into details, but if the guy doesn't drop his gun he just signed his own death warrant not matter what tool is used to carry it out.

Now if he drops the gun then he is in the situation as you suggest...holding only the 50 bucks from the robbery and that would get him a ride to jail. It is kind of simple when you look at it.

Rand Paul deserves my scorn and rabid disapproval!

Any justification for the use of drones is a no-brainer game -changer for me.

At no time, ever can there be any moral justification for the use of drones.

My message to Rand would be this.
"Bitch please, I thought you was a "Paul"!"

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

On the contrary. Using a drone (or manned aviation asset) allows the law enforcement agency to maintain surveillance on the subject for as long as is needed.

The interesting part is everyone assumes the term drone is a Pred and there are 100s of others. Now how many people here thinks that a police department would have a 15 million dollar asset in the air, that takes 30 people to support it, just waiting for the bad guy to come out of a liquor store? With police departments down sizing with no funds available to run at what is needed for 100% operation I don't see a fleet of 15 million dollar assets and an extra 30 people in their future anytime soon.

When one actually looks at the situation it is kind of stupid. To have an over head view of the situation whether its a drone or a 172 with a camera on its bottom could make the difference between catching the bad guy or he gets away.

As Rand properly points out, what we should be concerned with is an attack on our privacy, since drones presents a new tool that would make it quite easy to invade one's privacy. Its funny how at one time a wire tap was a huge issue but now EVERYTHING is monitored, we just need to ensure the stops are in place to prevent drones from taking the next step.

This is coming from a drone pilot BTW...

Originally posted by beezzer

At no time, ever can there be any moral justification for the use of drones.

Is there ever a moral justification to use deadly force? Whether a 20c bullet is used or a 70k missile does it really matter? I'm sure police departments have all kinds of funds to use the 70k missile.... lol

reply to post by Indigo5


Good find Indigo, F&S for the Op!

Rand Paul is just another right-wing hypocritical nut job. All this talk about his magnificent display of statesmanship during his recent drone filibuster and now this, go figure. Not to mention the fact that if the government wanted to watch you in your hot tub, they can do it and have been able to do it with a spy satellites for quite some time.

Reminds me of the people who were all for the sequester right up until it began interfering with their jet-set life style. Now that it's beginning to kick in, they're all over the MSM whining about having to wait at the airports.

Rand Paul is one of the biggest nut jobs in modern day politics, right up there next to Ted Cruz, Lyndsey Graham and Louie Gohmert, just to name a few.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by beezzer

At no time, ever can there be any moral justification for the use of drones.

Is there ever a moral justification to use deadly force? Whether a 20c bullet is used or a 70k missile does it really matter? I'm sure police departments have all kinds of funds to use the 70k missile.... lol

The moral issue is a personal one between a soldier and a target.

Using a drone removes the moral element and it becomes a game of "Gears Of War" or some such nonsense.

There is also the potential for abuse which has been proven time and time again.

Originally posted by beezzer

The moral issue is a personal one between a soldier and a target.

Using a drone removes the moral element and it becomes a game of "Gears Of War" or some such nonsense.

There is also the potential for abuse which has been proven time and time again.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.... military warfare is much different than civilian police doing their duty, and to assume the police would all of a sudden assume a military type kill chain authority just because they had drones is stupid.

Is their potential for abuse with SWAT teams that might as well be military?

A drone still needs a pilot who still needs to pull the trigger as a moral element AND I can guarantee that the authority for that pilot to pull the trigger doesn't rest solely with him as it typically would for a cop with a gun. Military warfare is much different and as I said I don't see ANY police department using preds, but they will use smaller ones that CAN cross the lines of privacy issues.

We could have taken your argument back a few centuries and say that guns remove the moral element compared to a knife or sword that are extremely personal.

reply to post by beezzer


Agreed.

There is a reason they make real live people pull the lever in executions. If a man/woman has been deemed deserving to die, then there should always be a real live member of his or hers own species pulling the trigger, flipping the switch. If you can't look a man in the eye and pull the trigger then you have no business passing that ultimate justice.

No..I don't want robots pulling triggers. It DOES matter. A drone can not see and feel the man's energy...a drone can not shout, "drop the weapon"...a digital painting of a scenario...is not the scenario...a digital painting of a man is NOT a man. Whatever the future of technology brings us in the comming years, we should preserve our humanity where it matters most and death sentences should not be delivered by flying robots...even when there is someone sitting someplace with a joystick controlling it.

Yep we know.
He and that creature that lives on his
head are quite the hypocrites.