Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Let's give this Texas cop a drone to play with:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57572126/texas-police-officer-terminated-after-shooting-at-suspect-41-times/

 

Tuter had tried to pull over Michael Vincent Allen on August 31 last year, but Allen refused to stop leading to a 30-minute car chase. Tuter shot at Allen 41 times during the chase. Three shots hit Allen and he died at the scene. Tuter said he feared for his life during the chase but investigators determined it was Tuter who slammed into Allen's pickup.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57569565/u.s-a-step-closer-to-wide-domestic-use-of-drones/

 

. . . the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team. The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun.

 

drone_AP927728362360_620x350.jpg

 

September 2011 photo provided by Vanguard Defense Industries shows ShadowHawk drone with Montgomery County, Texas, SWAT team members. / AP

Posted (edited)

http://www.cnn.com/2...-cia/index.html

 

Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.

 

http://www.theatlant...-us-soil/62800/

 

So the drones are coming for you. Or rather, the drones could come for you if the Obama administration deems it necessary.

 

Update:

 

Video of attorney general of the US going to great lengths to try to avoid answering Congressional question about constitutionality of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50142293n

 

Sen. Rand Paul will discuss this issue on CNN at 7 pm ET tonight (3/6).

Edited by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
Posted

http://www.cnn.com/2...-cia/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.theatlant...-us-soil/62800/

 

 

 

Update:

 

Video of attorney general of the US going to great lengths to try to avoid answering Congressional question about constitutionality of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50142293n

 

Sen. Rand Paul will discuss this issue on CNN at 7 pm ET tonight (3/6).

 

Thank GOD we got rid of the crazy AGs like John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

Posted

http://www.cnn.com/2...-cia/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.theatlant...-us-soil/62800/

 

 

 

Update:

 

Video of attorney general of the US going to great lengths to try to avoid answering Congressional question about constitutionality of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50142293n

 

Sen. Rand Paul will discuss this issue on CNN at 7 pm ET tonight (3/6).

 

Since you're the expert on all topics you deem to start, what's the difference between a drone's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil vs a SWAT team sniper's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil?

Posted

Since you're the expert on all topics you deem to start, what's the difference between a drone's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil vs a SWAT team sniper's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil?

Due process.

Posted

Since you're the expert on all topics you deem to start, what's the difference between a drone's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil vs a SWAT team sniper's bullet hitting a US citizen on US soil?

Angle of impact, nothing more. But If you choose to kill a US citizen on US soil rather than arrest him (when the suspect poses no imminent danger to anyone), there's a rather large problem regardless of where the bullet comes from.

 

As for me supposedly claiming to be "the expert on all topics" I start, if that's true, it should be pretty easy to find one where I've asked somebody to believe me because of my education, experience or expertise. I can't recall ever doing that (as opposed to providing links to news stories or articles written by others, supplemented by my own thoughts unrelated to my education, experience or expertise), but I suppose it's possible. Good luck finding one.

 

Have I mentioned that I have three brothers named Darryl?

Posted

Angle of impact, nothing more. But If you choose to kill a US citizen on US soil rather than arrest him (when the suspect poses no imminent

 

So you agree then, there could be legal uses of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil.

Posted

Angle of impact, nothing more. But If you choose to kill a US citizen on US soil rather than arrest him (when the suspect poses no imminent danger to anyone), there's a rather large problem regardless of where the bullet comes from.

 

As for me supposedly claiming to be "the expert on all topics" I start, if that's true, it should be pretty easy to find one where I've asked somebody to believe me because of my education, experience or expertise. I can't recall ever doing that (as opposed to providing links to news stories or articles written by others, supplemented by my own thoughts unrelated to my education, experience or expertise), but I suppose it's possible. Good luck finding one.

 

Have I mentioned that I have three brothers named Darryl?

 

 

You didn't need to.

Posted

You didn't need to.

That's funny, but the fact of the matter is, I have frequently posted that I have three brothers named Darryl. Kind of cuts against GG's argument that I claim to be an "expert" on every topic that I choose to start a thread about.
Posted

So you agree then, there could be legal uses of drone strikes against US citizens on US soil.

Yes, as long as the drone is under police rather than military control. Like any other type of weapon or surveillance equipment, it could be wrongfully used. But if used by the police within Constitutional limits, I have no problem with it. The potential problem is that like some other forms of new technology, it allows the police to easily break constitutional limits on their actions if they yield to the temptation to do that.

 

If some scumbag is holding a member of my family hostage and threatening to kill him/her, and the police can take the scumbag out with a drone so that that they don't endanger their own lives, I'm all for it.

 

Does that surprise you?

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for your answer here:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/156135-taxpayers-contribute-millions-of-dollars-to-democrats-convention/page__st__20?do=findComment&comment=2742962

Posted

So it looks like Rand Paul and friends are out for a good old fashioned fillibuster to block the Brennan pick by arguing about Obama's love of killing people with drones. I believe he's headed into hour #8. Kind of fun to watch. And you know the He Who Needs Reservoir Tip is probably very upset about this. Maybe he'll throw another temper tantrum.

Posted

Yes, as long as the drone is under police rather than military control. Like any other type of weapon or surveillance equipment, it could be wrongfully used. But if used by the police within Constitutional limits, I have no problem with it. The potential problem is that like some other forms of new technology, it allows the police to easily break constitutional limits on their actions if they yield to the temptation to do that.

 

If some scumbag is holding a member of my family hostage and threatening to kill him/her, and the police can take the scumbag out with a drone so that that they don't endanger their own lives, I'm all for it.

 

:blink:

You're an idiot. Go take a nap.

×
×
  • Create New...