You can stop laughing now.

[Professor]

Why are most of you assuming that "armed" drone = "armed with anti-tank missile" drone? Why not "arm" them with tear gas to disperse a crowd? Or loudspeakers to warn a crowd? Or, like I said, vehicle immobilizers?

Yes, Eynon, a spike strip could send a car into oncoming traffic. How is a spike strip laid down by a drone any different than one laid by an officer in that respect?

I don't forsee drones doing anything that a police officer wouldn't do. We just don't have to put a police officer in danger. When police officers start carrying shoulder-fire Hellfire missiles, then we can start putting them on drones. But, until then, I think the drones used by police forces will have slightly more mundane weaponry.

So, let's ask this question - what would an armed drone do that is unacceptable, but would be acceptable by a regular police officer?

That's the real question. Because, if you have a problem with using drones to blow up buildings, then the problem isn't with the drone, but with using force to blow up a building. That action would be unacceptable by both a drone and an officer.

[eynon81]

[lnrw]

Well for argument's sake about assumptions, as we know they can be an enormous problem and genesis for lies. Like wmds in Iraq.

So some are thinking that uavs might mean more than just surveillance, since they can be used that way.

Some are slightly more trusting of state actors and don't want to count chickens not yet hatched.

But what if we list all state powers ever granted to state actors that have not been abused.

How long would that list actually be?

[lnrw]

Is an armed drone the problem or is it presidential power to target people in the US? warantless? on say so? circumstantial evidience?

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[Professor]

[eynon81]

[NAB]

As I mentioned earlier, if they're going to use drones then legislate away their ability to be armed. Surveillance only. Easy peasy.

[lnrw]