19 votes

Did they hit Dorner's truck with a drone strike? Lots of chatter happening.

This is getting interesting. No trial. America has become a joke.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lets not forget WACO I know that I saw a

TANK. Its about using military weapons against the civilian population. Not just by the military but by any Three letter USA corp agancy and any local badged gun toting thug unit. Soon they will be openly carying machine guns around and have a artillery battery on stand by incase they want to blow up your home.


Drone kill list comes to

The protect and serve unit of the ROthschild bank mafia corporate USA.


Just for the sake of a philosophical argument,

Just for the sake of a philosophical argument, how is this any different than Jimmy Lee Dykes -- the fellow who, reportedly, killed a bus driver and abducted a 5-yr-old boy who he held captive for a week? The FBI swarmed his residence and killed him. No trial.

The difference

Is the hostage and a week of peaceful negotiations.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Would he really be stupid

Would he really be stupid enough to be driving his blue truck still?


If they hadn't already shot up innocent folk and proved their intentions to be bad, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to this. I mean this would actually be, for once, a legitimate use of a drone.

Drones are like guns, they don't kill people. They also don't spy on people or violate their privacy. People do all of that, and the people are who we have to stop.

We shouldn't be using drones to track citizens' every move but if there is truly a murderer on the loose then indeed we should use it to track him down (certainly not to execute without a trial however....)

But with that said, this still gives me a horrible feeling and makes me very nervous, because like all of you, I know they don't have the same reserves about executing or concern for civilians. Luckily, I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to put lethal weapons on these (yet).

Who is TelFiRE ... just heard on TV that TelFiRE shot at a...

crossing guard in a school zone and is somehow related to that cop case! Can we track this TelFiRE person? After all the name is posting here. That is a shame on all of DP!

Hope the drone is fueled. It is too dangerous to the children to wait for him/her to do it again. Saving a life is worth the possibility of loosing one by mistaken ID or mistaken information isn't it?

Can anyone here help with this? What danger is TelFiRE in now?

What danger is liberty in now with TelFiRE hanging around?

Ron Paul enlightened must know this answer after all!


I need a moderator to remove the above accusation. It is blatantly false slander.


I do not understand your post, but you need to remove your false accusation! I did not shoot at anyone or attempt to murder anyone, and have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry if you misunderstood the satirical analogy...

To make it simple, it is an illustration of why the use of drones are unconstitutional and evil. You responded accordingly.

We were to imagine the post was in the news media, followed by the obligatory or perceived need for drones. You would be not just offended, but in desperate straits! Your post called for this illustration. You actually helped illustrate the point.

All you have to do is change the name to Dorner, with drones or us DP members on his tail, then imagine him possibly complaining... but then, we all know already that he is guilty!?

Need it really be said that I did not really think a real person named TelFiRE... etc. etc. etc.? :)

You clearly did not

You clearly did not understand my point then. I made it pretty clear, repeatedly, that I did not condone the use of force. The drone has, and was originally purposed for, surveillance in public areas, not for assassinations without trials.

And no, I did not see the satirical connection, and I still fear others might not as well, so please remove the accusation or at least clearly mark it as satire.

No Way.

Part of deescalating violence is having a law enforcement agency that uses an appropriate level of force. If tanks and drones start rolling around town, people will need tanks and drones to protect themselves. Posse Comitatus implies no military involvement in civilian matters, but it also implies no military equipment for civilian law enforcement. Cops do not equal military.

And what exactly makes this

And what exactly makes this particular modern invention of machinery a "military" tool and not a police tool? I am not advocating use of force without a trial, I am saying that it is ok for the police to use technology to find someone who they believe is guilty of a crime (and then give them a fair trial). Of course by no means should they be armed with any kind of lethal weapon.

I don't understand how you can be against gun control but ok with completely banning drones. What arbitrary attribute is it that makes drones different than guns? There is no difference. The drone is a gun. It can be used for good or for evil.

Your right, it is just a gun or a tool.

But the gun isn't the point. It's about the uniform nature of justice. Can you own a drone that can spy on people, drop a bomb on them or shoot them remotely? Can you own a nuke? The rule of law is only being followed if it applies evenly to everyone, law enforcement included. It's about not tipping the scales on the status qou and allowing an entity to think it can rule by force. You can have a pistol because cops can have a pistol, because a pistol is what is needed. If a drone is what's needed, everybody has to be allowed the same. The utility of the tool is sort of secondary. I think the more pressing question is why can the military have something that obviously tips the balance of power? Because they need it and you don't? It's a question that's harder to reconcile, but I think it comes down to greater limitations. Posse Comitatus Act, confined practices, limited operations, fail safes, etc...But I don't know. Perhaps there is room, but I just don't trust it.

I don't understand what your

I don't understand what your point is, quite honestly. I'm not condoning any of the stupid laws. I think people should be able to posses any weapon. I think "shall not be infringed" extends to fully automatic and firearms far beyond anything yet invented. And I don't think the government should be allowed to spy on anyone. I thought I made all of that pretty clear. Just saying it's a tool.

Sure. I see what you're saying,

but no limitations at all? Shouldn't citizens get a say in what resources law enforcement can use. The citizens do pay for them. Also, the gun is probably a good analogy for a drone, but what about things that are inherently dangerous on their own, just by their very nature. Radioactive substances, compressed gases, an unmarked whole in the ground, or a swimming pool, to name a few. What do you think about limitations involving precautionary needs? I might be able to protect my pool with a fence, but would I be able to protect a nuke? Maybe, but probably not with my budget.

Owning a swimming pool is

Owning a swimming pool is inherently dangerous? You kind of lost me.

I think it should be almost entirely up to the citizenry, yes. We should be able to vote to put limitations on the government. I would vote to disarm drones because that is very likely to lead to civilian casualties, but I wouldn't vote to have them be unavailable to police because that seems silly. It's an amazing tool for the very job police exist to do. Everything government does is not inherently evil, it does exist for certain purposes, and I think finding criminals is one of the most important.

I guess this is a bit of a loose distinction.

I meant a pool is inherently dangerous because it's potential to do harm exist when it's being used or not. It's a gun that's both loaded and unattended. Obviously some kid still has to jump in it and stop swimming to be harmed, and that's not really the fault of the pool. What I was trying to express was that certain things require certain reasonable precautionary measures and responsibilities.

I was kind of going to imply that drones ARE inherently dangerous, not because they can fall out of the sky, but because the precautions required to keep their use within the confines of the law are not there (yet). How can you have face nonrecognition software, a birds eye view of people's back yards, algorithms that track people's vehicles and property, thermal imaging, etc. and retain people's right to be free of search and seizure?


There has been no drone strike. The article refers to him being tracked by drones, not blown up with a missile. My personal belief is that unless he was injured in the getaway, he is long gone from the mountains. You don't flee to a place like that unless you have an exit planned.

Reason would dictate

that if the truck had been hit by a drone - there would be nothing but scraps of tin left. Is there any video evidence of the truck?

It depends on what was used

Yes, there is lots of pics on internet of his truck. I've never burned a vehicle, but it seems like lots of fuel had to be poured on it and lots of fuel in tank.