-34 votes

Rand Paul says drone strike on exiting liquor store suspect O.K. - UPDATED

Update: Paul's response.

I didn't believe it either...
Here is the video. He speaks about it beginning at 2:25


http://youtu.be/Ctha0exQTd4

Personally, I think the nearly assured misuse of drones should prohibit them entirely until the debate is complete on their use in the US.

Should the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene being the authorized times surveillance equipment could be active during a flight.

Certainly not to fire on suspects any more than I would advocate shooting a robber from a helicopter.

Without a direct/eminent threat to a human from that suspect can we morally advocate lethal force used on a robber from an unmanned vehicle. What is he thinking? Call me old fashion, but in civilian life I still think people should kill people. Let's at least keep that personal.

I am stunned by Rand's statement. Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really?

The guy is simultaneously capable of great good and evil it seems. Scares me. What are our alternatives? I don't know but, I am looking.

Get away from the Neocons and war mongers Rand, their arrogant and self-righteous air is rotting your brain.

UPDATE: Ok,,, now that the may-lay has subsided on this a bit and even Rand Paul (Big thank you to Rand!) took time to address it himself when it travel up the news food chain of the web, I would like to share with you a great comment from the user Wishfulthinker Here is the hyperlink; www.dailypaul.com/283117/rand-paul-calls-for-drone-strike-on...

Wishful wrote down nearly exactly what I wanted to assume was missing from Rand's comments on the fox interview the "implied missing middle statement".

Wishful's comment and my reply will be found at the link if you are interested.

Strong reservations and hopeful thoughts remain for me concerning Rand. You may read some of these outlined in comments to others below here on this thread and on other posts on the DailyPaul.

Thanks all! Remain vigilant for Liberty.




Comment viewing options

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

Another Rand nitpicking fest?

I think randpaulnitpickers.com is available. Go ahead and run him off. Im sure he has no problem going back to being an eye doctor.

Not a rand supporter

but seriously..... C'mon folks, this is getting embarrassing now.

WTF is wrong with you people?

What relevance does the weapon being used to counter a criminal in action? If Rand would have said that's its ok for the police to SHOOT a criminal coming out from a liquer store with gun in hand, would that not be a problem?

The fourth amendment has nothing to do with what weapons you can use against crimals in action. If someone threatens to kill other people and has a gun in hand I don't give to shits about is he's killed with a handgun or drone. Why would I? And more importantly, why do you?

Did you listen?

He said he didn't care if a person exiting a liquor store with a gun and $50 was killed by a drone OR a policeman.

Since when is armed robbery a capital offense?

Since when is a single person judge, jury and executioner?

What else can people be shot dead in their tracks for?

What if the person exiting the liquor store drops the gun when they see the police? Do the police still shoot to kill? Will a person have a chance to drop a weapon or will they be blindsided by a drone?

Have you ever heard of innocent till proven guilty, or drop your weapon and put your hands up?

There is something wrong with the picture IMO, and I don't like Rand being a part of it.

...

A person with a gun

IS often hard to arrest, since they'll probably shoot at anyone who tries.

If lethal action is required, Rand doesn't mind it being a drone. That's the point.

And that is the way he should have said it.

Because that is NOT the point he made. Regardless of what he meant, that is NOT what he said. He needs to be careful with his words, just like everyone needs to be careful with their weapons.

I like Rand Paul. I believe I would like him to be my president. However, that does not mean that he should not accept criticism when criticism is due. I would like to hear him clarify his point after the fact.

It is a very serious issue: when a person is killed. His words were "I don't care...if a...kills him. It doesn't matter what kills him, we should care. We should care when anyone is gunned down. There should be sorrow, even if the person asked for it. The person is a person. But besides that Rand did not set the stage for a firefight and lethal action. He only said "...coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50."

A person coming out of a store with a gun and $50 needs to be addressed with words.

A person coming out of a store shooting a gun and $50 is a different scenario. That person is using lethal force.

Is there a difference between having lethal force and using lethal force?

That is is the point.

The point to me in this case, is not what kind of lethal force is used.

...

Exactly, it's improper for police to murder

in response to robbery. Proper response is to arrest

deacon's picture

find the words

law enforcement.cop or even sheriff in the const
find anything at all in there about laws against the people
look for the 2nd,does it say anywhere or anything others having
weapons greater or better than ours,or how about,the gov being able
to regulate it at all
or how about the fact that them drones are NOT supposed to be armed
but are

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Go, that is so funny you made me laugh out loud!

It is not a laughing matter though. I don't like the sound of Rand's words AT ALL. And I want to Stand with Rand. I like having a leader to look to, even though we are all supposed to be our own leaders.

Rand, hero of the Pink Tea Party

Rand is such a neocon sellout he'd advocate drone strikes against members of the NoZe Brotherhood to prevent the kidnapping of women.

How can anyone say "He misspoke."?

He didn't stutter. He was clear and concise. He advocates killing people with drones. I just heard a report that some cops shot a man for threatening to commit suicide. Perhaps they should have just used a drone. How's that sound Rand? I mean if the argument is that it is OK to use drones to kill someone just because a cop could have killed him anyway then why not. And this is the guy who is suppose to be leading the cause of liberty and justice?

Mis-spoke

I see no hidden conspiracy. His thoughts were mixed up. lighten up.

dave anderson

WE had drones in the skys of America since the 60's

WE have been building personal drones since. Everyone remembers the backyard frenzy to build the best rocket to the moon? Radios controlled cars and planes?

Rings a bell?

Now WE have a military that has them too, and uses them for bombing raids. WE know they are suppose to be used for defensive purpose's only. The bottom line is WE have drones too. "The right to bare arms shall not be infringed"

The military use of drones on our home soil started in OUR own back yards. Private citizens can and should have drones as well. We been had them...the police are just catching up.

i know there will be those who will beg to differ, however the only thing WE should be on the look out for is government trying to limit citizens rights to have them as well. ~My2Cents

"HIS"story is going on all the time. Whether or not one sees it, is the defining point of one's character.~MEB

Really? It doesn't take a

Really? It doesn't take a genius to understand what Rand what talking about. If you would have listened to the interview in its entirety. And yet, he still takes the time to address the squawking. Wow! What a great dude! I've not seen this kind of courtesy from any other politician!

Bunch of babies. Probably the same fake leg/fake blood people.

That is so funny!

"Bunch of babies. Probably the same fake leg/fake blood people."

I actually noticed that on Facebook. Same people spouting the fake blood theory who put up the pic of Rand saying drones should kill Americans.

They are just doing to Rand what they did to Ron. Meh.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

People here are seriously

People here are seriously mental. It's scary.

What would Rand's response be

if some mad bomber took out the Fed in New York?

If not us than who?

Those are some sturdy walls

Not that I've looked

Defend Liberty!

to find the mad bomber

put him on trial.

And you, Granger

What would you do if you were seated on the jury hearing the case?
That is if the suspect was still alive.

If not us than who?

participate and follow court orders

to the best of my ability, larn a thing or two.. size up other juror's, make opinions of people involved, debate, and vote according to my experience as a juror.

So let's get this straight

If there ever comes a time for modern day patriots to take to the streets and throw off the shackles that are quickly imprisoning us you will side with the Bankers and follow their rules even as they change them to suit their needs?

If not us than who?

I'm sure MSM will be all over it

poof a flash in the pan and then what? The UN comes to your rescue?

You speak of that which you know nothing

The over whelming majority of the citizenry of the colonies were much as you demonstrate yourself to be as the war for independence began. They were under the false illusion that you could take your issues to the representative of the Crown to seek redress. Unfortunately the Crowns interest superseded even the most egregious of injuries inflicted upon a person or his property particularly when the injury was received from an emissary of the Crown. This is exactly the type of system you have deluded yourself into promoting. You have clearly stated your loyalties to our Government and it's incessant attacks upon our Constitution as well as our liberties with your statement of your confidence in the current judicial system.
There is nothing wrong with picking your side, what will be an issue is if, after seeing your exalted power structure begin to fail, you attempt to switch sides. There will be no acceptance of rationalizations such as those you put forth in your support of Romney.

If not us than who?

Which colony were you a member?

So if they arrest YOU, you have no peers.. no one to hear your trial.. so you have no trial.. because you have no peers.. you stand for no one saying it's a bogus charade.. but I bet you would hope to have a trial and that you would have a peer for yourself, eh?

So no matter how corrupt that court is, I'm going, and I'm going to participate according to the rules and stand for justice for my peers.

My side is the bill of rights, and I would debate that with the jury.

are you going to trial?

No you caved.

My point is, we have a system, and to not participate is to let the corruption continue, whereas, if more people who believed in the system under the constitution participated, then those who don't give a damn and set precident would be defeated.. as it is, many don't show up, and this is one reason the war on drugs is out of hand.

I suppose you would have proceeded to trial

Even as you suspected your highly paid advocate of selling you out and a certainty of facing a two year suspension of your drivers license which would cause you to lose your job and as a result cause you to lose your home that you have worked all you life to acquire. As I've seen in the past you either refuse to accept any type of reality to a situation or you simply ignore the obvious. You really should remove the rose tinted spectacles and view the world and most notably the Judicial system as it really is. The lawyers, no matter how well paid, are members of the same fraternity as the Prosecutors and Judges. Would you be naive enough to expect a fair trial in front of a judge who was a Mason, being prosecuted by a District Attorney who was a Mason and being represented by an attorney who was a Mason and who all worked together day by day? The system has become nothing but a protected extortion scheme with all the players helping each other in their never ceasing pursuit of robbing the citizenry and postponing the inevitable death of their racket. One thing I can definitely state that is a difference between us. If faced with the same situation of authorities demanding I surrender a Constitutional protection, I would do the same thing over again and have the intelligence to realize what is really occurring.

If not us than who?

After Prop 215 passed

I had come to know quite a few people working on prop 215, and after it passed, a number of those people opened the first dispensaries.

I went to the hearings in San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties, and I even stood up once during Martic Chaxez trial in Orange County because the in your face corruption was cruel. I believe it's important to show up, and that includes for jury service.. too many good people have turned away and allowed the system to become what it is.

Of the whole system is nothing but an extortion scheme is because good people walked away.