Do you really want the police raining down fire from a drone on liquor store robbers, and whatever is in their immediate vicinity??? If the robber is unarmed, or not threatening anyone with a weapon at the time, what exactly is the reason for engaging them with a drone. Are we going to start being OK with shooting unarmed criminals in the back, merely because they disobey the police?
I argue that using a drone in the way that Rand suggested IS unconstitutional. A burglar or a robber is no threat to a weaponized drone, and cops don't make it a habit of shooting petty criminals who pose no immediate threat to anyone's life... On top of being unconstitutional, it's also immoral, and highly irresponsible. I don't want a common liquor store robber to be blown to small pieces by a weaponized drone. I'd rather they just get away with their $500 dollars until they can be apprehended based on the security camera footage. There's absolutely no need for a weaponized drone to be used for this sort of crime. In the case of a murderer or a terrorist, I'd still rather let them get away, than rain down fire from a unmanned drone. Please put your thinking cap on here... do you really want to open up this can of worms? Do you not realize that with NDAA and the Patriot Act, the federal government is going to have carte blanche to mow down "enemy combatants" with these drones???? Do you really want your nextdoor neighbors house to be blown to bits just because he might be a radical "jihadi"? Even if they have a warrant and a judges approval, I think I'd rather not have the brilliant minds of our federal government shooting missiles at my neighbors house. Come on, this is common sense...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Da