Comment: (((((((((((((((Hi Granger)))))))))))))))

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I agree with judge nap (see in situ)

(((((((((((((((Hi Granger)))))))))))))))

Does the city have the right to take out the store owner's store front when it fires an air to ground missile?

Again, how do you know the person shooting the gun is a robber and not the store owner?

How do you know the robber doesn't have a hostage in tow?

How do you know the store owner is not right behind the robber in a chase?

I haven't listened to judge nap yet. But I will.

And I WANT to stand with RAND. But I don't want to hear about police shooting people on the spot because they have a gun and some money in their hands.

You say constitutional rights? When someone 14 year old robs a liquer store with a beebee pistol it is OK for a drone to take her out? :

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
But now the law reads "Shoot to kill if someone comes out of a liquer store with a gun and $50.

That does not sound right to me.