Comment: Adam, what are you saying? It was a SLIP of the tongue?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Divide and Conqure (see in situ)

Adam, what are you saying? It was a SLIP of the tongue?

This teen was NOT an imminent threat! Hell, the police didn't even have a WARRANT!! Rand "assumed" this teen was guilty. But, actually, there was NO evidence they were guilty of that crime. Without a warrant, well, any action by the police is warrantless.

THAT's not what was happening in light of the brothers. They were being hotly pursued without a warrant and without FBI video footage of them committing a crime, for God's sake.

If you leave the DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY in the hands of high-level and corrupt bureaucrats, this is exactly the outcome you can potentially have---an innocent man being gunned down by the FBI and their ordered policemen.

I think you miss the point, Adam. DRONES are DANGEROUS and, we Americans do not want them used in our country EVER, get it? EVER! We have existed in Law Enforcement long enough just fine without them. I know, because I have known & worked with our Law Enforcement system for years! Even tazers can kill, yet they are allowed to use them! It is simply NOT TRUE that police end up spraying bystanders with bullets! THAT kind of thing SELDOM has ever happened, so you're just not being fair!

Besides, if you *allow* bureaucrats to have a drone program, even one drone in place, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We don't want to encourage ANY drones ever. Sorry, I disagree with you.

If RAND really believes in the "right to a jury", the "right to be charged", then, he SHOULD believe that a person should be captured first WITHOUT a drone. But, that's NOT what he said, Adam. Don't insult my intelligence.

Say he made a mistake & misspoke, and I'd believe that, but don't defend an indefensible statement. Give me a friggin' break!