5 ms·

Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones

23 points by hownottowrite 10y ago

I_am_neo 10y ago
Honestly, do they really have to be "deadly" there are myriad amounts of ways to subdue a perpetrator without killing them, or is this one of those "attention grabbing" headlines?
- mac01021 10y ago
  It would seem the use of the term "deadly" is not hyperbole on the part of Reuters. However, the legislation is not rendering legal the use of weaponized drones by police, but leaving it legal for police and rendering it illegal for everyone else (something not captured well by the headline). From the article: >Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to allow law enforcement agencies to use drones equipped with deadly weapons if a bill opposed by civil libertarians becomes law. >The legislation, approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday, would ban so-called weaponized drones in the state but exempts agencies involved in law enforcement. >In 2015, North Dakota became the first state to permit law enforcement agencies to use armed drones but limited them to "less than lethal" weapons such as tear gas and pepper spray.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Well, one can train birds of prey to use nets for disabling drones. And there's always jamming.
mac01021 10y ago
I wish this sort of article would link to the actual bill on the legislature's website.
- mac01021 10y ago
  And here it is, for anyone interested: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-07260-R00-HB.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-07260-R00-HB.htm
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
HillaryBriss 10y ago
a police drone with deadly capabilities might be used by the police to help apprehend some person suspected of a non-violent crime (e.g. shoplifting or hot wiring a car). now, suppose that suspect has the upper hand and attempts to "kill" this police drone -- are the police now justified in the use of deadly force against that suspect? or it just considered property damage?
- allenz 10y ago
  A drone is not a person, so while assaulting a police officer is a violent felony, killing the drone is just more resisting arrest and possibly property damage, which doesn't add to the justification of deadly force unless someone gets hurt in the process. Under Connecticut law, deadly force may only be used for self defense or to apprehend felons who inflicted or threatened serious physical injury (to a person).[0] Tangent: Interestingly, that hasn't always been the case. Before 1986, Connecticut had the fleeing felon rule derived from English common law, which permits the use of deadly force against any fleeing felon. That rule is still in effect in at least eight states,[1] so in those states it is not a crime to use deadly force against a person fleeing arrest for stealing a car, possessing marijuana, or severe shoplifting. However, deadly force is still illegal under civil law. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment except for self-defense or violent felons. The majority opinion makes several interesting arguments for why the common law is obsolete: more crimes are felonies, fewer felonies are subject to the death penalty, and guns make it easier to use deadly force.[2] Connecticut amended its criminal law to match the following year. Garner itself has largely been superseded by Graham v. Connor (1989) and subsequent cases, which take a more holistic approach but still require use of force to be "reasonable".[3] Diclaimer: IANAL [0] http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap951/Sec53a-22.html http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap95... [1] See "Updating Garner’s Count" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-state-statues-30-years-after-garner/ http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly... [2] See "The Birth of the Garner Standard for Deadly Force" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-state-statues-30-years-after-garner/ http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly... [3] https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensu...

23 points by hownottowrite 10y ago

Honestly, do they really have to be "deadly" there are myriad amounts of ways to subdue a perpetrator without killing them, or is this one of those "attention grabbing" headlines?

mac01021 10y ago
It would seem the use of the term "deadly" is not hyperbole on the part of Reuters. However, the legislation is not rendering legal the use of weaponized drones by police, but leaving it legal for police and rendering it illegal for everyone else (something not captured well by the headline). From the article: >Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to allow law enforcement agencies to use drones equipped with deadly weapons if a bill opposed by civil libertarians becomes law. >The legislation, approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday, would ban so-called weaponized drones in the state but exempts agencies involved in law enforcement. >In 2015, North Dakota became the first state to permit law enforcement agencies to use armed drones but limited them to "less than lethal" weapons such as tear gas and pepper spray.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, one can train birds of prey to use nets for disabling drones. And there's always jamming.

mac01021 10y ago

I wish this sort of article would link to the actual bill on the legislature's website.

mac01021 10y ago
And here it is, for anyone interested: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-07260-R00-HB.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-07260-R00-HB.htm

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

HillaryBriss 10y ago

a police drone with deadly capabilities might be used by the police to help apprehend some person suspected of a non-violent crime (e.g. shoplifting or hot wiring a car). now, suppose that suspect has the upper hand and attempts to "kill" this police drone -- are the police now justified in the use of deadly force against that suspect? or it just considered property damage?

allenz 10y ago
A drone is not a person, so while assaulting a police officer is a violent felony, killing the drone is just more resisting arrest and possibly property damage, which doesn't add to the justification of deadly force unless someone gets hurt in the process. Under Connecticut law, deadly force may only be used for self defense or to apprehend felons who inflicted or threatened serious physical injury (to a person).[0] Tangent: Interestingly, that hasn't always been the case. Before 1986, Connecticut had the fleeing felon rule derived from English common law, which permits the use of deadly force against any fleeing felon. That rule is still in effect in at least eight states,[1] so in those states it is not a crime to use deadly force against a person fleeing arrest for stealing a car, possessing marijuana, or severe shoplifting. However, deadly force is still illegal under civil law. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment except for self-defense or violent felons. The majority opinion makes several interesting arguments for why the common law is obsolete: more crimes are felonies, fewer felonies are subject to the death penalty, and guns make it easier to use deadly force.[2] Connecticut amended its criminal law to match the following year. Garner itself has largely been superseded by Graham v. Connor (1989) and subsequent cases, which take a more holistic approach but still require use of force to be "reasonable".[3] Diclaimer: IANAL [0] http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap951/Sec53a-22.html http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap95... [1] See "Updating Garner’s Count" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-state-statues-30-years-after-garner/ http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly... [2] See "The Birth of the Garner Standard for Deadly Force" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-state-statues-30-years-after-garner/ http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly... [3] https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensu...