3 ms·
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,
by 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 The majority opinion makes several interesting arguments for why the common law is obsolete: more crimes are felonies, fewer felonies are subject to the death penalty, and guns make it easier to use deadly force.[2] Connecticut amended its criminal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 Garner itself has largely been superseded by Graham v. Connor (1989) and subsequent cases, which take a more holistic approach but still require use of force to be "reasonable".[3]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...
- maxerickson 10y agoThe problem is that threatened serious physical injury gets measured in terms of the state of mind of the police. They blew up the suspected police killer in Dallas because they believed he presented a grave threat to officers. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/opinions/dallas-robot-questions-singer/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/opinions/dallas-robot-question...
- allenz 10y agoI'm not sure how your example fits in. The police didn't use a state of mind defense in the Dallas case--the suspect was shooting at police officers, which is, objectively speaking, a violent felony. They couldn't capture the felon, so they decided that it was better to kill him than to let him get away. I think the state of mind defense is mainly used to justify killing an unarmed suspect in self-defense. One benefit of drones is that the pilots are in no immediate danger, so they can make better decisions.
- maxerickson 10y agoWas he actively shooting at the time? Looking around I see mixed reports. He was talking to them and fired on the robot when he saw it approaching, but I don't see any clear reports that there was ongoing gunfire.
- allenz 10y agoHe was. "We cornered one suspect and we tried to negotiate for several hours. Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of fire with the subject. We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot..."[1] Also he wanted to "kill more" officers, and it sounds like he confessed to killing the police officers.[1,2] Though killing him was legally justified, the use of a robot is troubling. NYT raises the possibility that they could have waited him out since they had him surrounded.[3] The robot makes it easy to get rid of a problem, but it sacrifices his right to a trial and the possibility, however remote, of rehabilitating him. [1] Video interview http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dallas-police-used-bomb-robot-to-take-down-gunman-who-shot-cops-721129539651 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dallas-police-used-bomb-robot-t... [2] See "Inside the Standoff" http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Police-Identify-Gunman-in-Dallas-Protest-Shootings-386015971.html http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Police-Identify-Gunm... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot...