3 ms·
In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc. However, in this case: - The US federal govern
by abeppu 3y ago
In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc.
However, in this case:
- The US federal government already has and has used drones as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now includes smaller/cheaper drones.
- The US federal government has materially supported the militarization of police forces, including by giving them military equipment.
- Federal law enforcement agencies operate everywhere in the country, and IIUC their behavior isn't limited by those state laws (e.g. the state of CA can't pass a law that removes the CBP "100-mile border zone" and restricts them to only operating at borders and ports), and IIUC the FBI already flies surveillance flights (though the facial recognition prohibition likely doesn't apply here).
- froh 3y agothe militarization of the police force is the issue here, isn't it? at a most fundamental level what's debated is if civilians and police should be demilitarized as much as possible or not. Who benefits and who doesn't if all legislation strives for a civic society without deadly force? that's the "Elefant in the room". The counter-argument to a demilitarized civic society usually is that you couldn't possibly control the bad guys. The empirically sound ground truth is that it takes 1-2 generations to get there, and that you will get there if only you want to get there, as a nation, as evidenced by a number of countries who wanted to essentially get rid of everyday knives and nunchucks and tonfas, let alone firearms, and who in fact essentially did get rid of them. The US, as a civic society, needs to discuss which kind of a civic society they want to be. the answer to "shall police have gun drones" flows from that. just like the answer to "shall school students need gun drills".