The issue of armed drones isn't as simple as it may sound or as easy as it may seem to block. When these were strictly the products of military
forces, it wasn't a tough thing. Predators or other surplus drones couldn't be armed for domestic use. Easy enough....in theory anyway.
What happens when they are designed to be armed and specifically for domestic use right from the beginning?
The video tells the tale but to summarize the issue here, it's a matter of those gun pods you can see on the video shot carrying Taser shots,
Non-Lethal rounds or these being able to deploy tear gas. In a word? NO, would be my first and last thoughts on that matter.
Drones for specific uses (Search and Rescue for instance) or by warrant as some Police organizations themselves have called for as basic levels of
protection? That sounds reasonable. I simply draw the line in thinking when they become armed. Non-lethal or not. It's not a giant leap to go from
one to the other, if non-lethal force isn't enough to object to.
What does everyone think? Any legitimate or good reasons people can see for armed law enforcement drones?
Any legitimate or good reasons people can see for armed law enforcement drones?
Well let's say you've got a barricaded whacko with a knife or gun. The police don't want to put themselves in the line of fire or have the guy
kill himself. Fly in one of these, tase him, restrain him. I think this is a better option than a SWAT team in many cases.
At the same time, slippery slope. Also, the more removed someone is from the actual conflict the easier it becomes (I would guess) to kill/zap them
too long etc. You're removed and it turns into more of a video game.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.