Rand Paul Backs Drone Killing Of Hypothetical Armed Robber

Hmmmm.

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Interesting...

Thoughts?

reply to post by Indigo5


I am just suprised that Rand Paul advocates armed drones on American Soil? Something that both liberals and conservatives generally oppose?..

reply to post by Indigo5


Been saving this one................

reply to post by Indigo5

I would ask the senator, "what happened to due process?" in his droned America scenario.

Bravo Rand, let's argue for privacy rights but screw due process, huh?

These guys are all working for the same team: the money. Due process means nothing to them, and privacy rights are just another song on the set-list where they come from. Anyone who creates a hero out of a politician is just kissing the hand that slits his own throat.

Originally posted by Indigo5

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

Thoughts?

I agree with Sen. Paul on this.

The distinction is not the technology used.

The distinction is "What is acceptable behavior by law enforcement?"

Anything that we deem as a society as acceptable for law enforcement to do, they should be able to do with current technology.

Anything that we deem as a society unacceptable for law enforcement to do, they should not be allowed to skirt the prohibition via technology.

A police officer can't come check you out in your hot tub unless he has probable cause / imminent threat / warrant / etc. And that officer shouldn't be able to just fly a drone over your house to get around those restrictions.

But if you are running around shooting people in the street, the police are going to shoot back. It's pretty irrelevant if they use a drone or a gun, imho.

I say this while also being vehemently opposed to drone strikes on U.S. citizens generally and drone surveillance.

The counterpoint, I think, is that allowing the use of a drone in situations where otherwise an agent of the government would be required to personally pull the trigger is that it abstracts the killing process and therefore renders it more likely that the agent will use deadly force. I think that is a valid point. How do you address it?

Maybe limit drones to less-than-lethal ordinance and weaponry.

Maybe put escalated training and review in place for drone enforcement activities over human enforcement activities.

I think the core of the issue is one of due process. When an officer of the law shoots a suspect who is an imminent threat, that officer's judgement is a form of due process. If the drone makes the officer less likely to use their best judgement, then the use of the drone makes it more likely that a suspect's due process will be violated.

To solve the problem, you need to figure out how to maximize the judgement demands of the drone operator (which should be a goal anyways for someone legally-authorized to use deadly force in dangerous situations).

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

Just suppose that the individual walking thru that door was a customer given an unloaded weapon and the bad guy is still in the store? Suppose that the individual walking thru the door with a weapon was a victim secured with an explosive collar or explosive waist band?

Even without hypotheticals like the above, the public record of the powers-that-be shows that they can't be trusted with armed drones (or anything else). Just how many civilians have to be mass murdered before people finally "get it"? Our powers-that-be are some seriously borked-up, evil people.

Rand Paul has already proven what he is about when he stood to be counted with Monsanto. He's definitely not Ron Paul. In fact, I would contribute to his opposition on the (decidedly small) off chance they would not be so full of #.

Its the right use of the tech at the right time.....the problem is that its the keeping of the tech legislated that causes the problem

Rand Paul is a total shill and will say/do anything to progress his political career.

This is the same guy that sold out his own father for Romney.

All the Paullites will come here and make excuses for him tthough. All of a sudden they will support armed drones in American skies.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Rand Paul is a total shill and will say/do anything to progress his political career.... All the Paullites will come here and make excuses for him tthough. All of a sudden they will support armed drones in American skies.

edit on 23-4-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Life is full of choices between only bad options.

You only get to pick one from the list. One of them is definitely the next President.*

Joe Biden
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Hillary Clinton
Andrew Cuomo
Bobby Jindal
John Kerry
Martin O'Malley
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum

I'll take Rand Paul if one of them has to be President.

Aside from the ad hominem attack on supporters of Rand Paul, do you see a significant distinction between using a drone vs. a 9MM on an active shooter in a hostage or volatile situation?


*Sure there could be a dark horse, but the odds of the next President being on this list are 1:99 or thereabouts.

or a policeman kills him.

Oh like how one of the Boston Bombers was killed?

Where was his due process?

So that "gotcha" Paul comment really doesn't have that much behind it.

Originally posted by neo96

or a policeman kills him.

Oh like how one of the Boston Bombers was killed?

Where was his due process?

So that "gotcha" Paul comment really doesn't have that much behind it.

If the OS is accurate, Suspect #1 was firing on officers, which slightly adjusts his due process expectations.

I'm not saying the OS is accurate.

Also, I think the expansion of less-than-lethal means in such a situation, if consistently effective at neutralizing the threat, would be an excellent idea and defuse a lot of the negative outcomes on both sides of the equation.

Non-lethal drones incapacitating active shooters without anyone dying sounds like human progress to me.

Any kind of drone killing a U.S. citizen who is not an imminent threat to other U.S. citizens and residents is unconstitutional.

Any kind of unconstitutional drone surveillance is unconstitutional.

Drones are scary to some people just as guns are scary to other people. They are equivalent. They are both just fancy hammers.

Isn't this the guy who spent like 12 hours in one session lambasting obama about drones?

Originally posted by yourmaker
Isn't this the guy who spent like 12 hours in one session lambasting obama about drones?

From Rand Paul's fillibuster:

“Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda? Are you going to drop a missile on Kent State?”

“I think its also safe to say that Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone-strike program if he were in the Senate.”

He's not a luddite arguing against technology. He's arguing against the unconstitutional application of a particular technology by the Executive branch of the Federal government.

Wow, to think I actually supported this guy on this issue, and now he says this? I actually applauded his filibuster then he goes and says this? Come on man, you actually had liberals and conservatives behind ya on this.

reply to post by neo96


Was Rand Paul wrong Neo? Are you offended by Rand Paul's stance on a drone strike on a hypothetical armed robbery? On american soil?

Originally posted by PointDume

I agree with Sen. Paul on this.

But if you are running around shooting people in the street, the police are going to shoot back. It's pretty irrelevant if they use a drone or a gun, imho.

Heres the Problem M8.

We all recently saw, in Boston, Where there were SEVERAL suspects who the Cops Arrested , who they THOUGHT were the Hunted Terrorist.
Had Rand Paul, and You had the Trigger on a Drone, Those INNOCENT People, Would Be Dead.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Come on man, you actually had liberals and conservatives behind ya on this.

Whatever from what I have heard its fine to use drones over seas, but its a "oh hell no you don't in American streets".

So what is the difference between an American being gunned down on the streets by the police or being gunned down by a drone?

Don't see any difference the result is the same.

Was Rand Paul wrong Neo?

Have to watch the entire interview instead of a snippet that says, "here gotcha".

reply to post by neo96

Have to watch the entire interview instead of a snippet that says, "here gotcha".

Then watch it and get back to us will ya? It's relevant to the topic of this thread.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Then watch it and get back to us will ya? It's relevant to the topic of this thread.

Oh so the topic of the thread is forming an opinion based off incomplete information?

Thanks for clarifying.