
Connecticut may become first U.S. state to allow deadly police drones - hownottowrite
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKBN1722SO
======
I_am_neo
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
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
Well, one can train birds of prey to use nets for disabling drones. And
there's always jamming.

------
HillaryBriss
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
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/chap95...](http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap951/Sec53a-22.html)

[1] See "Updating Garner’s Count"
[http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-
deadly...](http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-
state-statues-30-years-after-garner/)

[2] See "The Birth of the Garner Standard for Deadly Force"
[http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-
deadly...](http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly-force-
state-statues-30-years-after-garner/)

[3] [https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-
ensu...](https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensure-use-
of-force-is-reasonable-and-necessary-and-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/)

~~~
maxerickson
The 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-
question...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/opinions/dallas-robot-questions-
singer/index.html)

~~~
allenz
I'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
Was 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
He 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-t...](http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dallas-police-used-bomb-robot-to-
take-down-gunman-who-shot-cops-721129539651)

[2] See "Inside the Standoff" [http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Police-
Identify-Gunm...](http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Police-Identify-
Gunman-in-Dallas-Protest-Shootings-386015971.html)

[3] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-
robot...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html)

------
mac01021
I wish this sort of article would link to the actual bill on the legislature's
website.

~~~
mac01021
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)

