Drones on US soil: What the people dont understand

[bucs90]

This drone-on-US-soil topic is heating up amongst the right wing circles. Lots of bitching and lots of boogey man rhetoric. People saying Eric Holder (who I despise btw) is lying, or twisting the facts, whatever it may be.

Here is the raw, basic truth people gotta understand. The rules governing use of lethal force on a US citizen, or any person within our borders, by any local, county, state or federal law enforcement agency is exactly the same. Thats right. The FBI has the exact same lethal force guidelines that the Wasilla, AK police department has. Look up court cases Graham vs Connor, and Tennessee vs Garner. The first dictates using only that force which is "reasonable and necessary". And yep, it leaves a lot up to interpretation, since no 2 incidents are exactly alike. The second, Tenn vs Garner, is the "Fleeing Felon Act". It says a law enforcement officer can use lethal force on a fleeing felon (like shooting an unarmed man in the back) IF and ONLY if the facts known indicate that- if allowed to escape- the fleeing felon would cause an imminent (even if not immediate) threat to human life.

So what does that mean? It means if a Podunk County Sheriff pulls over Osama Bin Laden, and OBL runs, he can shoot him in the back legally, because if he escapes, he is obviously an imminent threat to human life.

But nowhere does the law dictate what type weapon must be used by law enforcment- at any level. Only that the force is "reasonable", "necessary", and if no due process, there must be exigent circumstances.

For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light, and the driver pulls a gun and aims at the cop, the cop can shoot him........with no due process, no charges having been filed, no jury trial.


So, when would a drone be "reasonable and necessary"??? As Holder said (who I again despise), it would be very difficult to imagine, but, could happen. What about a US citizen, claiming to be constructing a massive bomb in a home, or, intell saying he has smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country and has it in his home. If we have facts that suggest there is a VERY strong likelihood that there is indeed a massive bomb inside the home, and the suspect is barricaded inside, with rifles, HOW would you handle that? Send cops in to certain death with the bomb? No. You'd obviously evacuate the area with a very wide perimeter.

Would a drone hit on the house be the most "reasonable" and "necessary" option, if, and ONLY IF, there was overwhelming evidence that the person inside did have a massive bomb (like OKC size) or other means that prevented cops from reasonably making an entry?

Again, very rare circumstance. But, legally, it is possible that a drone could be used on a US citizen on our soil and it fit the law.

 

[Marie_Archer]

Thank you for this post. I admit that I was uncomfortable about what was said but the way you have explained it makes me feel better. Many seem to be using what Holder said to claim that the military is going to turn on citizens and that certainly is not the case.

 

[tjvh]

People who don't fear drones, are drones. There is no Constitutional grounds for a drone operator to become Judge, Jury, and Executioner of an American citizen on U.S. soil.

 

[Katzndogz]

It would be hard to imagine the scope of the way you have misunderstood the use of military drones within the United States. I'm seeing it, but am shocked at the level of misunderstanding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals like the OP need to move to another country more to their liking

 

[Annie]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

 

[bucs90]

Im not supporting it, Im saying it could be legal in very rare circumstances. You guys are talking about the "use of military equipment on US soil", well, thats been happening for decades.

All NTOA certified SWAT teams have a sniper-observer team. That is a traditional military role, with a big military gun. If that situation goes bad, the bad guy could be killed by the swat sniper. Example, which has happened in real time: A suspect has hostages. He says 5 minutes, if demands not met, he's killing them. His demands aren't met. He lets his pet dog out, starts praying on the phone and tells negotiator to tell his mother he loves her. Is this an immediate threat to the life of the hostages? YES. Dude has a gun, made the threat, and is showing all reasonable signs that he is about to kill them. When he comes into view of a window, the sniper opens dudes head like a watermelon. No due process. No charges filed. No jury trial. 100% legal.


BUT, dont forget Graham vs Connor mandates REASONABLENESS. And the standard that case law has set is for the reasonableness to be reasonable through the eyes of a reasonable person, a regular citizen, not a cop or military officer. Basically, would a jury likely find the force reasonable.

So, if someone got mad at a mayor and punched him, then barricaded himself into his house with a pistol, would a drone strike be "reasonable"? Absolutely not, thats a local swat team issue.

If someone robbed a bank, and was holed up in a vacant warehouse with an AK-47 firing back at cops, would a drone strike be "reasonable and necessary"? NO. He'll run out of ammo eventually, the swat teams have gas grenades and big guns themselves. That again is a swat issue.



If the CIA has been tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, and they have an informant on a small boat with the suspect AND the bomb, and it is 99% verified, and that boat is mobile and heading up the Mississippi River towards an unknown location........would it be reasonable to take that boat out immediately? I believe so. Would local police have the resources to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, they dont have Apaches or combat boats.

Even that scenario is tricky. But, it would certainly be reasonable to consider a drone to immediately take that boat out.

But there is almost no difference in a drone operator taking someone out vs a swat sniper taking someone out. They both do it from a distance, they both use lethal force, they both are not directly being targeted by the suspect. They both would be acting within current law. The only difference is the scope of the weapon they use to carry out use of lethal force. And that scope is tested against Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner for reasonable and necessary standards.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Im not supporting it, Im saying it could be legal in very rare circumstances. You guys are talking about the "use of military equipment on US soil", well, thats been happening for decades.

All NTOA certified SWAT teams have a sniper-observer team. That is a traditional military role, with a big military gun. If that situation goes bad, the bad guy could be killed by the swat sniper. Example, which has happened in real time: A suspect has hostages. He says 5 minutes, if demands not met, he's killing them. His demands aren't met. He lets his pet dog out, starts praying on the phone and tells negotiator to tell his mother he loves her. Is this an immediate threat to the life of the hostages? YES. Dude has a gun, made the threat, and is showing all reasonable signs that he is about to kill them. When he comes into view of a window, the sniper opens dudes head like a watermelon. No due process. No charges filed. No jury trial. 100% legal.


BUT, dont forget Graham vs Connor mandates REASONABLENESS. And the standard that case law has set is for the reasonableness to be reasonable through the eyes of a reasonable person, a regular citizen, not a cop or military officer. Basically, would a jury likely find the force reasonable.

So, if someone got mad at a mayor and punched him, then barricaded himself into his house with a pistol, would a drone strike be "reasonable"? Absolutely not, thats a local swat team issue.

If someone robbed a bank, and was holed up in a vacant warehouse with an AK-47 firing back at cops, would a drone strike be "reasonable and necessary"? NO. He'll run out of ammo eventually, the swat teams have gas grenades and big guns themselves. That again is a swat issue.



If the CIA has been tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, and they have an informant on a small boat with the suspect AND the bomb, and it is 99% verified, and that boat is mobile and heading up the Mississippi River towards an unknown location........would it be reasonable to take that boat out immediately? I believe so. Would local police have the resources to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, they dont have Apaches or combat boats.

Even that scenario is tricky. But, it would certainly be reasonable to consider a drone to immediately take that boat out.

But there is almost no difference in a drone operator taking someone out vs a swat sniper taking someone out. They both do it from a distance, they both use lethal force, they both are not directly being targeted by the suspect. They both would be acting within current law. The only difference is the scope of the weapon they use to carry out use of lethal force. And that scope is tested against Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner for reasonable and necessary standards.

Have you considered moving to Venezuela?

 

[bucs90]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

 

[bucs90]

Im not supporting it, Im saying it could be legal in very rare circumstances. You guys are talking about the "use of military equipment on US soil", well, thats been happening for decades.

All NTOA certified SWAT teams have a sniper-observer team. That is a traditional military role, with a big military gun. If that situation goes bad, the bad guy could be killed by the swat sniper. Example, which has happened in real time: A suspect has hostages. He says 5 minutes, if demands not met, he's killing them. His demands aren't met. He lets his pet dog out, starts praying on the phone and tells negotiator to tell his mother he loves her. Is this an immediate threat to the life of the hostages? YES. Dude has a gun, made the threat, and is showing all reasonable signs that he is about to kill them. When he comes into view of a window, the sniper opens dudes head like a watermelon. No due process. No charges filed. No jury trial. 100% legal.


BUT, dont forget Graham vs Connor mandates REASONABLENESS. And the standard that case law has set is for the reasonableness to be reasonable through the eyes of a reasonable person, a regular citizen, not a cop or military officer. Basically, would a jury likely find the force reasonable.

So, if someone got mad at a mayor and punched him, then barricaded himself into his house with a pistol, would a drone strike be "reasonable"? Absolutely not, thats a local swat team issue.

If someone robbed a bank, and was holed up in a vacant warehouse with an AK-47 firing back at cops, would a drone strike be "reasonable and necessary"? NO. He'll run out of ammo eventually, the swat teams have gas grenades and big guns themselves. That again is a swat issue.



If the CIA has been tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, and they have an informant on a small boat with the suspect AND the bomb, and it is 99% verified, and that boat is mobile and heading up the Mississippi River towards an unknown location........would it be reasonable to take that boat out immediately? I believe so. Would local police have the resources to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, they dont have Apaches or combat boats.

Even that scenario is tricky. But, it would certainly be reasonable to consider a drone to immediately take that boat out.

But there is almost no difference in a drone operator taking someone out vs a swat sniper taking someone out. They both do it from a distance, they both use lethal force, they both are not directly being targeted by the suspect. They both would be acting within current law. The only difference is the scope of the weapon they use to carry out use of lethal force. And that scope is tested against Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner for reasonable and necessary standards.

Have you considered moving to Venezuela?

No. Unlike the US, Venezuela, and other places like Mexico, Brazil, China, NK, Russia, etc, dont have the same restrictions on their police that we do.

You should read everything I wrote. You'll see that you have nothing to worry about. A drone isn't gonna come get ya' just because you have a yellow rattlesnake flag on the porch. It wouldnt be legal.

 

[Oldguy]

This drone-on-US-soil topic is heating up amongst the right wing circles. Lots of bitching and lots of boogey man rhetoric. People saying Eric Holder (who I despise btw) is lying, or twisting the facts, whatever it may be.

Here is the raw, basic truth people gotta understand. The rules governing use of lethal force on a US citizen, or any person within our borders, by any local, county, state or federal law enforcement agency is exactly the same. Thats right. The FBI has the exact same lethal force guidelines that the Wasilla, AK police department has. Look up court cases Graham vs Connor, and Tennessee vs Garner. The first dictates using only that force which is "reasonable and necessary". And yep, it leaves a lot up to interpretation, since no 2 incidents are exactly alike. The second, Tenn vs Garner, is the "Fleeing Felon Act". It says a law enforcement officer can use lethal force on a fleeing felon (like shooting an unarmed man in the back) IF and ONLY if the facts known indicate that- if allowed to escape- the fleeing felon would cause an imminent (even if not immediate) threat to human life.

So what does that mean? It means if a Podunk County Sheriff pulls over Osama Bin Laden, and OBL runs, he can shoot him in the back legally, because if he escapes, he is obviously an imminent threat to human life.

But nowhere does the law dictate what type weapon must be used by law enforcment- at any level. Only that the force is "reasonable", "necessary", and if no due process, there must be exigent circumstances.

For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light, and the driver pulls a gun and aims at the cop, the cop can shoot him........with no due process, no charges having been filed, no jury trial.


So, when would a drone be "reasonable and necessary"??? As Holder said (who I again despise), it would be very difficult to imagine, but, could happen. What about a US citizen, claiming to be constructing a massive bomb in a home, or, intell saying he has smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country and has it in his home. If we have facts that suggest there is a VERY strong likelihood that there is indeed a massive bomb inside the home, and the suspect is barricaded inside, with rifles, HOW would you handle that? Send cops in to certain death with the bomb? No. You'd obviously evacuate the area with a very wide perimeter.

Would a drone hit on the house be the most "reasonable" and "necessary" option, if, and ONLY IF, there was overwhelming evidence that the person inside did have a massive bomb (like OKC size) or other means that prevented cops from reasonably making an entry?

Again, very rare circumstance. But, legally, it is possible that a drone could be used on a US citizen on our soil and it fit the law.

But, law enforcement does not have the right to kill a suspect who isn't resisting or fleeing. They can't just arbitrarily on their own kill a suspect just because he's suspected of something. That's basically the right the administration is claiming to have and it's so contrary to the Constitution that I don't see how anybody can swallow that reasoning.

 

[paperview]

Im not supporting it, Im saying it could be legal in very rare circumstances. You guys are talking about the "use of military equipment on US soil", well, thats been happening for decades.

All NTOA certified SWAT teams have a sniper-observer team. That is a traditional military role, with a big military gun. If that situation goes bad, the bad guy could be killed by the swat sniper. Example, which has happened in real time: A suspect has hostages. He says 5 minutes, if demands not met, he's killing them. His demands aren't met. He lets his pet dog out, starts praying on the phone and tells negotiator to tell his mother he loves her. Is this an immediate threat to the life of the hostages? YES. Dude has a gun, made the threat, and is showing all reasonable signs that he is about to kill them. When he comes into view of a window, the sniper opens dudes head like a watermelon. No due process. No charges filed. No jury trial. 100% legal.


BUT, dont forget Graham vs Connor mandates REASONABLENESS. And the standard that case law has set is for the reasonableness to be reasonable through the eyes of a reasonable person, a regular citizen, not a cop or military officer. Basically, would a jury likely find the force reasonable.

So, if someone got mad at a mayor and punched him, then barricaded himself into his house with a pistol, would a drone strike be "reasonable"? Absolutely not, thats a local swat team issue.

If someone robbed a bank, and was holed up in a vacant warehouse with an AK-47 firing back at cops, would a drone strike be "reasonable and necessary"? NO. He'll run out of ammo eventually, the swat teams have gas grenades and big guns themselves. That again is a swat issue.



If the CIA has been tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, and they have an informant on a small boat with the suspect AND the bomb, and it is 99% verified, and that boat is mobile and heading up the Mississippi River towards an unknown location........would it be reasonable to take that boat out immediately? I believe so. Would local police have the resources to do that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, they dont have Apaches or combat boats.

Even that scenario is tricky. But, it would certainly be reasonable to consider a drone to immediately take that boat out.

But there is almost no difference in a drone operator taking someone out vs a swat sniper taking someone out. They both do it from a distance, they both use lethal force, they both are not directly being targeted by the suspect. They both would be acting within current law. The only difference is the scope of the weapon they use to carry out use of lethal force. And that scope is tested against Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner for reasonable and necessary standards.

Have you considered moving to Venezuela?

What the fuck, Frank??

 

[Annie]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Before a sniper 'takes aim' efforts are made to have the suspect surrender, no? How may snipers 'accidentally' take out innocents when finally taking the shot? Drones?

While we're now arguing details, the issue is much larger since drones by definition would put US military operating within our borders-no courts needed. US citizens would just have to take the word of politicians that they were doing the right thing. Geez, doesn't that sound so progressive?

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm going to make a possibly futile attempt.

It is unconstitutional for the president to order the death of anyone on American soil. Much less the death of an American citizen.

In the absence of exigent circumstances, i.e. fleeing felon, active firefight, the police may not use lethal force in the absence of a court order to do so.

If the CIA is tracking a man who smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country, the CIA loses all authority to do anything as soon as that man crosses the border into the United States including track the man. Authority goes to the FBI who cannot do anything without first getting approval of a FISA judge. The FISA judge would obviously NOT issue an order to take that boat out because the boat does not present an imminent threat, it is merely sailing down the river.

The question posed by the government use of drones has nothing to do with police operations. The question is Does the president have the authority to order the use of a drone to kill an American citizen who does not pose an imminent threat? He's sitting in a Starbucks having a mango smoothie. He's driving down the road taking his kid to soccer practice.

Eric Holder said that the use of a drone to kill an American in such circumstances was inappropriate, he refused to say that it was unconstitutional, which it is. Holder has said, at other times, that such a use of force was within the power of the presidency.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Riiiight, a drone is nothing more than a fancy sniper.

Riiiiiiight.

Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela but not so much Vietnam any more since they adopted Free Enterprise and makes you solidly to their Left

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This drone-on-US-soil topic is heating up amongst the right wing circles. Lots of bitching and lots of boogey man rhetoric. People saying Eric Holder (who I despise btw) is lying, or twisting the facts, whatever it may be.

Here is the raw, basic truth people gotta understand. The rules governing use of lethal force on a US citizen, or any person within our borders, by any local, county, state or federal law enforcement agency is exactly the same. Thats right. The FBI has the exact same lethal force guidelines that the Wasilla, AK police department has. Look up court cases Graham vs Connor, and Tennessee vs Garner. The first dictates using only that force which is "reasonable and necessary". And yep, it leaves a lot up to interpretation, since no 2 incidents are exactly alike. The second, Tenn vs Garner, is the "Fleeing Felon Act". It says a law enforcement officer can use lethal force on a fleeing felon (like shooting an unarmed man in the back) IF and ONLY if the facts known indicate that- if allowed to escape- the fleeing felon would cause an imminent (even if not immediate) threat to human life.

So what does that mean? It means if a Podunk County Sheriff pulls over Osama Bin Laden, and OBL runs, he can shoot him in the back legally, because if he escapes, he is obviously an imminent threat to human life.

But nowhere does the law dictate what type weapon must be used by law enforcment- at any level. Only that the force is "reasonable", "necessary", and if no due process, there must be exigent circumstances.

For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a broken tail light, and the driver pulls a gun and aims at the cop, the cop can shoot him........with no due process, no charges having been filed, no jury trial.


So, when would a drone be "reasonable and necessary"??? As Holder said (who I again despise), it would be very difficult to imagine, but, could happen. What about a US citizen, claiming to be constructing a massive bomb in a home, or, intell saying he has smuggled a suitcase nuke into the country and has it in his home. If we have facts that suggest there is a VERY strong likelihood that there is indeed a massive bomb inside the home, and the suspect is barricaded inside, with rifles, HOW would you handle that? Send cops in to certain death with the bomb? No. You'd obviously evacuate the area with a very wide perimeter.

Would a drone hit on the house be the most "reasonable" and "necessary" option, if, and ONLY IF, there was overwhelming evidence that the person inside did have a massive bomb (like OKC size) or other means that prevented cops from reasonably making an entry?

Again, very rare circumstance. But, legally, it is possible that a drone could be used on a US citizen on our soil and it fit the law.

But, law enforcement does not have the right to kill a suspect who isn't resisting or fleeing. They can't just arbitrarily on their own kill a suspect just because he's suspected of something. That's basically the right the administration is claiming to have and it's so contrary to the Constitution that I don't see how anybody can swallow that reasoning.

What?

Was that an independent thought?

What the fuck??!?!?!

Pos rep inbound

 

[Katzndogz]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Where you are wrong is that intelligence identifying that a high value target poses an imminent threat isn't good enough for a SWAT sniper to take the guy out. Intelligence could identify the man, who might then be the subject of a court ordered surveillance, but he could not be executed based solely on intelligence.

 

[bucs90]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Before a sniper 'takes aim' efforts are made to have the suspect surrender, no? How may snipers 'accidentally' take out innocents when finally taking the shot? Drones?

While we're now arguing details, the issue is much larger since drones by definition would put US military operating within our borders-no courts needed. US citizens would just have to take the word of politicians that they were doing the right thing. Geez, doesn't that sound so progressive?

Only if it were a military owned/operated drone. If the CIA or FBI or Miami PD owned the drone, then it would not be military.

And yeah, a swat sniper is a last resort. And a sniper missing his shot is extremely rare. They are very well trained, for obvious reasons. And thats a great point, the collateral damage a drone could cause.

But remember, if a drone is used it is not the actual DRONE that is going to be judged in the Use of Force test. It is the weapon, which would be the missile it fires. Im not a drone expert, but, I think they fire a "Hellfire" missile or something? Any military guys here can verify that?

Anyway, the court ruling would be this: Is the use of a Hellfire missile (Whehter from a drone, or F16, or Apache helicopter) be "reasonable and necessary" in this incident?

So, forget the drone itself. Focus on the missile it fires. So, if Miami PD or the CIA or FBI used a drone to fire a missile on a target, then the missile is the test of legality. So, would it be "reasonable and necessary" to fly an Apache helicopter over that house and fire missiles on it? 99.99999999999999999% chances are NO WAY IN HELL would it be.

The case law for use of force being "reasonable and necessary", focus on "necessary", means no other level of LESSER force would work, and thus, making this higher level necessary.

So, if a house has 3 domestic terrorists, and they are working on a plot for the future, and they probably have a couple guns in there, would a drone (aka, a Hellfire Missile strike) be REASONABLE? Absolutely not. A local SWAT team could take that house easily, and the FBI's elite SWAT team surely could even better. Would a Hellfire Missile drone strike be NECESSARY? Absolutely NO. It would not. Lesser levels of force- like a SWAT team entry- would likely work, thus eliminating the "reasonable and necessary" mandate for Use of Force with a drone strike.

You guys are daydreaming way too much about what they can and cant do. Holder, who again I despise, is simply answering the question that every police recruit in history has been confused about in police academy when they ask "When can and cant I shoot someone?" That simple quesiton is so complex, because in LE you cannot say definitely when lethal force is justified. Every incident has all it's own moving parts that must meet the "reasonable and necessary" standard.

 

[Annie]

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Before a sniper 'takes aim' efforts are made to have the suspect surrender, no? How may snipers 'accidentally' take out innocents when finally taking the shot? Drones?

While we're now arguing details, the issue is much larger since drones by definition would put US military operating within our borders-no courts needed. US citizens would just have to take the word of politicians that they were doing the right thing. Geez, doesn't that sound so progressive?

Only if it were a military owned/operated drone. If the CIA or FBI or Miami PD owned the drone, then it would not be military.

And yeah, a swat sniper is a last resort. And a sniper missing his shot is extremely rare. They are very well trained, for obvious reasons. And thats a great point, the collateral damage a drone could cause.

But remember, if a drone is used it is not the actual DRONE that is going to be judged in the Use of Force test. It is the weapon, which would be the missile it fires. Im not a drone expert, but, I think they fire a "Hellfire" missile or something? Any military guys here can verify that?

Anyway, the court ruling would be this: Is the use of a Hellfire missile (Whehter from a drone, or F16, or Apache helicopter) be "reasonable and necessary" in this incident?

So, forget the drone itself. Focus on the missile it fires. So, if Miami PD or the CIA or FBI used a drone to fire a missile on a target, then the missile is the test of legality. So, would it be "reasonable and necessary" to fly an Apache helicopter over that house and fire missiles on it? 99.99999999999999999% chances are NO WAY IN HELL would it be.

The case law for use of force being "reasonable and necessary", focus on "necessary", means no other level of LESSER force would work, and thus, making this higher level necessary.

So, if a house has 3 domestic terrorists, and they are working on a plot for the future, and they probably have a couple guns in there, would a drone (aka, a Hellfire Missile strike) be REASONABLE? Absolutely not. A local SWAT team could take that house easily, and the FBI's elite SWAT team surely could even better. Would a Hellfire Missile drone strike be NECESSARY? Absolutely NO. It would not. Lesser levels of force- like a SWAT team entry- would likely work, thus eliminating the "reasonable and necessary" mandate for Use of Force with a drone strike.

You guys are daydreaming way too much about what they can and cant do. Holder, who again I despise, is simply answering the question that every police recruit in history has been confused about in police academy when they ask "When can and cant I shoot someone?" That simple quesiton is so complex, because in LE you cannot say definitely when lethal force is justified. Every incident has all it's own moving parts that must meet the "reasonable and necessary" standard.

So with the above logic, all becomes clear on why the US government via Homeland Security is militarizing police departments throughout the US, 'just in case.' Anyone thinking Hunger Games?

 

[bucs90]

Drones aren't designed to perform the function of police, chasing a fleeing felon-even then the rules are quite tight.

Drones are for 'taking out' those 'identified' through intelligence to be a threat. While there are justifiable reasons for using in countries aiding our enemies, even then there the 'collateral damage' has been high, with innocents often killed, while the 'target' manages to get away.

Now come the Obama supporters that were against the foreign use of drones that began late in the Bush presidency, now trying to OK the use of such without due process, claiming it's a 'tool' for the police. Really?

See my last post. A SWAT sniper is also for "taking out" identified threats known from intelligence to pose a high and immediate risk to human life. A drone is nothing more than a huge, mechanical sniper with 1,000X the firepower.

You're right, there has almost always been high collateral damage. Which is why the use of a drone on US soil would be so rare, nearly impossible, due to the "reasonable" standard that US law enforcement must meet when using force. A situation in which a drone strike would be "reasonable and necessary" is extremely rare, as Holder said, but not impossible.

But in theory, the drone's main two purposes are already being used by law enforcement:

- Striking from afar. SWAT snipers already strike from afar, on targets that pose an immediate threat to human life, but, not necessarily that sniper's life.
- Aerial support. Police use helicopters every day to get an aerial view. 2 Atlanta PD helo pilots died last year in a crash. A drone is unmanned and uses less fuel.



Im not advocating it. Im just saying it is already legal in theory, although very rarely would it be legal to use a drone for a use of force strike. The "reasonable and necessary" standard is pretty strict on law enforcement.

Where you are wrong is that intelligence identifying that a high value target poses an imminent threat isn't good enough for a SWAT sniper to take the guy out. Intelligence could identify the man, who might then be the subject of a court ordered surveillance, but he could not be executed based solely on intelligence.

Thats incorrect. While rare, it is quite possible. If he poses an "imminent" threat, that means that, if allowed to escape, he would cause an immediate threat to human life. Meaning....it would meet the Tennessee vs Garner court standard, and use of deadly force would be justified. You may not have meant "imminent" to be fair, you may have meant that he poses a possible future threat...but, not immediate or imminent. In that case, YES, you would be correct. And, SWAT snipers are deployed 99% of the time only with a full SWAT team activation, meaning basically the shit has already hit the fan and is an active incident.

This drone thing is tricky though, and I agree the use of them would be nearly impossible to justify legally. NEARLY impossible. Remember the video from the whacko that stole the Army tank from a Natl Guard unit back in the 90's and was on a rampage? He had no ammo, and probably didnt know how to use it anyway.

But, what if someone DID get their hands on a M1 tank, and was cruising the highway firing shots at cars???? Even our SWAT teams have NO means of fighting that. They dont have tanks that could take on an M1, they dont have attack helicopters, and they dont have RPG's. So who and how would that tank be stopped? Probably a National Guard helicopter, or, the President ordering a military hit on the tank due to it being an active act of terrorism. A drone would be justified in that incident, right?

Again, extremely unlikely. Im just saying there is a technical legal way they could be used on US soil.