Patterico's Pontifications

4/24/2013

Using a Drone to Kill a Run of the Mill Armed Robber Sounds Great to Me, Says . . . Rand Paul

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:11 am

What was that filibuster all about then?

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, they are not legitimate targets for assassination, by drones or policemen. We’re supposed to do this thing called arresting them and bringing them to trial.

From this clip, it sounds like Paul cares only about surveillance. Drone strikes to kill any criminal suspect, however minor, don’t appear to faze him at all.

There are those who thought the idea of the government using drones to smite American citizen criminals in America was tinfoil hat stuff. Weeks later — just weeks! — we have had the Boston bombings, the manhunt for Tsarnaev, and John McCain and Lindsey Graham declaring him an enemy combatant. Do you think McCain or Graham would blink twice before ordering a drone attack on him if they could? And, now that our libertarian hero is giving such a tactic the thumbs up, even for a stick-em-up robbery suspect, who would stand up against them?

Help us, Ted Cruz. You’re our only hope.

Become a fan of Patterico on Facebook. Follow me on Twitter.

31 Responses to “Using a Drone to Kill a Run of the Mill Armed Robber Sounds Great to Me, Says . . . Rand Paul”

  1. We’re supposed to do this thing called arresting them and bringing them to trial.

    and they are supposed to do this little thing called surrendering.

    If drones were available in 1966, there is no doubt the Austin police would have used used them against Charles Whitman.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  2. I don’t understand the kerfuffle over drones. As long as the rules of engagement stay the same (e.g., when you can and can’t use deadly force), what difference does it make whether the engager is a policeman or a drone?

    So if you’re telling me the rules of engagement are NOT going to be the same, I’m with you in opposing the use of drones. Otherwise, I don’t see a problem.

    Kman (5576bf)

  3. So far, our rules of engagement overseas with drones do NOT appear to be the same ones we use here when the user of force is a police officer chasing a suspect.

    So part of the danger is that, when we use drones here in the same manner we use them overseas, people just shrug and say: hey, that’s how you use drones.

    I have said all along: I can easily envision a Flight 93 situation where we need to take folks out with a missile or some other remote device. But that would have to be an EXTRAORDINARY situation. The situation Sen. Paul describes is not only run of the mill, but is one that is inappropriate for deadly force.

    This can’t become a routine thing here.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  4. Pat,

    Anyone with an open weapon in the act of a crime is subject to immediate use of deadly force. I have to highly disagree that its inappropiate the criminal has a weapon pointed at the public.

    E.PWJ (c3dbb4)

  5. good lord he’s tedious

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  6. Otherwise, I dont see a problem.

    hahahahahahahaha I am sure that you were so trusting of the government to assassinate people when your ideological fellow travelers were not in office.

    JD (b63a52)

  7. What Rand Paul really meant to say was, “As long at they’re not watching me smoke reefer in my hot tub with a couple of hookers, I don’t really care if some LA cops put 150 bullets in a Mexican paper delivery lady’s SUV or a drone takes it out with a Hellfire missile”.

    nk (875f57)

  8. Wait! He actually kind of said that!

    nk (875f57)

  9. I dont have a problem with drones, in general, mind you. I don’t trust government to use them in a manner which is consistent with our principles though. I wouldnt use them in a situation where we would not use a sniper. I dont mind surveillance, but this administration has shown that it wants little to no limits on how and where they will be used. Rant done.

    JD (b63a52)

  10. We’re supposed to do this thing called arresting them and bringing them to trial.

    and they are supposed to do this little thing called surrendering.

    If drones were available in 1966, there is no doubt the Austin police would have used used them against Charles Whitman.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:22 am

    Just because someone won’t surrender doesn’t permit the police to kill them. Killing is done because the criminal is trying to kill someone or could kill someone at any moment, whether the police, a hostage etc.

    Gerald A (82a59d)

  11. Here is Exhibit “A” against the use of Drones in a domestic setting.

    $4.2-MILLION Settlement Should End Dorner Saga, Officials Say [over 100 bullets fired & shot into WRONG truck by LAPD personnel]
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dorner-shooting-settlement-20130424,0,3267762.story

    Also, recall WACO (government set the place on fire and 70 American burned alive), RUBY RIDGE (Marshals had no warrant, FBI unconstitutionally changed Rule of Engagement – Shoot any adult on sight), Richard Jewell (wrong guy fingered by FBI 1984 Olympic bombing in Atlanta)and just yesterday the U.S. Attorney and FBI admitted they got it wrong when they accused Paul Kevin Curtis of sending Ricin laced letters to Obama & Wicker.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/23/attorney-of-ricin-letter-suspect-my-client-has-been-set-up/

    Wasn’t the purpose of setting up The Department of Homeland Security (another bumbling bureaucratic behemoth), to prevent these type of mistakes?

    Yet, the government (FBI & others) blew it re
    the Boston Bomber Tamerian Tsarnaev. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/ND0bhUdq1Tp1mRuC8xlb8N/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/24/us-usa-explosions-boston-suspect-idUSBRE93N06720130424

    Clearly, at some point BIGGER is not only not better, BIGGER simply just does not work.

    Why do we continue turn over more power to bigger government and bigger corporations, which work in tandem to disassemble the nuts & bolts of our communities?

    Recall, one of the founding principles of the Constitution was to LIMIT – tie down – the power of government.

    Gary L. Zerman (7d32a2)

  12. I agree with JD and want to point out that drones in the hands of law enforcement, can get to places and save lives potentially.

    Anyone committing a crime with weapons drawn are not having their civil liberties violated if dispatched by a drone, manned by a LEO

    E.PWJ (c3dbb4)

  13. I am another one who doesn’t see much alarm in the use of drones for surveillance and/or the killing or capture of violent criminals. Don’t we already use helicopters for the same purposes? What’s the difference?

    Well there is one important difference, drones are unmanned and the pilots can’t be shot down or die in crashes. As for arresting the suspects who are shooting at you, maybe the anti-drone crowd will volunteer to serve the perp with papers.

    Any day now we will have kooks at infowars.com warning about “black drones” replacing “black helicopters.”

    Stogie (466903)

  14. We’re supposed to do this thing called arresting them and bringing them to trial.

    All that does is ensure full-employment of DA’s and PD’s (Heh!).

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  15. Just because someone won’t surrender doesn’t permit the police to kill them.

    If they are a continuing threat to the public-at-large, yes it does, as long as the police’s actions do not constitute a greater threat.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  16. Clearly, at some point BIGGER is not only not better, BIGGER simply just does not work.

    The FBI did seem to be more effective when decision-making-authority was concentrated in the office of J. Edgar Hoover – but maybe, that was just him?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  17. Just because someone won’t surrender doesn’t permit the police to kill them.

    If they are a continuing threat to the public-at-large, yes it does, as long as the police’s actions do not constitute a greater threat.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 4/24/2013 @ 9:20 am

    So if the police say “stop you’re under arrest” and you run away they’re allowed to shoot you?

    Gerald A (82a59d)

  18. Depends on the local protocol. Constitutionally, only if you have shown objectively that you are a violent felon and would pose a threat of further violence to the public in your flight. And they don’t have to say “stop you’re under arrest”. Chicago used to apply it to looters (burglary is a violent felony in Illinois) but we don’t anymore.

    nk (875f57)

  19. So part of the danger is that, when we use drones here in the same manner we use them overseas, people just shrug and say: hey, that’s how you use drones

    I don’t assume we would use drones here in the “same manner as overseas”. I don’t know anyone who has suggested that. And I don’t assume that, if we did, people would shrug.

    This sounds like paranoia.

    Kman (5576bf)

  20. I mean Chicago police do not shoot fleeing looters anymore. At least not if they’re not holding cellphones (that are “mistaken” for guns) and if they flee on foot. They do still shoot suspects trying to drive away. “Cars are weapons”.

    nk (875f57)

  21. Drones have no ability to use judgment and, by definition, drone operators are in another place entirely. That means we would be entrusting someone in another place to decide what constitutes an imminent threat and further to decide how and when to respond.

    Even drones used in foreign countries don’t give this kind of power to the drone operators. Instead, drone operators are given pre-determined targets and (in theory) there are safeguards put in place to make sure the targets are properly identified and are supposed to be killed. In the heat of the moment, how can a drone operator know whether it’s shooting a liquor store robber or an off-duty police officer preparing to stop the robber?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  22. Furthermore, I don’t like the idea of armed drones in the domestic United States. Let’s talk about using them for surveillance vs armed drones. Let’s also talk about foreign and domestic use. But escalating the use of this new technology to the highest level — armed drones in every city in America — is a bridge too far for me.

    This is especially true since the limited foreign use we’ve seen has already resulted in 3 deaths, of which 1 or even 2 were questionable. Those aren’t odds that reassure me domestic use of armed drones is a good idea.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. Re: my last comment — I know many more than 3 people have been killed by drones, but I’m talking about the deaths of American citizens in foreign countries.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  24. Rand Paul combines the nuttiness his father shows on some issues with the dumb-as-a-sack of hammers stupidity of McCain, Graham, and other GOP politicians who support illegal alien amnesty.

    DN (322684)

  25. National Soros Radio says our silly dumb bunny friend from tennessee has put on his thinking cap and decidered not to drone the robber after all

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/24/178842706/rand-paul-elaborates-armed-drones-not-ok-for-normal-crime

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  26. oh. kentucky I mean not tennessee

    they’re actually different states

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  27. Get it straight, happyfeet, will you? Kentucky bourbon is coal aged, Tennessee whiskey is coal filtered. What’s so hard?

    nk (875f57)

  28. Next up: 3D printable laser AA.

    Dance, Rand, dance.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  29. i like both a lot i just get confuzzled cause of I’m soft-headed

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  30. The public should be using drones on the u.s. government.

    mg (31009b)

  31. we should at least stop electing drones into office, but there aren’t enough smart people left to produce the votes needed.

    redc1c4 (403dff)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2431 secs.