zlacker

>>pera+(OP)
I don't really see the issue here with a surveillance drone to help keep the peace. I don't really care if it's "military technology" or not. Look, what happened was absolutely awful. People have a right to protest - and should, but peacefully. Riots, looting, burning buildings? Sorry, that's going to far.

If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.

>>king_m+Td
Predator drones can carry multiple air to ground missiles and guided bombs. This is the same model of drone which is used for drone strikes in the Middle East. There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.

>>kec+Nf
I'm aware of that, but it's extremely, extremely unlikely that this drone is carrying any sort of missiles. I can't prove that for certain, but let's be realistic here. The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?

>>king_m+kg
That’s a false equivalence. The difference with your truck argument is that this air vehicle is specifically designed to monitor and shoot missiles at targets (“extrajudicial killings” is the phrase used). A truck carrying a missile launcher is different because trucks weren’t created will the express purpose of carrying missile launchers.

>>colejo+ch
Except there's simply no way (short of the US falling into a total dystopian future) that someone is going to launch a missile on the Mall of America this week from this drone. Again - let's be realistic here.