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 think the capability of carrying armament is irrelevant as long as it isn't actually carrying weapons. Anything can be retrofitted, and even without modifications any aircraft is a weapon in and of itself.

From CBP's standpoint, it makes sense. What other unmanned aircraft could carry the same sensor package, while also being incapable of being armed? There's the Global Hawk, which costs about 10x more than a Reaper.

There's a reason that a civilian agency like NASA owns so many fighter jets (F-15/16s). R&D is expensive and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. (Also worth noting-- NASA also owns some Predator drones)