Hot answers tagged

47

No Law enforcement are allowed to use “reasonable force” to effect an arrest. They are also allowed to use reasonable force to prevent imminent harm to people or property. As described, the felon is not a danger to other people or property and a drone strike would be an ineffective means of effecting an arrest. The force used is not reasonable. Nor can the ...


21

No, not in texas anyway. I have not reviewed the other death-sentence states but assume they will follow similar procedures: Article 43.19 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure defines the place of execution: The execution shall take place at a location designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in a room arranged for that purpose. Although ...


12

There is a special case to consider which you probably didn't have in mind but which may be relevant anyway. American citizens have been killed by targeted drone strikes. The government reasoned that they were combatants in an armed conflict with the United States. This designation as well as the decision to eliminate the target is made by the executive ...


7

In the US, it is illegal to sell screwdrivers to Gaza without a license, see 31 CFR 595.409. There are numerous rules pertaining to the Palestinian Authority staring here. Dept. of State has a partial list of countries and their associated restrictions, if you want "like Gaza", and note that they warn you that this is not a complete list. If you are ...


7

In the US, it depends on the jurisdiction because each state has its own homicide statutes: but, the defining elements don't differ a lot. Drawing on Washington state law, the first question is whether you intended to kill a person (it doesn't have to be a specific person). If you did, you have committed first-degree murder. It is first-degree murder, ...


5

If the escaped convict is reasonably capable of being arrested without the use of deadly force, then as mentioned above, the use of a drone to apply deadly force would be excessive force. This could result in judgments against the agencies and individuals responsible for the use of excessive force. Just because the escapee is sentenced to death doesn't ...


5

Additional NO: While the Federal Government does retain the death penalty, it is rarely used and since Gregg v. Georgia, only sixteen people have been put to death by the Feds. All have been by lethal injection. The vast majority of Post-Gregg executions are done by state governments. The U.S. Military has not used the death penalty since 1961. Since its ...


5

18 USC 32(a) says Whoever willfully— (1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years ...


5

UK answer: Murder requires 2 things, intention to commit murder, and the causing of someone's death. It's easy enough to prove that you physically caused the death of anyone that your autonomous drone kills, since if you didn't activate/program/launch the drone in the first place, these people would still be alive. Regarding the intention to commit murder,...


3

Regarding local power to regulate drones, see City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624: they can, but the regulations are subject to strict scrutiny. That means that it has to be designed for a compelling government interest (such as safety), and has to be the least restrictive way to do that. If their "bottom line" statement is accurate with ...


3

In the US, courts have generally held that your property rights do not extend into the sky without limit. In UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY et ux. The Supreme Court ruled that the skies above a certain altitude were a public highway. The federal government currently holds that navigable airspace starts at 500 feet from the ground, so above that altitude the FAA ...


3

Boggs v. Merideth was a pretty big case involving private drones and the privacy of neighbors. Happened in Kentucky, though. I would suggest taking a look at that.


1

united-states Unlike Germany, in the United States, ownership of the ground doesn't give control of the airspace. Once you're off the ground, you're under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration. Many of the larger power plants, such as Hoover Dam, are covered by flight restrictions that prohibit you from flying close to them. The ...


1

In the United States, you are free to sell a fully autonomous drone, and buyers are free to operate it. Private individuals are subject to the following rules: Register your drone, mark (PDF) it on the outside with the registration number and carry proof of registration with you. Fly only for recreational purposes. Fly your drone at or below 400 feet above ...


1

What right to privacy? To the extent that you have a right to privacy, you have to be in a private space and that right extends only to the extent that you are not observable from a public space. For example, you have a right to privacy in your bedroom if you close the curtains. Any such space is almost certainly indoors where drones are unlikely to be an ...


1

Is that legal? No, it is the crime of "Willful Damage" in Australian jurisdictions. The air in my backyard is included as my property? No, neither are any minerals that might be under it. Using an exaggerated example: if an helicopter is overflying my backyard, am I allowed to bring it down because it is invading my property? No, in addition to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible