Across California, police departments are rapidly expanding “Drone as First Responder” programs, triggering intense public backlash over warrantless surveillance and corporate overreach.
Across California, police departments are rapidly expanding “Drone as First Responder” programs, triggering intense public backlash over warrantless surveillance and corporate overreach.
Maybe you should have read what you shared.
The person I am replying to specifically mentioned crossfire… please read before trying to gotcha.
You are correct and I missed the crossfire bit. Never point a ballistic weapon at anyone you don’t want to injure or kill.
That acknowledgement out of the way, I think you are trying so hard to win an argument, rather than acknowledge that your initial comment was incorrect, that you have drifted into making yourself look foolish (no hostility intended)
I think it has been well established that this was incorrect. Birdshot fired at an airborne drone is extremely unlikely to injure anyone, much less kill them.
Although technically true, these are not available for civilian purchase and/or are highly illegal to use, so they might as well not exist.
I get that your original reply was well intentioned, but it was ill informed. Hopefully this discussion has helped.
As long as we are assuming that “skeet shooting” always means birdshot then sure… but I grew up around enough rednecks to know better than to make that assumption.
As I said to the other commenter, so is shooting a police drone… the legality of disposing of police equipment isn’t what is up for debate here.
You’re right, now find enough instances of crossfire with birdshot that proves this is a regular occurrence and not a freak accident.
Edit: also the issue here is more that I said never. I acknowledge that there are freak accidents that prove exception to the rule.