The Government Will Use "Deadly Force" Against Drones That Fly Near The Super Bowl

The Super Bowl is a "no-drone zone," according to a new video from the Federal Aviation Administration:

Download Video as MP4

The zone encompasses a huge, 36-mile radius around the stadium, and the government appears ready to shoot down rogue drones if need be.

"The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat," FAA spokesman Ian Gregor told NBC News.

The FAA has made the regulation of personal drones a priority in recent months, announcing a federal drone registry in early January 2016. Check out the Reason TV video below, which points out that drones aren't just for dropping bombs anymore and highlights the many commercial and hobbyist uses of drones and how the government is reactiing to them:

Comments

[neoteny]

Nicole is the worst.

[Agammamon]

You know, I wonder why there's no such thing as 'statutory rape' for adults.

I mean, we distinguish between 'rape rape' and statutory rape for minors - there *is* a difference between 'forced into it' and 'can't legally consent' - but a similar situation between adults leads only to rape rape charges.

Can the 'victim' refuse to press charges? Or is that also something they 'legally can't consent to'?

[neoteny]

why there's no such thing as 'statutory rape' for adults

I guess there's 'statutory rape' for adults who can't validly consent on account of mental disability.

Henry Rayhons was charged with third degree felony sexual abuse for having sex with his wife who suffered from dementia. He was acquitted by a jury.

[sarcasmic]

https://xkcd.com/314/

[neoteny]

Edward James Olmos' latest wife is like 30 years younger than him.

[__Warren__]

Phil Simms better not get airborne then.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Um...

The Government Will Use "Deadly Force" Against Drones That Fly Near The Super Bowl

Really Zach? Where did you glean that bit of info?

Big difference between your headline and this:

The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat

[The Hyperbole]

If the Gov't may do something you know damn good and well that they will, and you can be fairly certain any drone flying in their no-fly zone will be determined to be an imminent threat. thus headline is accurate in a truthiness sorta sense.

[Agammamon]

And, when those bullets come back down, they won't know where. Unless someone is hit. Then it'll be the drone flyers fault.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Nothing says public safety like expended ordnance and debris raining from the sky.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

What's your beef? A 10 mile radius is the same as 36 mile radius when you factor in geometry and shit.

[lulztopian]

The video, maybe?

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

DEADLY.... for the drone.

[Mr Lizard]

You mammals are catching on...

[crufus]

They just want to make sure that no one is competing with CBS by shooting video of the Super Bowl.

[Sam Grove]

The Blue Angels were doing low level flying around the area this afternoon. They flew right above our house, close enough to read the lettering. We're 12.5 miles from the stadium.

[buybuydandavis]

"deadly force against the airborne aircraft"

Drones aren't alive. Yet.

[pogi chips for liberty]

I would have no objection if Joe Buck was strapped to a drone which violated the No Fly Zone and was subsequently rendered harmless by the application of deadly force. Or even neutered to ensure that future generations will never have to listen to another Buck family member while trying to enjoy a televised sports event.

[JaimeRoberto]

My daughter and I flew our drone within the restricted zone, because we're real rebels. Nothing happened. We were disappointed.