In the wake of post-protest shootings that left five police officers dead and seven others wounded, along with two civilians, police traded gunfire last night with a suspect inside a downtown Dallas parking garage. Eventually, law enforcement sent a "bomb robot" (most likely shorthand for a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot) armed with an explosive, to the suspect's location, then detonated the explosive, killing the suspect.
I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
It appears a lot safer than sending in a live cop, no matter how well armored. I imagine the same use of force calculation will be used. I'm curious as to how expensive the bots are and what potential for collateral damage there is. Seems like it wouldn't be useful in a hostage situation, but a lone isolated hostile could be taken out with less danger to human life.
Monkey Tamer wrote: It appears a lot safer than sending in a live cop, no matter how well armored. I imagine the same use of force calculation will be used. I'm curious as to how expensive the bots are and what potential for collateral damage there is. Seems like it wouldn't be useful in a hostage situation, but a lone isolated hostile could be taken out with less danger to human life.
Just found this article from Time that contemplates those very thoughts:
What is there to say here? It doesn't matter what tool is used to kill a person, and the situation was clearly one where the use of lethal force was justified.
Peregrine wrote: What is there to say here? It doesn't matter what tool is used to kill a person, and the situation was clearly one where the use of lethal force was justified.
I think people may be seeing a potential slippery slide here. Is this the beginning of Robocop V1.0? Will robots be used for other law enforcement actions? Will they be used to routinely apprehend criminals?
An additional concern regarding the "optics" is perhaps not the robot itself, but killing the bad guy with what sounds like a bomb. It could evoke memories of the police bombing a house in Philadelpia in the 80s.
Personally, I don't automatically think that this was a bad thing. But I do think we need to examine this situation very carefully and learn how to move forward with situations like this in the future. My personal questions when examining this:
- Did the robot have to be used?
- Did the robot have to use lethal action?
- What other actions could you have used with a robot?
- When is the appropriate time for a robot?
- When is the appropriate time for a robot to use lethal action?
Although it is a violation of the first Law of Robotics, I don't have a problem with it. He has shown violence, was armed, and a threat to any officer that approached.
whembly wrote: There must be some over-arching criteria that put the police in position to do this...
Couldn't they have smoked him out? Tear gassed him?
he was in a garage which was most likely well ventilated so using tear gas or smoke would have been like pissing in the wind, when I heard how they took him out I was a bit agog about it, but realized it was the only viable option, the shooter was not giving up, and was not going without a fight and they did what was necessary to remove him as a danger to any and all.
but my question is why did he do what he did? he had no priors, no history(mental health), no nothing which would have led one to believe this was his only option. so why did he do what he did? something tells me he was still not alone in this.
Mezmaron wrote: I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
Mezmaron wrote: I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
Wuuuut ?
It's a reference to drones. Hellfire missles, etc. Sorry!
I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
Wuuuut ?
It's a reference to drones. Hellfire missles, etc. Sorry!
but you said "to murder/assassinate American Citizens"
Yes. What do you call it when the government kills an American citizen without due process of law? Would you rather me say "neutralized", "terminated", "killed"? I'm fine with that if that is what you want.
I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
Wuuuut ?
It's a reference to drones. Hellfire missles, etc. Sorry!
but you said "to murder/assassinate American Citizens"
Yes. What do you call it when the government kills an American citizen without due process of law? Would you rather me say "neutralized", "terminated", "killed"? I'm fine with that.
I'm well aware that the CIA has used flying robots to murder/assassinate American citizens in the Middle East, but this seems a little different.
Wuuuut ?
It's a reference to drones. Hellfire missles, etc. Sorry!
but you said "to murder/assassinate American Citizens"
Yes. What do you call it when the government kills an American citizen without due process of law? Would you rather me say "neutralized", "terminated", "killed"? I'm fine with that.
In 2011, Mr. Obama ordered the CIA to murder Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born in New Mexico. When the CIA’s drones murdered al-Awlaki, he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son’s friend. All four — Americans all — were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia.
Asterios wrote: so a leading Al-Queda figure was an American citizen? oh well he was a terrorist and i'm sure i'm not alone in saying bomb them all to hell.
Though nothing about your statement surprises me, it should be noted that it doesn't matter who you are or what you are accused of, if you're an American citizen you're granted the full protections afforded to all citizens under the Constitution, including due process.
Like D, I also don't think this is automatically a bad thing, but using robots in law enforcement is something that needs to be examined pretty damn carefully for a number of reasons.
d-usa wrote: I think people may be seeing a potential slippery slide here. Is this the beginning of Robocop V1.0? Will robots be used for other law enforcement actions? Will they be used to routinely apprehend criminals?
Is this a bad thing? What with all this animosity towards cops and all...
d-usa wrote: I think people may be seeing a potential slippery slide here. Is this the beginning of Robocop V1.0? Will robots be used for other law enforcement actions? Will they be used to routinely apprehend criminals?
Is this a bad thing? What with all this animosity towards cops and all...
I know it wasn't done with a robot, but many years back Philadelphia police dropped a bomb into an apartment complex. I guess the use of explosives by the police isn't that new.
Monkey Tamer wrote: It appears a lot safer than sending in a live cop, no matter how well armored. I imagine the same use of force calculation will be used. I'm curious as to how expensive the bots are and what potential for collateral damage there is. Seems like it wouldn't be useful in a hostage situation, but a lone isolated hostile could be taken out with less danger to human life.
Just found this article from Time that contemplates those very thoughts:
Thanks for the link. It was interesting. Someone questioned why knock-out gas couldn't be used. I've only been subjected to riot agents, so I'm not sure if it would have the same problems in open areas, or if it was inhaled it could end the situation. I've never even heard of any military or police unit using knock out gas.
There is no knock out gas. there is tear gas, and him being a former Soldier, he could probably have functioned ok with it, still putting police lives in danger while they attempted to apprehend him.
Although I am not a fan of automated robots being used in this way, I am however ok with man remote controlled robots being used in this way. It took a person to get the permission to take said action, therefore there is no robot apocalypse situation happening here.
It saved lives, it ended a bad situation, and further more saved the tax payers money, even if it was an expensive tool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Although it is a violation of the first Law of Robotics, I don't have a problem with it. He has shown violence, was armed, and a threat to any officer that approached.
They used the tools they had.
I see what you did there. That poor thread got locked so fast.
whembly wrote: There must be some over-arching criteria that put the police in position to do this...
Couldn't they have smoked him out? Tear gassed him?
I'd imagine that the overarching criteria is the preservation of life of the public and the first responders. Tear gas may have been deemed to be of limited value in the circumstances, e.g. not enough LEOs in the vicinity with PPE to combat the effects and cycling in those with appropriate protections may not have been appropriate.
Once negotiations did not progress there was only one outcome;
You know, I thought about this as soon as we were on page 4 or so of the other thread, but bit my lip so I didn't appear soft on crime
Was it necessary to kill him at all? If he was cornered, why not wait him out and start negotiations? Why couldn't SWAT have moved in with flashbangs out of a Bearcat?
Obviously details are still a little sketchy but I'd like to know more about what drove the endgame. Perhaps they were trying to do the above and he attempted to leave the area (and hence became an imminent thread to the public or police again).
I'm not arguing that the police have to try and save the life of a suspect under any circumstances no matter what - once you start shooting at the police, then your apprehension now takes a backseat to how much imminent danger you pose to everyone else.
So far as the use of explosives I'd be concerned but ultimately once the police decide to use lethal force I suppose it's generally not really that important what form it takes so long as it's not unduly dangerous to passerby or other suspects.
Ouze wrote: You know, I thought about this as soon as we were on page 4 or so of the other thread, but bit my lip so I didn't appear soft on crime
Was it necessary to kill him at all? If he was cornered, why not wait him out and start negotiations? Why couldn't SWAT have moved in with flashbangs out of a Bearcat?
Obviously details are still a little sketchy but I'd like to know more about what drove the endgame. Perhaps they were trying to do the above and he attempted to leave the area (and hence became an imminent thread to the public or police again).
I'm not arguing that the police have to try and save the life of a suspect under any circumstances no matter what - once you start shooting at the police, then your apprehension now takes a backseat to how much imminent danger you pose to everyone else.
So far as the use of explosives I'd be concerned but ultimately once the police decide to use lethal force I suppose it's generally not really that important what form it takes so long as it's not unduly dangerous to passerby or other suspects.
He may have been cornered (as in no escape route), but that does not mean that he was not still a threat. He may have still had line of sight to officers/civilians outside, or a readily defensible position. LEOs may also have felt up against the clock as he mentioned bombs nearby His position could also have made the use of flashbangs difficult without exposing officers to fire. It was also likely fresh in the minds of the officers containing the shooter that he had just killed and wounded almost a dozen of their number, and had displayed some tactical and CQB acumen.
Ouze wrote: You know, I thought about this as soon as we were on page 4 or so of the other thread, but bit my lip so I didn't appear soft on crime
Was it necessary to kill him at all? If he was cornered, why not wait him out and start negotiations? Why couldn't SWAT have moved in with flashbangs out of a Bearcat?
Obviously details are still a little sketchy but I'd like to know more about what drove the endgame. Perhaps they were trying to do the above and he attempted to leave the area (and hence became an imminent thread to the public or police again).
I'm not arguing that the police have to try and save the life of a suspect under any circumstances no matter what - once you start shooting at the police, then your apprehension now takes a backseat to how much imminent danger you pose to everyone else.
So far as the use of explosives I'd be concerned but ultimately once the police decide to use lethal force I suppose it's generally not really that important what form it takes so long as it's not unduly dangerous to passerby or other suspects.
As far as I recall he was negotiated with for up to 3 hours before negotiations broke down and he opened fire again.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: He may have been cornered (as in no escape route), but that does not mean that he was not still a threat. He may have still had line of sight to officers/civilians outside, or a readily defensible position.
This most likely. If he wasn't being fed white police officers he might have had lines of fire to threaten anyone else who happened to be gawking from blocks away. The police decided they couldn't have that.
“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”
Whilst it probably wasn't an option here (limited time to jury rig a bot), it opens up interesting possibilities for the future. Perhaps bots could now be designed specifically to disable targets without killing them? Certainly room for experimentation.
Chongara wrote:Was it actually a robot or just some kind of RC doo-dad? That makes a big difference.
redleger wrote:remote controlled. Hence no need to worry about the robots taking over.
LethalShade wrote:Wasn't it a remote-controlled robot anyway ? Not an AI or anything. Drones don't violate the first Law of Robotics.
(Not familiar with the kind of robotic devices used by the police, so I might be wrong.)
My ED-209 joke aside, the issue isn't AI going rogue (though that is pretty scary), but security of the systems being used.
People in this country have spent months hand-wringing over Clinton's private server security, including a criminal investigation by the FBI, with a major concern about possible intrusion. At the same time, the idea of a remote controlled robot, that none of us seem to really know anything about, can be equipped by law enforcement agencies to make it lethal to the citizens they serve is given passing approval because it killed a bad guy.
“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”
Whilst it probably wasn't an option here (limited time to jury rig a bot), it opens up interesting possibilities for the future. Perhaps bots could now be designed specifically to disable targets without killing them? Certainly room for experimentation.
That's a pretty great idea! Not sure why I'd never thought of that before, but there's all sorts of ways a robot could incapacitate a cornered person without killing them, that a human officer probably couldn't (since by the time they got close enough they'd likely be shot at). It's intriguing for the future, although probably isn't ready / deployed and wasn't an option here.
This got me thinking too because when you send in SWAT, it's almost always to kill. Might be a interesting middle ground of trying a robot to incapacitate first without risking any personnel.
“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”
Whilst it probably wasn't an option here (limited time to jury rig a bot), it opens up interesting possibilities for the future. Perhaps bots could now be designed specifically to disable targets without killing them? Certainly room for experimentation.
That's a pretty great idea! Not sure why I'd never thought of that before, but there's all sorts of ways a robot could incapacitate a cornered person without killing them, that a human officer probably couldn't (since by the time they got close enough they'd likely be shot at). It's intriguing for the future, although probably isn't ready / deployed and wasn't an option here.
This got me thinking too because when you send in SWAT, it's almost always to kill. Might be a interesting middle ground of trying a robot to incapacitate first without risking any personnel.
Aye. Design them to be bulletproof or at the very least resistant to gunfire or easily repairable, and you could deploy a swarm of things at low cost. No good in hostage situations, but in sieges? Potentially very handy.
When it comes to incapacitating measures, tasers would be the logical order of the day, but one can think of others. Perhaps some sort of hardening foam agent? Soundwaves? Blinding lights? Heck, why not combine all of them? If a guy gets hit with a taser, a soundwave, bright light flashes, and something sticky to pin him down all at the same time, he isn't going to be hurting anyone.
“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”
Whilst it probably wasn't an option here (limited time to jury rig a bot), it opens up interesting possibilities for the future. Perhaps bots could now be designed specifically to disable targets without killing them? Certainly room for experimentation.
That's a pretty great idea! Not sure why I'd never thought of that before, but there's all sorts of ways a robot could incapacitate a cornered person without killing them, that a human officer probably couldn't (since by the time they got close enough they'd likely be shot at). It's intriguing for the future, although probably isn't ready / deployed and wasn't an option here.
This got me thinking too because when you send in SWAT, it's almost always to kill. Might be a interesting middle ground of trying a robot to incapacitate first without risking any personnel.
Aye. Design them to be bulletproof or at the very least resistant to gunfire or easily repairable, and you could deploy a swarm of things at low cost. No good in hostage situations, but in sieges? Potentially very handy.
When it comes to incapacitating measures, tasers would be the logical order of the day, but one can think of others. Perhaps some sort of hardening foam agent? Soundwaves? Blinding lights? Heck, why not combine all of them? If a guy gets hit with a taser, a soundwave, bright light flashes, and something sticky to pin him down all at the same time, he isn't going to be hurting anyone.
All of these are intriguing. I think the bottom line upfront is that this was not a tactic that was practiced, mearly what we call field expedient. Quick thinking and some jerry rigging of the right tools led to less loss of human life in the long run. I am sure there will now be arm chair generals out there saying they did it wrong, but at that moment, I am sure it was the viable option available.
“One can wonder why, if they could send in a teleoperated robot with C4 to kill the suspect,” he told TIME, “why they couldn’t instead equip the robot with knockout gas or some other nonlethal agent to capture the suspect, instead of killing him.”
Whilst it probably wasn't an option here (limited time to jury rig a bot), it opens up interesting possibilities for the future. Perhaps bots could now be designed specifically to disable targets without killing them? Certainly room for experimentation.
That's a pretty great idea! Not sure why I'd never thought of that before, but there's all sorts of ways a robot could incapacitate a cornered person without killing them, that a human officer probably couldn't (since by the time they got close enough they'd likely be shot at). It's intriguing for the future, although probably isn't ready / deployed and wasn't an option here.
This got me thinking too because when you send in SWAT, it's almost always to kill. Might be a interesting middle ground of trying a robot to incapacitate first without risking any personnel.
Aye. Design them to be bulletproof or at the very least resistant to gunfire or easily repairable, and you could deploy a swarm of things at low cost. No good in hostage situations, but in sieges? Potentially very handy.
When it comes to incapacitating measures, tasers would be the logical order of the day, but one can think of others. Perhaps some sort of hardening foam agent? Soundwaves? Blinding lights? Heck, why not combine all of them? If a guy gets hit with a taser, a soundwave, bright light flashes, and something sticky to pin him down all at the same time, he isn't going to be hurting anyone.
All of these are intriguing. I think the bottom line upfront is that this was not a tactic that was practiced, mearly what we call field expedient. Quick thinking and some jerry rigging of the right tools led to less loss of human life in the long run. I am sure there will now be arm chair generals out there saying they did it wrong, but at that moment, I am sure it was the viable option available.
I've already seen someone respond on another forum with "murder does not justify more murder".
From what I had heard at the time, there was a lot of concern that the suspect had a bomb of his own that he was threatening to detonate. The concern may or may not have been valid, he may or may not have actually had a bomb, but I had heard the police thought he did. From what little I know of EOD, they sometimes use smaller, controlled explosions to eliminate potentially bigger explosions. Our small bombs vs the other guy's big bombs, if you will. I know we have current/former EOD on this forum, so they will correct me if I'm wrong.
So, if the police were genuinely concerned that the suspect had a bomb and was threatening to set it off, their use of a bomb disposal robot to destroy the suspect (and his bomb) seems far less slippery-slope-ish than if the cops just decided to get all Ed-209 on his butt.
I admit that information coming out of the area at the time of the event (and even sometimes since the event) has been often contradictory and of questionable accuracy, but this is what I had heard the situation was, and the reason for the police having the bomb disposal robot in the area and the reason they used it on the suspect.
Just to be clear- everyone knows that tear-gas does not disable a subject's trigger finger, right? Even if it was enclosed enough, he could have come out shooting at the cops, teary eyes and all. At which time they would have been forced to used guns instead of a robot to kill him. Same result, but with the potential for more police to be hurt/killed.
This is NOT as if they detonated an hyperbole-fueled explosive/rocket in a congested place where bystanders could have been hurt. It was in a segregated space with the suspect declaring there would be no other possible outcome but beath on either side.
We do not as of yet have a magical knock-out gas grenade.
AegisGrimm wrote: Just to be clear- everyone knows that tear-gas does not disable a subject's trigger finger, right?
Well, not just that in a situation like this. He had a large part of the building at his disposal and could potentially have hurt a lot of people, not only police. While taking him alive would have been preferable it seems the police commander thought him too dangerous in that place, with the weapons he had and the weapons he threatened to use (even if they were just threats). A guy with a handgun and no threats of explosives, maybe they would have a non-lethal load on the RC first.
redleger wrote: I think the bottom line upfront is that this was not a tactic that was practiced, mearly what we call field expedient
I agree. I'd like to know why they felt a bomb was the best way to go forward, but ultimately once you start actively shooting cops your right to be safely apprehended is no longer the main priority.
This does open interesting doors going forward though. An EOD bot that can drop a bomb can drop a flashbang, and some EOD bots are equipped with shotguns - which can shoot taser shells. I definitely would be concerned about mission creep into using them as a fatal option in all but the most extreme of circumstances- a remotely operated vehicle doesn't have the best situational awareness.
Also, the phrase "robot" in the thread time is a pretty significant misuse of the world. It's not being pedantic - robots have a pretty specific definition, and this isn't a robot any more than a radio controlled car.
The concerns about him having other explosives on him are very valid if they did influence the decision.
Sending in a remote controlled explosive to kill a guy that is dangerous to apprehend in person opens up one line of questioning.
Sending in a remote controlled explosive to detonate the bad guy's explosives would be a different line of questioning, even if the bad guy gets taken out as collateral damage in the process.
Who knows what all he said during the negotiation, but they may have had cause to believe that he had explosives on him that he was willing to use or even explosives that had some sort of dead-man switch that would detonate once they were close enough to hit him with a Tazer or other non-lethal round. So the explosive may have been to get rid of his explosive, not necessarily to get rid of him.
No one but the Tango knew how the IED on him was set to go off.
Pretty sure that Warlocks and the Dukes II went to effect around that garage to prevent a possible remote detonate from a cell.
This guy did a stint in Afghanistan and might have learned a thing or two about Insurgent IED's
The Dallas LEO's might have had that intel at hand on him.
I more likely would give a "Go" command to opt him out by remote detonate using the Bot.
All of these are intriguing. I think the bottom line upfront is that this was not a tactic that was practiced, mearly what we call field expedient. Quick thinking and some jerry rigging of the right tools led to less loss of human life in the long run. I am sure there will now be arm chair generals out there saying they did it wrong, but at that moment, I am sure it was the viable option available.
I've already seen someone respond on another forum with "murder does not justify more murder".
Murder has a very specific definition. Killing someone who is posing threat of serious bodily harm to you or others does not meet the definition of murder.
IGtR= wrote: On the above Killing someone who is posing threat of serious bodily harm to you or others does meet the definition of murder.
No it doesn't, because it requires more than just deliberate intent to kill for it to qualify as murder. You're only looking at one part of the definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: My ED-209 joke aside, the issue isn't AI going rogue (though that is pretty scary), but security of the systems being used.
People in this country have spent months hand-wringing over Clinton's private server security, including a criminal investigation by the FBI, with a major concern about possible intrusion. At the same time, the idea of a remote controlled robot, that none of us seem to really know anything about, can be equipped by law enforcement agencies to make it lethal to the citizens they serve is given passing approval because it killed a bad guy.
I think this is really a non-issue. With an improvised thing like the police used in this case it isn't going to be operating long enough for anyone to hijack it even if it's technically possible. By the time anyone knows that it exists the incident is already over. And if it's a fully-developed product then it would be pretty easy to encrypt the control signals and make it impossible for anyone but the authorized user to do anything with it. The most you could do to interfere with the kill-drone would be to jam the control signal and force it to shut down, but that's not going to be a security threat unless you have a criminally stupid designer who sets "find the nearest civilian and explode" as the control-lost procedure.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: My ED-209 joke aside, the issue isn't AI going rogue (though that is pretty scary), but security of the systems being used.
People in this country have spent months hand-wringing over Clinton's private server security, including a criminal investigation by the FBI, with a major concern about possible intrusion.
Not that you'd care... but proper handling of classified materials should be a *serious thing*.
At the same time, the idea of a remote controlled robot, that none of us seem to really know anything about, can be equipped by law enforcement agencies to make it lethal to the citizens they serve is given passing approval because it killed a bad guy.
Experts: Robot Bomb Used Against Dallas Was 'Reasonable'
PlayThis is How Police Used a Robot Bomb to Kill the Dallas Gunman Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed This is How Police Used a Robot Bomb to Kill the Dallas Gunman 1:58 Many people were shocked when the Dallas police chief disclosed that his officers used a bomb delivered by a robot to kill shooting suspect Micah Xavier Johnson.
But to policing experts, the novel lethal strike — believed to be the first of its kind — was both tactically smart and the inevitable result of advances in technology.
"Sounds reasonable to me," said Gregory Meyer, a former Los Angeles Police Department captain who testifies as an expert on police tactics.
At a Friday morning news conference, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said his officers had tried to negotiate with Johnson for several hours. "Negotiations broke down," he said. "We had an exchange of fire with the subject. We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was."
Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings added that authorities "saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was. Other options would have exposed our officers in grave danger."
Once lethal force is authorized, how that force is applied is a matter of judgment and efficacy, said Steve Ijames, who recently retired as assistant chief of police in Springfield, Missouri, and is a nationally recognized expert in SWAT tactics.
"This guy has been actively shooting at them, and they would have had long rifles deployed with authorization to use deadly force," he said. "It's certainly not inappropriate to extend that to some other tactic."
Dallas police didn't disclose the model of robot they used, but a 2008 public record shows the city purchased "a hazardous duty robot and accessories" from Northrop Grumman subsidiary Remotec for $207,671. Another city document says the police bomb squad has "three variously sized robots."
Many police departments have used robots in hostage situations, Ijames said, but he is not aware of police previously having killed a suspect with a bomb placed on a robot. He speculated that the Dallas police may have improvised a "shaped charge," to direct the blast at Johnson and away from the expensive robot.
Last year, Ijames said, his department used an explosive charge on a robot to breach a closet where a suspect was hiding — a man who had killed his children. But the man had killed himself before the robot did its work, he said.
Ijames said he is not aware of any police department having a robot with lethal capabilities, but he said many have non-lethal weapons, such as guns that shoot plastic bullets. Those can easily be modified to kill, he said.
However, he said, "we don't very often end up with basically `kill on sight' scenarios. To actually send something in to find this guy and kill him is very, very statistically rare."
Peter Singer, an expert in robot warfare, wrote in his 2009 book, "Wired for War," about soldiers duct-taping a Claymore anti-personnel mine to a bomb-disposal robot.
Singer, a fellow at New America, a Washington think tank, told NBC News that the soldiers used the jury-rigged drone to kill an insurgent who was waiting in ambush.
In 1985, the Philadelphia Police dropped two, one pound bombs from a helicopter onto a compound used by a radical group called MOVE. The resulting fire consumed 65 houses, and the police commissioner later resigned.
In Dallas, police said they were trying to insure that no other police officers or civilians were killed by an armed and dangerous suspect.
"Let's face it," said Meyer. "This was not a conventional police operation. This was more of a war zone type operation."
I still have some reservations about it simply because, bad gak happens...
Is the drug trafficker hold up in a defensible position, declaring that he will either shoot any more cops, or detonate a large explosive he's sitting on? Or that if he gets away, there is a mass-murdering terrorist on the loose?
This was an extreme circumstance involving a guy who has committed premeditated murder, not a normal arrest.
seriously, when we see remote control ground drones intruding on houses without warrants and blowing and assinating people for not reason then we should have this discussion. Seems like some people would rather the police stack on the door, move in with battle drill 6 and risk more police casualties for the sake of taking him alive.
There really is no issue here. The issue is how it gets handles in the future.
This is not really a robot kill... More like a rc car with a bomb ran in and blew him up. It would be the same thing as if they threw a gernade, this is just alot more percise.
redleger wrote: seriously, when we see remote control ground drones intruding on houses without warrants and blowing and assinating people for not reason then we should have this discussion. Seems like some people would rather the police stack on the door, move in with battle drill 6 and risk more police casualties for the sake of taking him alive.
There really is no issue here. The issue is how it gets handles in the future.
It's going to happen unless we have the discussion now.
what it comes down too, the cops could not toss a bomb or grenade at the suspect since it could have been sent back at them or thrown somewhere else and hurt more officers or people, RC vehicles are nothing new, been around for decades, this is not a conventional use of said type of vehicle, but it was able to deliver a payload without more casualty of life, this is a win win in my books, the police used the tools at their disposal to remove a threat, the shooter was not gonna give up, was not gonna stop, they tried negotiations and they failed. they were given no choice.
It's quite clearly an IED which the American government have been protesting about all over the place
(even if the explosive was not improvised, the delivery method was which means it's just as much of an IED as an artillery shell in the road and set off by wire)
now whether it was justified it's not clear, but given the actions of the suspect I would tend to think it might well have been
but I certainly hope there is discussion (and quite possibly more regulation) or we will see more examples of the police using similar devices when they fear the actions of a suspect, and end up blowing up some unrelated innocent person because they got the wrong house
(we think there's an ISIS bomber preparing explosives in this house, going in is just too risky, nobody has responded to our 'come out with your hands up'.... Boom, all without absolutely confirming who in in the house, and why they might not answer),
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: It's quite clearly an IED which the American government have been protesting about all over the place
(even if the explosive was not improvised, the delivery method was which means it's just as much of an IED as an artillery shell in the road and set off by wire)
now whether it was justified it's not clear, but given the actions of the suspect I would tend to think it might well have been
but I certainly hope there is discussion (and quite possibly more regulation) or we will see more examples of the police using similar devices when they fear the actions of a suspect, and end up blowing up some unrelated innocent person because they got the wrong house
(we think there's an ISIS bomber preparing explosives in this house, going in is just too risky, nobody has responded to our 'come out with your hands up'.... Boom, all without absolutely confirming who in in the house, and why they might not answer),
actually you do realize these "robots" are used to set off explosive devices in neighborhoods even? people act like this is a whole new level but its like say you have used a shotgun to shoot at people, but then you discover when you run out of bullets you can bat them over the head with it?
Texas, truly America's greatest state. Sure you may get a few of us, but you'll just tick us off so much we'll invent an entirely new way of sending you back to hell.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: To the naysayers-he was also saying he had a bomb and had put bombs around the city. that means charging a guy with a bomb and a potential dead man switch.
I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
Because one of the legal justifications for using lethal force is fear for ones safety. It is hard to argue that you feared for your safety at the moment that you killed the suspect when you were safe behind a computer screen.
Now in this instance it could still be justified under fear for the safety of the rest of the public (the shooter may have still been in a position to target other people) but that may not always be the case. So the discussion is really when is the use of lethal drones permissible for the police force, which is a very new question.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
Because one of the legal justifications for using lethal force is fear for ones safety. It is hard to argue that you feared for your safety at the moment that you killed the suspect when you were safe behind a computer screen.
Now in this instance it could still be justified under fear for the safety of the rest of the public (the shooter may have still been in a position to target other people) but that may not always be the case. So the discussion is really when is the use of lethal drones permissible for the police force, which is a very new question.
Yes, whether or not drones are applicable for police work and which situations, that's certainly a topic. I just dislike the use of the word "robot", as it implies autonomy where there is none in cases like this.
I like the general idea of having armored drones with non-lethal attachments for situations like this. However, I fear the general problem is that it's easier to kill someone than to safely incapacitate someone - as shown by that thing in the Russian metro where the "knockout gas" killed quite a few of the hostages and hostage takers.
Honestly, I don't think it is a tool we should necessarily take away from LEOs. It is something that should have some pretty solid guidelines and be part of an escalation of force, much as it was in Dallas.
People have got caught up in the novelty of using the robot, but what's really strange is the use of explosives as a killing weapon by police. That is incredibly rare because situations that justify the use of explosives by police are unbelievably rare. As has been pointed out in this thread, there was one instance in the 80s, and that's it.
I think first and foremost people should note how unusual the situation in Dallas was. Normally when a suspect is holed up he will have hostages, which makes explosives a terrible idea. If he doesn't have hostages normally there's no time pressure on the cops, so they can take up positions, begin negotiations and wait. But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
RiTides wrote: This got me thinking too because when you send in SWAT, it's almost always to kill. Might be a interesting middle ground of trying a robot to incapacitate first without risking any personnel.
No, SWAT aren't deployed to kill, only a tiny portion of SWAT deployments end up with weapons fire, let alone anyone get shot or killed. There are tens of thousands of deployments of SWAT teams every year, whenever police need to ensure they have more firepower on hand than whatever the suspects might potentially be packing. Got a meth house raid that's believed to be connected to a gang - you do it with SWAT guys.
The point of SWAT, basically, is that by ensuring you have more firepower, and military level co-ordination between guys in the SWAT team to reduce the likelihood of violence being needed.
sebster wrote: People have got caught up in the novelty of using the robot, but what's really strange is the use of explosives as a killing weapon by police. That is incredibly rare because situations that justify the use of explosives by police are unbelievably rare. As has been pointed out in this thread, there was one instance in the 80s, and that's it.
like I said earlier, i'm curious why they had the explosives in the first place?
Asterios wrote: like I said earlier, i'm curious why they had the explosives in the first place?
I believe bomb teams have some explosives, as they use it to detonate suspected bombs. That's what the robots are often used for with suspect packages, they just roll up and drop off some explosives, then scoot away so the police can blow up the suspected package safely.
sebster wrote: People have got caught up in the novelty of using the robot, but what's really strange is the use of explosives as a killing weapon by police. That is incredibly rare because situations that justify the use of explosives by police are unbelievably rare. As has been pointed out in this thread, there was one instance in the 80s, and that's it.
like I said earlier, i'm curious why they had the explosives in the first place?
Just guessing here, but maybe the US government gave it to them? Anything else would be kind of insane.
They had explosives because it is a method of dealing with certain explosives. It's called a controlled explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_explosion Drones are routinely used in dealing with potential explosives.
Here, the concern was that he would trigger an unknown number of explosive devices and the risk was that he might be rigged, so sending in officers was too risky. No clear lanes of fire at him and too open to gas him out (plus that still risked him detonating any devices). Hence sending in the drone with the explosive.
sebster wrote: But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
sebster wrote: But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
I get what you are saying, but I think its been noted there were few options left that didn't require a huge risk to the personnel involved in taking him alive. I am sure the DPD would welcome your input on how what they did was wrong, but I for one don't like to assume they were just wanting to see what a body looks like after its been blown up. It is not a pretty site, and kinda sticks with you.
sebster wrote: But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
I get what you are saying, but I think its been noted there were few options left that didn't require a huge risk to the personnel involved in taking him alive. I am sure the DPD would welcome your input on how what they did was wrong, but I for one don't like to assume they were just wanting to see what a body looks like after its been blown up. It is not a pretty site, and kinda sticks with you.
Oh I definitely think that what they did saved police lives at the time and thankfully it seems the bomb threat hasn't materialised.
However if the threat had been real, what would be the chances of the police being able to find those bombs without any leads? It is possible that those bombs (if they existed) could have killed more people than the police lost assaulting the suspects position, which creates a truly horrific scenario of trying to second guess whether the suspect is bluffing about the bombs, in which case blow him away, or assume he is telling the truth and have to put your own officers in the firing line to have a shot of being able to take him in alive and possibly get some information on the locations of the bombs he claims to have.
sebster wrote: But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
I get what you are saying, but I think its been noted there were few options left that didn't require a huge risk to the personnel involved in taking him alive. I am sure the DPD would welcome your input on how what they did was wrong, but I for one don't like to assume they were just wanting to see what a body looks like after its been blown up. It is not a pretty site, and kinda sticks with you.
Oh I definitely think that what they did saved police lives at the time and thankfully it seems the bomb threat hasn't materialised.
However if the threat had been real, what would be the chances of the police being able to find those bombs without any leads? It is possible that those bombs (if they existed) could have killed more people than the police lost assaulting the suspects position, which creates a truly horrific scenario of trying to second guess whether the suspect is bluffing about the bombs, in which case blow him away, or assume he is telling the truth and have to put your own officers in the firing line to have a shot of being able to take him in alive and possibly get some information on the locations of the bombs he claims to have.
There is truth in that statement. And should the need arise, there are LEOs that do and would put themselves in harms way, they do it every day. I just don't think this situation needed to have LEOs put themselves in that position.
sebster wrote: But in this case, where there was already multiple police casualties and claims of bombs located around the city there seems to have been some time pressure on the police, it seems very different to most sieges, and so the explosive became a reasonable option.
However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
I get what you are saying, but I think its been noted there were few options left that didn't require a huge risk to the personnel involved in taking him alive. I am sure the DPD would welcome your input on how what they did was wrong, but I for one don't like to assume they were just wanting to see what a body looks like after its been blown up. It is not a pretty site, and kinda sticks with you.
Oh I definitely think that what they did saved police lives at the time and thankfully it seems the bomb threat hasn't materialised.
However if the threat had been real, what would be the chances of the police being able to find those bombs without any leads? It is possible that those bombs (if they existed) could have killed more people than the police lost assaulting the suspects position, which creates a truly horrific scenario of trying to second guess whether the suspect is bluffing about the bombs, in which case blow him away, or assume he is telling the truth and have to put your own officers in the firing line to have a shot of being able to take him in alive and possibly get some information on the locations of the bombs he claims to have.
Scratches head-what are you recommending they do instead? Come on clocks ticking. Nothing keeping him from setting off bombs, running out to blow himself up among your troopers. What are you going to do?
Apparently the shooter had already been wounded. He scrawled his initials in his own blood before the police moved the bomb up to him.
A Town Called Malus wrote: However the threat of hidden explosives in the city surely makes it even more vital to try to take the suspect alive. The police had no idea if there were bombs, how big they were, where they were etc. so without the suspect to interrogate they'd be searching for these bombs throughout the entire city with absolutely no clues to go on.
I really doubt that a guy who started the day with the intent to kill policemen would end the day by telling policemen where he hid any bombs. It would defeat the purpose of planting the bombs and going on a spree killing. The simple and direct course of action - remove the active shooter so that police can begin an organised and thorough search makes a lot of sense, and I understand why they went with it. It might not have been the perfect solution, but I'm not that keen to be a Monday morning expert on the actions of guys who were dropped in that situation with limited and often inaccurate information.
PALO ALTO, Calif. (KGO) -- The parents of a young boy who got knocked down and run over by a security robot at Stanford Shopping Center want to get the word out to prevent others from getting hurt.
They said the machine is dangerous and fear another child will get hurt.
It amuses shoppers of all ages, but last Thursday, 16-month-old Harwin Cheng had a frightening collision with the robot. "The robot hit my son's head and he fell down facing down on the floor and the robot did not stop and it kept moving forward," Harwin's mom Tiffany Teng said.
Harwin's parents say the robot ran over his right foot, causing it to swell, but luckily the child didn't suffer any broken bones.
Harwin also got a scrape on his leg from the incident. "He was crying like crazy and he never cries. He seldom cries," Teng said.
Stanford Shopping Center and Knightscope, the Mountain View company that built the robot have yet to respond to our emails and voice mail messages.
The shopping center introduced the robot last year.
It's designed to alert authorities of abnormal noises, sudden environmental changes, and known criminals.
But the fact that it didn't seem to detect Harwin is something shoppers find disconcerting. "Garage doors nowadays, we're just in a day in age where everything has some sort of a sensor," shopper Ashle Gerrard said.
"Maybe they have to work out the sensors more. Maybe it stopped detecting or it could be buggy or something," shopper Ankur Sharma said.
Harwin's parents say what's even more worrisome is that a security guard told them another child was hurt from the same robot days before.
They hope by sharing their story, other parents will be careful the next time they're at Stanford Shopping Center.
"It's designed to alert authorities of abnormal noises, sudden environmental changes, and known criminals."
err.... assuming some kind of facial recognition tech then ?
And this is one of the problems with automation. Although the drone in question at the OP is not automated, this is the kind of thing people think about when they hear robot.
I am willing to bet a malfunction caused this, almost certainly detecting small children in a mall would be a normal function of an automaton such as this.
Wait, you mean it didn't go on a bloody rampage and perceive all the children as threats and just accidently ran over a child's foot causing swelling and a minor scratch? What kind of movie is that going to make?
Also, maybe you shouldn't be letting a 16 month old run around? And also maybe 2 reports of injuries by the robot should encourage the mall to do something? Just thinking out loud....
As to automated policing, robots do not care about race and will enforce just laws on all pathetic meatbags equally.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
I think the concern people have is that you will be more ready to use lethal force if there isn't a possibility of your own men being killed in the process. It's an argument that's come up chiefly with the use of drones, specifically that you might be willing to use a drone where you wouldn't risk a fighter jet with a pilot. The net result being there are probably more big smoking holes in the ground and dismembered body parts, and wailing family relatives, than there might otherwise have been had the technology not existed.
Although admittedly that's not really a consideration in this case. It was almost certain the shooter was going to die so it was just a case of the police using the method that presented least danger to their men.
I can however see it being an issue in 10 (perhaps even 5?) years time. When a police officer pulls up a vehicle, or goes to the door of the house of the suspect; rather than being an officer themselves it's a remote control vehicle that has camera and microphone/speakers and cameras. There is also a weapon attached (perhaps an incapacitating spray, but no doubt also a lethal option). Meanwhile, the police officer sits in the armoured vehicle and controls it from 20 metres away. That's a somewhat more murky picture, but then I think a certainty that something like this will be put to use when you have the pressures on police working in the US.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
I think the concern people have is that you will be more ready to use lethal force if there isn't a possibility of your own men being killed in the process. It's an argument that's come up chiefly with the use of drones, specifically that you might be willing to use a drone where you wouldn't risk a fighter jet with a pilot. The net result being there are probably more big smoking holes in the ground and dismembered body parts, and wailing family relatives, than there might otherwise have been had the technology not existed.
Although admittedly that's not really a consideration in this case. It was almost certain the shooter was going to die so it was just a case of the police using the method that presented least danger to their men.
I can however see it being an issue in 10 (perhaps even 5?) years time. When a police officer pulls up a vehicle, or goes to the door of the house of the suspect; rather than being an officer themselves it's a remote control vehicle that has camera and microphone/speakers and cameras. There is also a weapon attached (perhaps an incapacitating spray, but no doubt also a lethal option). Meanwhile, the police officer sits in the armoured vehicle and controls it from 20 metres away. That's a somewhat more murky picture, but then I think a certainty that something like this will be put to use when you have the pressures on police working in the US.
Eh, im ok with remote control drones to save enforcement lives, and don't necessarily buy into the part I highlighted in red. Prime example. Drone operators, specifically predator drones and the like have reported the same sleeplessness, nightmares etc. as the men on the ground accomplishing the same results in person. The person on the other end usually has an understanding of what is taking place, and the moral implications. I never was one to accept the PTSD claims of drone operators myself, but that doesn't mean they don't live with the consequences of their actions. Could it be abused, well yes anything can be abused. Literally anything. But as a tool, it is not necessarily a bad idea as an option, in America as long as it is not used for unlawful purposes, such as surveilance.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
I think the concern people have is that you will be more ready to use lethal force if there isn't a possibility of your own men being killed in the process. It's an argument that's come up chiefly with the use of drones, specifically that you might be willing to use a drone where you wouldn't risk a fighter jet with a pilot. The net result being there are probably more big smoking holes in the ground and dismembered body parts, and wailing family relatives, than there might otherwise have been had the technology not existed.
Although admittedly that's not really a consideration in this case. It was almost certain the shooter was going to die so it was just a case of the police using the method that presented least danger to their men.
I can however see it being an issue in 10 (perhaps even 5?) years time. When a police officer pulls up a vehicle, or goes to the door of the house of the suspect; rather than being an officer themselves it's a remote control vehicle that has camera and microphone/speakers and cameras. There is also a weapon attached (perhaps an incapacitating spray, but no doubt also a lethal option). Meanwhile, the police officer sits in the armoured vehicle and controls it from 20 metres away. That's a somewhat more murky picture, but then I think a certainty that something like this will be put to use when you have the pressures on police working in the US.
Eh, im ok with remote control drones to save enforcement lives, and don't necessarily buy into the part I highlighted in red. Prime example. Drone operators, specifically predator drones and the like have reported the same sleeplessness, nightmares etc. as the men on the ground accomplishing the same results in person. The person on the other end usually has an understanding of what is taking place, and the moral implications. I never was one to accept the PTSD claims of drone operators myself, but that doesn't mean they don't live with the consequences of their actions. Could it be abused, well yes anything can be abused. Literally anything. But as a tool, it is not necessarily a bad idea as an option, in America as long as it is not used for unlawful purposes, such as surveilance.
I don't think that lethal drones in the ME is off topic in a thread about lethal drones in the US, but if it is, MODs let me know.
The real fact about drones strikes in the ME is that in many cases, the drone is blowing up innocent civilians. Be it faulty intel or the fact that the BGs hide among the population, after a 'tour of duty' a drone operator almost certainly will have annihilated a number innocent men, women and children. That has to weigh on anyone's conscience, even if they are just following orders.
Witzkatz wrote: I think the thread title is actually misleading, since from what we know, this was really, really not a robot, but a remote-controlled device without any autonomy to make decisions, like using lethal force or not. The decisions were made by humans, using advanced-improvised means to execute those decisions. I don't see the point of a big scare for robots hunting down criminals and innocents here.
I think the concern people have is that you will be more ready to use lethal force if there isn't a possibility of your own men being killed in the process. It's an argument that's come up chiefly with the use of drones, specifically that you might be willing to use a drone where you wouldn't risk a fighter jet with a pilot. The net result being there are probably more big smoking holes in the ground and dismembered body parts, and wailing family relatives, than there might otherwise have been had the technology not existed.
Although admittedly that's not really a consideration in this case. It was almost certain the shooter was going to die so it was just a case of the police using the method that presented least danger to their men.
I can however see it being an issue in 10 (perhaps even 5?) years time. When a police officer pulls up a vehicle, or goes to the door of the house of the suspect; rather than being an officer themselves it's a remote control vehicle that has camera and microphone/speakers and cameras. There is also a weapon attached (perhaps an incapacitating spray, but no doubt also a lethal option). Meanwhile, the police officer sits in the armoured vehicle and controls it from 20 metres away. That's a somewhat more murky picture, but then I think a certainty that something like this will be put to use when you have the pressures on police working in the US.
Eh, im ok with remote control drones to save enforcement lives, and don't necessarily buy into the part I highlighted in red. Prime example. Drone operators, specifically predator drones and the like have reported the same sleeplessness, nightmares etc. as the men on the ground accomplishing the same results in person. The person on the other end usually has an understanding of what is taking place, and the moral implications. I never was one to accept the PTSD claims of drone operators myself, but that doesn't mean they don't live with the consequences of their actions. Could it be abused, well yes anything can be abused. Literally anything. But as a tool, it is not necessarily a bad idea as an option, in America as long as it is not used for unlawful purposes, such as surveilance.
I don't think that lethal drones in the ME is off topic in a thread about lethal drones in the US, but if it is, MODs let me know.
The real fact about drones strikes in the ME is that in many cases, the drone is blowing up innocent civilians. Be it faulty intel or the fact that the BGs hide among the population, after a 'tour of duty' a drone operator almost certainly will have annihilated a number innocent men, women and children. That has to weigh on anyone's conscience, even if they are just following orders.
Although I disagree with your factless statement that drone strikes kill innocent people in many cases, that fact that it weighs on their minds, and you understand that shows that being in person or doing so by remote the conscious decision is the same and so are the consequences. Now, like I said previously, can it be abused yes, but it can be a tool that is right for certain jobs in certain cases, but is not a tool for all situations.
I don't think that lethal drones in the ME is off topic in a thread about lethal drones in the US, but if it is, MODs let me know.
The real fact about drones strikes in the ME is that in many cases, the drone is blowing up innocent civilians. Be it faulty intel or the fact that the BGs hide among the population, after a 'tour of duty' a drone operator almost certainly will have annihilated a number innocent men, women and children. That has to weigh on anyone's conscience, even if they are just following orders.
Although I disagree with your factless statement that drone strikes kill innocent people in many cases, that fact that it weighs on their minds, and you understand that shows that being in person or doing so by remote the conscious decision is the same and so are the consequences. Now, like I said previously, can it be abused yes, but it can be a tool that is right for certain jobs in certain cases, but is not a tool for all situations.
No, it's a fact. Here is an example from The Guardian. It gives a 128/1 ratio in one of many examples.
Bombing population centres will result in "collateral damage". Drone operators will almost certainly have killed innocent people in their quest to get the bad guy.
Has anything been mentioned about if Dallas PD deployed a marksman/sniper. If the decision was made to just kill him a sniper would have less collateral damage. Maybe a hole in the wall behind the target. I don't know the layout of the area where this happened but most law enforcement shots are very short range.
The shooter was in a university parking garage with no clear lanes of fire from the outside. Sending SWAT into that situation would have been extremely dangerous and likely produced a similar result, but with more officer casualties. The robot was a pretty clever on the spot solution.
Cordon and Search. Night. I HATED GOING UP FLIGHT OF STAIRS. Even in day time because one never knows what's going to pop over the railing above you. An explosive in confine space is even more damn scarier
soft on crime 
