Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Thoughts?

Mez

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:

http://time.com/4398196/dallas-shooting-bomb-robot/

Good read.

Mez

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?

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?

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.

The next step is...

"World's Greatest Police Chases ended by a Predator fired Hellfire Missile" Next on ManTV!

 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.

Wuuuut ?

Johnny 5 is alive....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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!

 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!

but you said "to murder/assassinate American Citizens"

Asterios wrote:

 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!

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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/court-rules-obama-administration-must-justify-targ/

Mez

Couldn't they have gased him or was he wearing protection?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Couldn't they have gased him or was he wearing protection?

Open air parking garage. Probably not enclosed enough. And yes, maybe protection against it too. Mez

 Mezmaron wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 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!

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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/court-rules-obama-administration-must-justify-targ/

Mez

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.

Asterios wrote:

 Mezmaron wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 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!

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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/court-rules-obama-administration-must-justify-targ/

Mez

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.

The killing part I'm fine with. It's the no due process part that gives me pause.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/anderw-napolitano-can-the-president-kill-americans/

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.

Mez

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.

If not, we'll end up with this:

 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...

 Rootbeard wrote:

 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...

Robots filling the policing role.

Scythian Archers in ancient Athens....

Mez

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html?pagewanted=all

I'm just wondering if they thought about using stun grenades instead of the explosive that they did use?

 Mezmaron wrote:

 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:

http://time.com/4398196/dallas-shooting-bomb-robot/

Good read.

Mez

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.

Was it actually a robot or just some kind of RC doo-dad? That makes a big difference.

remote controlled. Hence no need to worry about the robots taking over.

 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.

Goodbye murderer, hello technology. I'm not even going to waste a breath getting bogged down in the debate.

 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.

 kronk wrote:
Although it is a violation of the first Law of Robotics

You know that isn't actually a law right?