Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing

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.

**LethalShade**

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

You know that isn't actually a law right?

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.)

**Ouze**

Ahtman wrote:
You know that isn't actually a law right?

You can tell that to my head, but you can't tell it to my heart.

**Spetulhu**

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.

**Ketara**

“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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Maybe next time they can use the EOD bot from Battlefield 4 and scare him out of cover with the blow torch

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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.

**RiTides**

Ketara wrote:
“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.

**Ketara**

RiTides wrote:
Ketara wrote:
“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.

**redleger**

Ketara wrote:
RiTides wrote:
Ketara wrote:
“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.

**kronk**

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

You know that isn't actually a law right?

I was making a jest about uncle Issac's 3 robot laws...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
RiTides wrote:
Ketara wrote:
“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 good ideas!

**MrDwhitey**

redleger wrote:

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".

**Easy E**

I really don't want armed drones in a law enforcement role at all. It is the case maple te wrong direction and a further militarization of the police.

With this success I can see drones becoming the new fad in the name of officer safety.

**squidhills**

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.

**AegisGrimm**

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.

**Spetulhu**

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.

**Ouze**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Jihadin**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

MrDwhitey wrote:
redleger wrote:

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=**

Debatable at best.

Mens rea of murder is generally held to mean the intention to kill (or seriously injure) someone. Actus reus is the killing of a person.

On the above Killing someone who is posing threat of serious bodily harm to you or others does meet the definition of murder.

**Peregrine**

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.

**whembly**

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.

People *ARE* talking about it:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/police-used-robot-bomb-kill-dallas-suspect-micah-xavier-johnson-n606181

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...

Like babies and toddlers getting flashbanged...

Botched "no knocks" raids...

Don't get me wrong, it appears that this Dallas situation went through the progressions of negotiating and this appears to be the right call.

**lord_blackfang**

So I guess not long until we see headline in the lines of "Police raid drug trafficker, blow up sleeping family next door instead"

**AegisGrimm**

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.

**redleger**

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.

**OgreChubbs**

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.

**lord_blackfang**

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.

**Asterios**

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.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

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),

**Asterios**

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?