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.
2016/07/10 17:46:14
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/10 17:50:31
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/07/10 17:57:35
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
2016/07/10 18:03:10
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/10 18:08:53
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/07/10 18:14:32
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
2016/07/10 21:47:12
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/11 02:03:35
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 02:08:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/07/11 02:05:41
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
2016/07/11 02:12:03
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
That's just a guess though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/11 02:16:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/07/11 02:12:28
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
2016/07/11 02:19:39
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
Smart call in a very tough situation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/11 12:57:38
-James
2016/07/11 13:15:46
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/07/11 18:53:48
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/11 18:59:30
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/07/11 19:02:29
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/11 19:15:06
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/07/12 01:41:46
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/12 01:43:11
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/07/13 11:33:32
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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 ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/07/13 12:10:47
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/13 12:15:05
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
Sue the mall? I mean, that'll get the robot shut down real quick.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
2016/07/14 14:55:16
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
-James
2016/07/14 16:36:14
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/14 16:55:48
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/14 16:56:55
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/07/14 18:10:21
Subject: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2016/07/14 20:15:23
Subject: Re: Potentially the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in American policing
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
