5 ms·

Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects?

29 points by eplanit 10y ago

khnd 10y ago
is this bad because the police is becoming more like the military? since the military/cia robot bomb suspects on the daily.
cinquemb 10y ago
Up next, domestic metadata drone strikes. Empire's largess abroad is bound to find new outlets at home, preferably through more programs like 1033.
supernovae 10y ago
So are they saying "robot bomb" to cover up the fact it was probably a hand grenade? I'm not sure what to think about the entire thing. People should just stop killing people. Cops should be civilians, civilians should be civilians. When we start killing for every threat and blowing each other up, everything has gone way too far. If a robot was that close, are there no other non lethal ways to disable someone?
- throwanem 10y ago
  With a bomb robot? Doubtful. I've also heard reports that the explosive device was of the type that'd be used to trigger a bomb which couldn't be safely defused in place, rather than a hand grenade. I'm not sure that changes the complexion of the matter substantially, but a hand grenade would likely be somewhat harder for a police force to lay hands upon. > People should just stop killing people. I mean, sure, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, the entire history of our species, to say nothing of every other on the planet, militates strongly against it.
SNvD7vEJ 10y ago
How is using an explosive device any different than using a sniper to take out a threat? (assuming that no one else is hurt by the explosive device, and that sniping down the suspect is not possible) If there were no immediate threat any longer, they should have waited, but considering the guy still had a sniper rifle and a vantage point (?), he was definitely an ongoing threat.
- mtgx 10y ago
  The same way tasers were initially promoted as a "safe alternative to shooting the target" and then the cops ended up abusing it and killing old men with it, or doing it in scenarios where their use was completely unnecessary. Just because it didn't kill anyone else now, doesn't mean it won't in the future, when cops use it as more of a routine to take out targets, and even less intelligent cops get to do it. Will those cops be punished? Of course not (in the current system of mostly unaccountable cops). It will probably be called "collateral damage", so they get to borrow even more from the military.
germinalphrase 10y ago
If police are not allowed to use deadly force, except to protect their own lives/lives of other people in the immediate area - how do we confront the question of "deadly threat" when using a machine capable of applying deadly force? Do we merely need the "potential" for deadly threat on the police to justify the use of a machine capable of applying deadly force? If this machine can deliver a bomb, it seems likely that it could deliver less-than-lethal alternatives, as well (?). In this instance, those less-than-lethal options may not have been available; however, it feels really problematic to say "our only option was to kill this man because attempting to subdue/apprehend him in any other way would have - definitely - led to a deadly threat on our officers". That could be true - but it also seems very different than a police officer reacting to an imminent threat with deadly force. To that point, the presence of a knife in a suspect's hand is not inherently a lethal threat. They are given the opportunity to drop the knife as officers approach to apprehend them. If they raise that knife, or begin approaching the officer rapidly, then this becomes a lethal threat. In this mechanized situation, are they still offered that same opportunity to self-disarm before lethal force is applied? Does this lower the bar for 'lethal threat' so that police can send a small machine to kill a suspect because they have the potential to apply deadly force on the police (but haven't imminently demonstrated that ability)?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Bomb robots are not fast, and while I haven't been following the news all that closely, I strongly doubt that the remaining sniper was given no opportunity to disarm himself and surrender before he was killed.
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    One question, then, would be - did the suspect understand that the robot was going to be used to kill him? Was this announced? Was that threat obvious to him? There is also a question of time pressure: if police are just camped outside my door telling me to drop my weapon I will be less inclined to do so because the threat (for both of us) is not yet imminent. If they instead say, "we are coming in. Drop your weapon or we will shoot" the threat is now imminent for both parties. In this situation, the police are using deadly force without (a clear) imminent threat. That feels like a big red line to relax.
bahjoite 10y ago
It must be time to begin building open source countermeasures against murderous robots. Perhaps something like a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse generator.
Wonnk13 10y ago
this smacks of a revenge killing. A SWAT sniper shooting an active shooter has the same result (death), but for some reason this rubs me the wrong way. Was the suspect given a chance to surrender? Did he know the robot approaching was intended to kill him?
nadezhda18 10y ago
so they killed a potentially innocent person? I guess it does not surprise anymore anybody. hard to believe it is happening for real, this is some form of horror surrealism
- type0 10y ago
  > so they killed a potentially innocent person? They executed the guy who killed police officers, they must have been quite certain at that to actually do it.

29 points by eplanit 10y ago

khnd 10y ago

is this bad because the police is becoming more like the military? since the military/cia robot bomb suspects on the daily.

cinquemb 10y ago

Up next, domestic metadata drone strikes. Empire's largess abroad is bound to find new outlets at home, preferably through more programs like 1033.

supernovae 10y ago

So are they saying "robot bomb" to cover up the fact it was probably a hand grenade? I'm not sure what to think about the entire thing. People should just stop killing people. Cops should be civilians, civilians should be civilians. When we start killing for every threat and blowing each other up, everything has gone way too far. If a robot was that close, are there no other non lethal ways to disable someone?

throwanem 10y ago
With a bomb robot? Doubtful. I've also heard reports that the explosive device was of the type that'd be used to trigger a bomb which couldn't be safely defused in place, rather than a hand grenade. I'm not sure that changes the complexion of the matter substantially, but a hand grenade would likely be somewhat harder for a police force to lay hands upon. > People should just stop killing people. I mean, sure, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, the entire history of our species, to say nothing of every other on the planet, militates strongly against it.

SNvD7vEJ 10y ago

How is using an explosive device any different than using a sniper to take out a threat? (assuming that no one else is hurt by the explosive device, and that sniping down the suspect is not possible) If there were no immediate threat any longer, they should have waited, but considering the guy still had a sniper rifle and a vantage point (?), he was definitely an ongoing threat.

mtgx 10y ago
The same way tasers were initially promoted as a "safe alternative to shooting the target" and then the cops ended up abusing it and killing old men with it, or doing it in scenarios where their use was completely unnecessary. Just because it didn't kill anyone else now, doesn't mean it won't in the future, when cops use it as more of a routine to take out targets, and even less intelligent cops get to do it. Will those cops be punished? Of course not (in the current system of mostly unaccountable cops). It will probably be called "collateral damage", so they get to borrow even more from the military.

germinalphrase 10y ago

If police are not allowed to use deadly force, except to protect their own lives/lives of other people in the immediate area - how do we confront the question of "deadly threat" when using a machine capable of applying deadly force? Do we merely need the "potential" for deadly threat on the police to justify the use of a machine capable of applying deadly force? If this machine can deliver a bomb, it seems likely that it could deliver less-than-lethal alternatives, as well (?). In this instance, those less-than-lethal options may not have been available; however, it feels really problematic to say "our only option was to kill this man because attempting to subdue/apprehend him in any other way would have - definitely - led to a deadly threat on our officers". That could be true - but it also seems very different than a police officer reacting to an imminent threat with deadly force. To that point, the presence of a knife in a suspect's hand is not inherently a lethal threat. They are given the opportunity to drop the knife as officers approach to apprehend them. If they raise that knife, or begin approaching the officer rapidly, then this becomes a lethal threat. In this mechanized situation, are they still offered that same opportunity to self-disarm before lethal force is applied? Does this lower the bar for 'lethal threat' so that police can send a small machine to kill a suspect because they have the potential to apply deadly force on the police (but haven't imminently demonstrated that ability)?

throwanem 10y ago
Bomb robots are not fast, and while I haven't been following the news all that closely, I strongly doubt that the remaining sniper was given no opportunity to disarm himself and surrender before he was killed.
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  One question, then, would be - did the suspect understand that the robot was going to be used to kill him? Was this announced? Was that threat obvious to him? There is also a question of time pressure: if police are just camped outside my door telling me to drop my weapon I will be less inclined to do so because the threat (for both of us) is not yet imminent. If they instead say, "we are coming in. Drop your weapon or we will shoot" the threat is now imminent for both parties. In this situation, the police are using deadly force without (a clear) imminent threat. That feels like a big red line to relax.

bahjoite 10y ago

It must be time to begin building open source countermeasures against murderous robots. Perhaps something like a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse generator.

Wonnk13 10y ago

this smacks of a revenge killing. A SWAT sniper shooting an active shooter has the same result (death), but for some reason this rubs me the wrong way. Was the suspect given a chance to surrender? Did he know the robot approaching was intended to kill him?

nadezhda18 10y ago

so they killed a potentially innocent person? I guess it does not surprise anymore anybody. hard to believe it is happening for real, this is some form of horror surrealism

type0 10y ago
> so they killed a potentially innocent person? They executed the guy who killed police officers, they must have been quite certain at that to actually do it.