The first question to ask here is if the use of Lethal Force was justified? > "In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcemen

The first question to ask here is if the use of Lethal Force was justified? > "In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or people in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others." [1] At face value of the reading above, I believe the decision to use Lethal Force was justified. Once agreeing on the above (and not everyone may, just forwarding my own logic), then the fact that in this instance a Robot/Bomb/Robot Bomb is an unimportant implementation detail. Some people want to argue that "Bomb Bots" make applying lethal force "easier" but I haven't seen convincing evidence to support that claim. As far as I can tell, applying an explosive to a robot and remotely detonating has a niche application but in general is not easier than applying a marksman and a sniper rifle. But again, if we agree that the why applied to the decision is acceptable, then I am not terribly interested in the how so long as there is no collateral damage (as there wasn't in this case). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force