10 ms·

Robot's role in killing Dallas shooter is a first

67 points by acjohnson55 10y ago

doctorstupid 10y ago
Hopefully not a pioneering incident for the robotic enforcement of citizens.
smaili 10y ago
> Bielat's ground robots, which are designed for law enforcement, aren't designed to be used for lethal purposes. But that doesn't stop them from being used that way. I think this is exactly why companies like Apple are afraid of working with the gov - you just don't know how the gov will behave with what you give them once it's in their hands.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Whereas, when criminals use what you give them, few people will blame you. It's actually slightly strange.
  - evan_ 10y ago
    It's strange to hold our government to a higher standard than criminals?
    - Symmetry 10y ago
      No, it's strange to hold companies selling to the government to a higher standard than companies selling to the public.
      - mavhc 10y ago
        Doesn't seem that strange, with great power comes great responsibility
  - whatshisface 10y ago
    Knowingly selling to criminals on the other hand...
rayiner 10y ago
It's worthwhile for students of American history to compare this to the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. After Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, he shot and killed a police officer. And when police cornered him at the Texas Theater, he fired at another police officer, but his gun jammed. Oswald was not executed in a hail of bullets. Instead, he was lawfully taken into custody. John Hinkley, Jr., who shot President Reagan, also was not executed by police or the Secret Service. Indeed, he received due process and it turned out he was mentally ill, and he was incarcerated and treated accordingly. Both McKinley's and Garfield's assassins received trials, and were executed after due process of law. Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was executed in a farmhouse by a soldier, Boston Corbett. Although Corbett claimed Booth drew a gun on him, Corbett's superior reported he shot Booth without pretext. Corbett was arrested until public opinion forced his release. Even going back to one of the first attempted assainations of a President, a shooter who fired two pistols at Andrew Jackson both of which misfired, due process was given. The would-be killer was found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined to a mental asylum.
- brownbat 10y ago
  How far off are robots that can apprehend and restrain a gunman while minimizing the risk to the lives of both police and suspect? It doesn't seem impossible, except for lack of a commercial motivation...
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Pretty damn far, look at Atlas that's about as good as you get.... There is really no lack of commercial motivation the US army would be your 1st customer...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 10y ago
  Neither Oswald nor Hinkley were holed up in a defensible position known to be sufficiently armed and inclined to shoot anyone who got anywhere near. Oswald's gun jammed because the first approaching officer was close enough to try to grab it when Oswald pulled it out, and part of the officer's hand physically blocked the hammer. If Oswald had taken out the gun as soon as officers entered the theater and started shooting, I bet he would have been shot. Also, the Dallas shooter claimed to have bombs in the area. That greatly increased the uncertainty in how much of a risk he posed. The Oswald and Hinkley situations had a much smaller uncertainty.
hanklazard 10y ago
I haven't yet been able to understand why using this explosive-carrying robot was "necessary" in this situation. It seems that they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage and, to me, that would seem like a good opportunity for some sort of non-lethal option. What am I missing here?
- eximius 10y ago
  I'm sure someone will come up with a reason, but I doubt it will be more motivating than the expectation that police shouldn't issue death sentences - to me, at least.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    If you object to the police using deadly force in this instance, do you also object to them trying to shoot the suspect?
    - eximius 10y ago
      If he is a credible and imminent threat (where imminent is immediate, requires similarly immediate action to protect oneself), then I wholly support neutralizing the threat. I think that police are increasingly reaching for lethal force without exhausting nonlethal options. I also think that, in this instance, he was a credible but nonimminent threat. So in that sense, yes I would object to shooting him. A nonlethal response to continue containing the suspect, even at some risk to themselves, would have been more in line with the duty I believe police officers have. Minimizing the risk to themselves will not maximize the fulfillment of their duty (which is obviously true because the extreme is them never leaving the station, etc). I do not claim to know what the right balance is. However, I would argue that as public servants, their duty inherently necessitates taking on some level of risk in order to uphold our values of justice. Our values of justice require that they not kill suspects they are tired of dealing with - they must stand trial.
- afarrell 10y ago
  The fact that exercising non-lethal options against a currently active shooter exposes you to greater risk of being shot. You are of course free to argue that the police made the wrong call in the probabilistic tradeoff between their lives and the life of the shooter. Given the circumstances of facing a trained active shooter who has killed and continues to try to kill officers, I would think that > 99% of cops would find the argument that you must preserve his life at the (high) risk to officers' lives incredibly insulting. > they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage Being cornered doesn't stop someone from shooting a gun. It especially doesn't stop someone who has a gas mask. It isn't unreasonable to suspect someone has a gas mask if he is firing at crowd-control officers in the sort of pop-pop-pause pattern reminiscent of the military. Being cornered also doesn't stop someone from detonating a suicide vest. EDIT: I would be interested to know how this comment doesn't contribute to the discussion, given the comment it is replying to.
csours 10y ago
"The suspect stated that we will eventually find the IEDs." It is likely the talk about IEDs that brought the robot out in the first place. How the decision was made to use the robot to blow up the guy is something else entirely. 1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-suspect-affiliated-group-160708132417429.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-suspect-...
edoceo 10y ago
Not 3-Law safe
patcheudor 10y ago
It's important to remember that the shooter was specifically targeting police officers over what he viewed as massive injustices towards his own community. Using a robot with a weapon of mass destruction to execute the suspect does nothing to defuse that frustration and anger in others who may be sympathetic to what the shooter was trying to accomplish. In this case, two wrongs very much don't make a right. Unfortunately I'm not sure most citizens understand the historical significance of this event or the fact that the slippery slope is now well greased. How many more years till our police officers are armed with FPV multi-rotor drones capable of seeking out suspects and detonating explosives to take them out?
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Not really a response, just venting: If you saw someone actually gun down a couple of your colleagues would you treat them as just a "suspect" or would you treat them as a murderer. I know why it's put like this but in some cases I find it a bit ridiculous.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - patcheudor 10y ago
    This is the exact reason we have a justice system with courts and rule of law rather than supporting vigilante justice. If you remember, early on in this incident, a completely innocent individual was identified as the possible shooter with many absolutely convinced he was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/0...
- nradov 10y ago
  That's some George W. Bush style exaggeration. A small conventional explosive is in no way a WMD.
  - patcheudor 10y ago
oxryly1 10y ago
It was a remote controlled device, not a robot. It had no AI or built-in intelligence, and made no decisions. An officer at the controls is responsible for the shooter's killing.
- OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago
  Sadly in the minds of the public there is no distinction. Something which has always bugged me.
- ccleve 10y ago
  Perhaps. But the fact that they used a remote-controlled device is significant. It's quantum change in tactics for the police. It gives police far greater powers against suspects. How long before they use drones to shoot suspects? What about automated traffic stops, where a device asks you to roll down the window and scan your license and insurance? If there's a robbery or burglary in progress, wouldn't it always make sense to send in a device instead of exposing an officer? What about a bunch of kids on the corner who shouldn't be there? Why expose a cop to them, when one of them might have a gun? Instead, roll up in a well-protected car and speak to them through speakers and microphones and video. I'll bet a remote-controlled device could eventually cuff them and take them into custody as well. Don't underestimate the effect this is going to have on civil liberties.
  - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
    It might also go the other way. Many police killings are due to jittery officers in dangerous situations. Take that out of the picture and you might get better policing and fewer suspect deaths.
- joezydeco 10y ago
  So let's drop the semantic distinction and call it a drone. A drone deployed domestically against a US citizen.
  - abstractbeliefs 10y ago
molmalo 10y ago
Why didnt they use some some gas agent, like russians did in the theater? (Without hostages this time, the risk of collaterals is removed). Sending a bomb on wheels makes it look like just revenge.
- T0T0R0 10y ago
  That gas agent (allegedly aerosolized fentanyl [1]) didn't actually work so great, and wound up killing people anyway, so might've had the same outcome, but with more effort and just as much controversy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical...
  - yardie 10y ago
    It failed because they used an anesthetic and it will certainly kill you if you can't control the dose. In this case they had 1 target who they were carefully monitoring. Once it reached its effectiveness they could cut it off.
    - nradov 10y ago
      That's not how anesthetics work. It's impossible to deliver a controlled dose or measure effectiveness just by spraying some gas in a general direction. Ask an anesthesiologist.
      - hga 10y ago
        "Uh, mom?" Seriously, she was a nurse anesthetist who retired decades ago when she had me, and she's mentioned how it's a somewhat precision effort. They monitor the patient to see how it's effecting them, since we're all different.
        nradov 10y ago
        Yes they monitor the patient in an operating room using multiple instruments. And the anesthetic is delivered in a precisely calibrated dose based on the patient's size using a mask or IV. Which is completely different from the actual situation in Dallas. Edit: sorry I didn't realize that the parent post was essentially agreeing.
cs702 10y ago
The specifics of this situation matter less than the precedent it has set for future police actions around the world. From now on, when faced with difficult or dangerous situations, police forces everywhere will at least consider using robots, because "Dallas police did it, and there was neither public outrage nor political fallout."
- jj12 10y ago
  And following from that I guess robots doing traffic stops in high risk black neighborhoods. The only positive I can think of, from this escalating into totally unimaginable madness is the most cities dont have the budget for all this sci-fi shit. I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    > I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around. That isn't uncommon actually. One common approach to handling potential unexploded ordinance is to evacuate the area and have a controlled detonation nearby. If you hear one boom, it was nothing. If you hear two booms, it was a bomb. Robots are often used for this. Source: This is coming from my memory as part of MIT's Community Emergency Response Team back in 2012 & 2013. We didn't receive EOD training of course. We just did first aid training and crowd control at a few events, but we also go to sit in on discussions of EOD procedures and a tabletop excercise of an active shooter scenario.
- IndianAstronaut 10y ago
  Not to mention that there are police departments in the Dallas area which have drones.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
I've never been comfortable with the use of the term "robot" to describe a radio controlled car (or plane, boat, whatever). Using a ruggedized R/C car to deliver an explosive is no different from a police officer with a good throwing arm tossing a grenade (or whatever) at the attacker. In other words, the action is completely controlled and executed by a person, not the machine. Now, if this thing had autonomous "search and destroy" capabilities and the person's role was to identify the target area and approve the kill, the term "robot" would certainly apply. I don't like the association being created between robotics and killing. In this case a person was 100% in charge of killing the suspect. The machine was not operating autonomously. Just like the folks who attached a gun to a quadcopter. Where that thing went and when it pulled the trigger, save a malfunction, was 100% remotely controlled. Calling it a "drone" or "robot", which implies a level of machine-based decision making, would be wrong.
- codewritinfool 10y ago
  Agreed, which is why I always disliked the show "Robot Wars". It sounds better though than "Giant Armored R/C Vehicle Wars".
- davrosthedalek 10y ago
  Indeed true. However, it boils down to the "video game UI makes killing easier" discussion. Which in this case, as far as I am concerned, is not the discussion to have. I think it actually distracts from the discussion we should have: Why do so many police interactions end with casualties in the US, compared to other countries. Obviously many think it's racism, and that may well be true, but I think it's also bad training and maybe a wrong overall approach to policing.
SCAQTony 10y ago
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. At the end of Foundation and Earth he added a "zero" option: 0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- krapp 10y ago
  But he entire point of Asimov's Three Laws was to be a literary device for stories about the Three Laws being a bad idea. They weren't intended to be taken seriously, they were intended to illustrate the unintended consequences that can arise from the hubris of trying to codify morality in the first place. Robots governed by his laws in universe harmed people all the time. If we ever do want to tackle the issue of the morality that governs AI, Asimov is the last person we should refer to as a credible source of inspiration.
  - SCAQTony 10y ago
    I disagree, when we industrialize killing and mayhem with seemingly little consequence, nothing good will come out of it. As for Asimov, I think he was on to something; your milage obviously varies.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    > Asimov is the last person we should refer to as a credible source of inspiration. Wait, why wouldn't we want to look at the failure modes he pointed out?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 10y ago
      I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I do think it's a mistake to take them seriously, except as an example of what not to do.
intrasight 10y ago
This wasn't a robot - it was a remote controlled vehicle. I do share the sentiments of others here that there should have been a non-lethal option to disable the perpetrator.
simbalion 10y ago
Militaristic police abuses cause kickback by oppressed citizens, so the police escalate with killer robots. Seems legit.
GnarfGnarf 10y ago
The CNN video says "they're used to diffuse bombs..." I don't think so. That would defeat the purpose. "Defuse" maybe?
Mao_Zedang 10y ago
I dont think police are paid enough to risk their lives against someone who is actively trying to kill them. How much would you want to approach a situation like that in the way you are all detailing?

67 points by acjohnson55 10y ago

Hopefully not a pioneering incident for the robotic enforcement of citizens.

> Bielat's ground robots, which are designed for law enforcement, aren't designed to be used for lethal purposes. But that doesn't stop them from being used that way. I think this is exactly why companies like Apple are afraid of working with the gov - you just don't know how the gov will behave with what you give them once it's in their hands.

ptaipale 10y ago
Whereas, when criminals use what you give them, few people will blame you. It's actually slightly strange.
- evan_ 10y ago
  It's strange to hold our government to a higher standard than criminals?
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    No, it's strange to hold companies selling to the government to a higher standard than companies selling to the public.
    - mavhc 10y ago
      Doesn't seem that strange, with great power comes great responsibility
- whatshisface 10y ago
  Knowingly selling to criminals on the other hand...

rayiner 10y ago

It's worthwhile for students of American history to compare this to the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. After Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, he shot and killed a police officer. And when police cornered him at the Texas Theater, he fired at another police officer, but his gun jammed. Oswald was not executed in a hail of bullets. Instead, he was lawfully taken into custody. John Hinkley, Jr., who shot President Reagan, also was not executed by police or the Secret Service. Indeed, he received due process and it turned out he was mentally ill, and he was incarcerated and treated accordingly. Both McKinley's and Garfield's assassins received trials, and were executed after due process of law. Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was executed in a farmhouse by a soldier, Boston Corbett. Although Corbett claimed Booth drew a gun on him, Corbett's superior reported he shot Booth without pretext. Corbett was arrested until public opinion forced his release. Even going back to one of the first attempted assainations of a President, a shooter who fired two pistols at Andrew Jackson both of which misfired, due process was given. The would-be killer was found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined to a mental asylum.

brownbat 10y ago
How far off are robots that can apprehend and restrain a gunman while minimizing the risk to the lives of both police and suspect? It doesn't seem impossible, except for lack of a commercial motivation...
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Pretty damn far, look at Atlas that's about as good as you get.... There is really no lack of commercial motivation the US army would be your 1st customer...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tzs 10y ago
Neither Oswald nor Hinkley were holed up in a defensible position known to be sufficiently armed and inclined to shoot anyone who got anywhere near. Oswald's gun jammed because the first approaching officer was close enough to try to grab it when Oswald pulled it out, and part of the officer's hand physically blocked the hammer. If Oswald had taken out the gun as soon as officers entered the theater and started shooting, I bet he would have been shot. Also, the Dallas shooter claimed to have bombs in the area. That greatly increased the uncertainty in how much of a risk he posed. The Oswald and Hinkley situations had a much smaller uncertainty.

hanklazard 10y ago

I haven't yet been able to understand why using this explosive-carrying robot was "necessary" in this situation. It seems that they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage and, to me, that would seem like a good opportunity for some sort of non-lethal option. What am I missing here?

eximius 10y ago
I'm sure someone will come up with a reason, but I doubt it will be more motivating than the expectation that police shouldn't issue death sentences - to me, at least.
- afarrell 10y ago
  If you object to the police using deadly force in this instance, do you also object to them trying to shoot the suspect?
  - eximius 10y ago
    If he is a credible and imminent threat (where imminent is immediate, requires similarly immediate action to protect oneself), then I wholly support neutralizing the threat. I think that police are increasingly reaching for lethal force without exhausting nonlethal options. I also think that, in this instance, he was a credible but nonimminent threat. So in that sense, yes I would object to shooting him. A nonlethal response to continue containing the suspect, even at some risk to themselves, would have been more in line with the duty I believe police officers have. Minimizing the risk to themselves will not maximize the fulfillment of their duty (which is obviously true because the extreme is them never leaving the station, etc). I do not claim to know what the right balance is. However, I would argue that as public servants, their duty inherently necessitates taking on some level of risk in order to uphold our values of justice. Our values of justice require that they not kill suspects they are tired of dealing with - they must stand trial.
afarrell 10y ago
The fact that exercising non-lethal options against a currently active shooter exposes you to greater risk of being shot. You are of course free to argue that the police made the wrong call in the probabilistic tradeoff between their lives and the life of the shooter. Given the circumstances of facing a trained active shooter who has killed and continues to try to kill officers, I would think that > 99% of cops would find the argument that you must preserve his life at the (high) risk to officers' lives incredibly insulting. > they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage Being cornered doesn't stop someone from shooting a gun. It especially doesn't stop someone who has a gas mask. It isn't unreasonable to suspect someone has a gas mask if he is firing at crowd-control officers in the sort of pop-pop-pause pattern reminiscent of the military. Being cornered also doesn't stop someone from detonating a suicide vest. EDIT: I would be interested to know how this comment doesn't contribute to the discussion, given the comment it is replying to.

csours 10y ago

"The suspect stated that we will eventually find the IEDs." It is likely the talk about IEDs that brought the robot out in the first place. How the decision was made to use the robot to blow up the guy is something else entirely. 1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-suspect-affiliated-group-160708132417429.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-suspect-...

edoceo 10y ago

Not 3-Law safe

patcheudor 10y ago

It's important to remember that the shooter was specifically targeting police officers over what he viewed as massive injustices towards his own community. Using a robot with a weapon of mass destruction to execute the suspect does nothing to defuse that frustration and anger in others who may be sympathetic to what the shooter was trying to accomplish. In this case, two wrongs very much don't make a right. Unfortunately I'm not sure most citizens understand the historical significance of this event or the fact that the slippery slope is now well greased. How many more years till our police officers are armed with FPV multi-rotor drones capable of seeking out suspects and detonating explosives to take them out?

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Not really a response, just venting: If you saw someone actually gun down a couple of your colleagues would you treat them as just a "suspect" or would you treat them as a murderer. I know why it's put like this but in some cases I find it a bit ridiculous.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- patcheudor 10y ago
  This is the exact reason we have a justice system with courts and rule of law rather than supporting vigilante justice. If you remember, early on in this incident, a completely innocent individual was identified as the possible shooter with many absolutely convinced he was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/0...
nradov 10y ago
That's some George W. Bush style exaggeration. A small conventional explosive is in no way a WMD.
- patcheudor 10y ago

oxryly1 10y ago

It was a remote controlled device, not a robot. It had no AI or built-in intelligence, and made no decisions. An officer at the controls is responsible for the shooter's killing.

OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago
Sadly in the minds of the public there is no distinction. Something which has always bugged me.
ccleve 10y ago
Perhaps. But the fact that they used a remote-controlled device is significant. It's quantum change in tactics for the police. It gives police far greater powers against suspects. How long before they use drones to shoot suspects? What about automated traffic stops, where a device asks you to roll down the window and scan your license and insurance? If there's a robbery or burglary in progress, wouldn't it always make sense to send in a device instead of exposing an officer? What about a bunch of kids on the corner who shouldn't be there? Why expose a cop to them, when one of them might have a gun? Instead, roll up in a well-protected car and speak to them through speakers and microphones and video. I'll bet a remote-controlled device could eventually cuff them and take them into custody as well. Don't underestimate the effect this is going to have on civil liberties.
- IndianAstronaut 10y ago
  It might also go the other way. Many police killings are due to jittery officers in dangerous situations. Take that out of the picture and you might get better policing and fewer suspect deaths.
joezydeco 10y ago
So let's drop the semantic distinction and call it a drone. A drone deployed domestically against a US citizen.
- abstractbeliefs 10y ago

molmalo 10y ago

Why didnt they use some some gas agent, like russians did in the theater? (Without hostages this time, the risk of collaterals is removed). Sending a bomb on wheels makes it look like just revenge.

T0T0R0 10y ago
That gas agent (allegedly aerosolized fentanyl [1]) didn't actually work so great, and wound up killing people anyway, so might've had the same outcome, but with more effort and just as much controversy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical...
- yardie 10y ago
  It failed because they used an anesthetic and it will certainly kill you if you can't control the dose. In this case they had 1 target who they were carefully monitoring. Once it reached its effectiveness they could cut it off.
  - nradov 10y ago
    That's not how anesthetics work. It's impossible to deliver a controlled dose or measure effectiveness just by spraying some gas in a general direction. Ask an anesthesiologist.
    - hga 10y ago
      "Uh, mom?" Seriously, she was a nurse anesthetist who retired decades ago when she had me, and she's mentioned how it's a somewhat precision effort. They monitor the patient to see how it's effecting them, since we're all different.
      - nradov 10y ago
        Yes they monitor the patient in an operating room using multiple instruments. And the anesthetic is delivered in a precisely calibrated dose based on the patient's size using a mask or IV. Which is completely different from the actual situation in Dallas. Edit: sorry I didn't realize that the parent post was essentially agreeing.

cs702 10y ago

The specifics of this situation matter less than the precedent it has set for future police actions around the world. From now on, when faced with difficult or dangerous situations, police forces everywhere will at least consider using robots, because "Dallas police did it, and there was neither public outrage nor political fallout."

jj12 10y ago
And following from that I guess robots doing traffic stops in high risk black neighborhoods. The only positive I can think of, from this escalating into totally unimaginable madness is the most cities dont have the budget for all this sci-fi shit. I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around.
- afarrell 10y ago
  > I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around. That isn't uncommon actually. One common approach to handling potential unexploded ordinance is to evacuate the area and have a controlled detonation nearby. If you hear one boom, it was nothing. If you hear two booms, it was a bomb. Robots are often used for this. Source: This is coming from my memory as part of MIT's Community Emergency Response Team back in 2012 & 2013. We didn't receive EOD training of course. We just did first aid training and crowd control at a few events, but we also go to sit in on discussions of EOD procedures and a tabletop excercise of an active shooter scenario.
IndianAstronaut 10y ago
Not to mention that there are police departments in the Dallas area which have drones.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

I've never been comfortable with the use of the term "robot" to describe a radio controlled car (or plane, boat, whatever). Using a ruggedized R/C car to deliver an explosive is no different from a police officer with a good throwing arm tossing a grenade (or whatever) at the attacker. In other words, the action is completely controlled and executed by a person, not the machine. Now, if this thing had autonomous "search and destroy" capabilities and the person's role was to identify the target area and approve the kill, the term "robot" would certainly apply. I don't like the association being created between robotics and killing. In this case a person was 100% in charge of killing the suspect. The machine was not operating autonomously. Just like the folks who attached a gun to a quadcopter. Where that thing went and when it pulled the trigger, save a malfunction, was 100% remotely controlled. Calling it a "drone" or "robot", which implies a level of machine-based decision making, would be wrong.

codewritinfool 10y ago
Agreed, which is why I always disliked the show "Robot Wars". It sounds better though than "Giant Armored R/C Vehicle Wars".
davrosthedalek 10y ago
Indeed true. However, it boils down to the "video game UI makes killing easier" discussion. Which in this case, as far as I am concerned, is not the discussion to have. I think it actually distracts from the discussion we should have: Why do so many police interactions end with casualties in the US, compared to other countries. Obviously many think it's racism, and that may well be true, but I think it's also bad training and maybe a wrong overall approach to policing.

SCAQTony 10y ago

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. At the end of Foundation and Earth he added a "zero" option: 0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

krapp 10y ago
But he entire point of Asimov's Three Laws was to be a literary device for stories about the Three Laws being a bad idea. They weren't intended to be taken seriously, they were intended to illustrate the unintended consequences that can arise from the hubris of trying to codify morality in the first place. Robots governed by his laws in universe harmed people all the time. If we ever do want to tackle the issue of the morality that governs AI, Asimov is the last person we should refer to as a credible source of inspiration.
- SCAQTony 10y ago
  I disagree, when we industrialize killing and mayhem with seemingly little consequence, nothing good will come out of it. As for Asimov, I think he was on to something; your milage obviously varies.
- afarrell 10y ago
  > Asimov is the last person we should refer to as a credible source of inspiration. Wait, why wouldn't we want to look at the failure modes he pointed out?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 10y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I do think it's a mistake to take them seriously, except as an example of what not to do.

intrasight 10y ago

This wasn't a robot - it was a remote controlled vehicle. I do share the sentiments of others here that there should have been a non-lethal option to disable the perpetrator.

simbalion 10y ago

Militaristic police abuses cause kickback by oppressed citizens, so the police escalate with killer robots. Seems legit.

GnarfGnarf 10y ago

The CNN video says "they're used to diffuse bombs..." I don't think so. That would defeat the purpose. "Defuse" maybe?

Mao_Zedang 10y ago

I dont think police are paid enough to risk their lives against someone who is actively trying to kill them. How much would you want to approach a situation like that in the way you are all detailing?