3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSadly in the minds of the public there is no distinction. Something which has always bugged me.
- ccleve 10y agoPerhaps. 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 agoIt 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 agoSo let's drop the semantic distinction and call it a drone. A drone deployed domestically against a US citizen.
- abstractbeliefs 10y agoOnly remotely operated flying vehicles are drones in the eyes of the American public.