5 ms·

I wouldn't say that an active shooter should be kept alive at all costs, it just seems that if robots exist that can deliver an explosive device to the shooter,

I wouldn't say that an active shooter should be kept alive at all costs, it just seems that if robots exist that can deliver an explosive device to the shooter, a robot could also deliver a tranquilizer dart to the shooter. In addition to ethical implications, keeping your suspect alive also has practical advantages for information-gathering purposes. As it stands now, we'll have to settle for interviews with friends/family, social media autopsy, etc. As I said in my original comment, I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it.

jessriedel 10y ago
> I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it. Agreed. The distinction isn't between robots and guns per se. It's that lethal force is only allowed when someone poses a grave and imminent threat, and it's hard to imagine such a situation where a slow robot is useful.
- afarrell 10y ago
  The slowness of the robot is a good point to bring up and a pretty strong counterargument because it indicates that the robot was only useful in a situation where the police perceived[1] that they had control of the situation. [1] remember, if we're talking about what procedure police should follow, we have to think about the perceptions that they are responding to.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
1) Tranquilizer darts aren't magic. Without calibrated dosage, the effects can range from nearly nothing to fatal. [1] 2) Tranquilizer darts work against unprotected skin, not heavy clothing and certainly not against body armor. 3) Where would one get a robot armed with a tranquilizer dart launcher? They're not exactly off the shelf items. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-when-shooting-someone-as-a-way-to-control-the-situation-without-definite-consequences https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-wh...

jessriedel 10y ago

> I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it. Agreed. The distinction isn't between robots and guns per se. It's that lethal force is only allowed when someone poses a grave and imminent threat, and it's hard to imagine such a situation where a slow robot is useful.

afarrell 10y ago
The slowness of the robot is a good point to bring up and a pretty strong counterargument because it indicates that the robot was only useful in a situation where the police perceived[1] that they had control of the situation. [1] remember, if we're talking about what procedure police should follow, we have to think about the perceptions that they are responding to.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

1) Tranquilizer darts aren't magic. Without calibrated dosage, the effects can range from nearly nothing to fatal. [1] 2) Tranquilizer darts work against unprotected skin, not heavy clothing and certainly not against body armor. 3) Where would one get a robot armed with a tranquilizer dart launcher? They're not exactly off the shelf items. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-when-shooting-someone-as-a-way-to-control-the-situation-without-definite-consequences https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-wh...