10 ms·

Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

33 points by cpeterso 4y ago

labrador 4y ago
Clickbait title. Remote control bomb disposal devices with an explosive charge to detonate bombs are hardly "robots with shotguns"
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  I largely agree, but the explosive charge can be a shotgun blank. Which also means it can be substituted for a normal shotgun shell. And the police can use this pretty much at their discretion. How long will it take for this to be misused?
  - jimlongton 4y ago
    They already did in 2016. [1] They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
    - ericmcer 4y ago
      He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Not to mention the guy was trained military with an express desire to murder police--who knows what the police would be walking into.
      - jimlongton 4y ago
        It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1] In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists. I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.
- yrgulation 4y ago
- samfbiddle 4y ago
  Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take it from the cop who proposed the plan! “Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”
  - pizza234 4y ago
    I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is. The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.
    - samfbiddle 4y ago
      I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    > in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?
    - samfbiddle 4y ago
      It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
- jimlongton 4y ago
  Police have already used a bomb disposal robot to kill a person [1] in the US. The conversation they had shows slippery slope in action: > After a brief silence, Commissioner Jesse Hsieh asked the next question: “Does the department plan on using a live round in the robot PAN disruptor?” > The answer was immediately provocative. “No,” Daza-Quiroz said, before quickly pivoting to hypothetical scenarios in which, yes, just such a shotgun-armed robot might be useful to police. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    As has been shown again and again, what they plan on "now" is irrelevant. What matters is what they (or their successors) can do with it later.
- rolph 4y ago
  they are already armed with a functional shotgun and a hand waved at it. you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    Right. They could be using it to plant wildflowers: https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/ https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/
    - rolph 4y ago
      exactly, it could even shoot little bits of confetti that say bang, or all sorts of non lethal things that would 100% stop the fight w/o killing.
      - Ancapistani 4y ago
        They could use “dragon’s breath” rounds to safely start controlled burns! https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/ https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/ To be fair, that would imply a realistic approach to wildfire management, so it’s much less likely than the wildflowers thing.
- fumeux_fume 4y ago
  So you didn't read the part where police officials start descibing scenarios where it would be appropriate to arm the "bomb disposal device" with actual shotgun shells to kill people? Or the part where police refuse to prohibit the use of shotgun shells because they may want to use them one day? Or you just didn't bother to get that far before commenting?
nullc 4y ago
Killbots disrupt the suspension of disbelief that we currently use to excuse many killings by law enforcement: We find it morally acceptable for someone to use deadly force to protect themselves, and we use this to shortcut a more extensive analysis of the morality of killings by law enforcement. In many cases the deadly force wasn't actually necessary or the need was so absurdly induced by the wielder that they should be culpable by the outcome. But the line is really hard to see when you weren't there, in their shoes, so we tend to defer judgement. At the very minimum this does provide a limited check on the use of deadly force. For a killbot it couldn't be more clear: the operators life was not at risk, erasing the fiction that it was automatically excusable for personal protection and forcing us to justify the killing on a more complex basis. Not that we can't-- I think sometimes we could, but probably in many situations we can't. E.g. right now, a gunman "safely" barricaded in a house eventually gets stormed in and killed. In a killbot equipped world, I don't think we could morally send in a killbot-- I think we'd have to wait for them to try to escape at least. And if we couldn't kill them with a killbot, well then that opens questions about the morality of doing the same thing with people. I'd feel better about bots with less lethal weapons: nets, incapacitating gasses, tranquilizer darts, stun guns, etc. They may be radically less effective but one of the advantages of keeping the operator safe from harm is that a less effective weapon is easier to justify: its failure won't get the operator killed. Aside, -- the specific application here with an interchangeable cartage just sounds like asking for trouble when someone leaves the wrong munition loaded.
moistly 4y ago
I don’t understand why they don’t use a tranquilizer gun. There’s no need to murder people with a remote-control robot when you could just knock them out instead. Or use the sticky silly-string stuff that immobilizes them. Or a concussion grenade. Or taser. So many (usually) non-lethal options but, no, they choose kill. I guess the big advantage is that there’ll be no need for subsequent prosecution. Handy, that.
rolph 4y ago
if you are going to use any weapon, you need to be ready to have it taken from you or copied and, used against you
- blacksmith_tb 4y ago
  Well, I am sure that a drug cartel that can produce submarines[1] or drones[2] could manage an RC shotgun bot, but I am skeptical that you'd see them being used widely, compared to just handing a gun to someone? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine 2: https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-170948989.html https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-17...
  - rolph 4y ago
    i think thats because, noone has been aggreiviated,[harmed enough enough to want to do it]. if it became common usage to strap a firearm to a drone of some sort, then that looks like a contemporary use, and perhaps private citizens would commonly use armed drones to patrol property and provide a personal bodyguard.
    - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
      I am sure people would consider it, you're right. Somehow it seems like a riskier step then getting a vicious dog, given that a glitching defense-bot could shoot you or your family, or your neighbors, package delivery people, etc. Also I am not sure too many people would have the technical skill to build their own, so unless they became a product (with serious, serious liability insurance problems...) it's hard for me to picture them becoming popular somewhere like the US.
      - rolph 4y ago
        found this as a commercial example: https://www.armadainternational.com/2017/10/dogo-ultra-light-hand-held-anti-terror-robot/ https://www.armadainternational.com/2017/10/dogo-ultra-light...
adabyron 4y ago
Curious what others think. Would robot police allow police to be less scared for their lives & ask questions first instead of the fear that exists in some situations that cause them to shoot to quickly? Could this lead to a system where people can be judged properly in a court system instead of to quickly?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jollyllama 4y ago
  This specific robot is just going to discourage de-escalation for suspects barricaded with guns; easier to send the shotgun robot in after such a person.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    It can plausibly also stop the suspect from killing more people. This is the tension--balancing the rights of the innocent against those of unambiguous, active mass murderers.
bryankaplan 4y ago
What are its prime directives?
- mtgx 4y ago
GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
This is not new and there's not really any difference between a sniper shooting someone and shooting them with a remote controlled gadget. A person aims the gun and a person pulls the trigger.
tanseydavid 4y ago
brettproctor 4y ago
Is this really what is passing as journalism these days? Anyone who spends even a modest amount of time looking at incidents of justified use of lethal force can quickly determine that an officer having a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to themselves or others is enough to justify the force. Often times this reasonable fear is justified by actions that take place in under a second. A furtive movement towards a waistband in the right context will almost always qualify. Articles like this that push an unfounded narrative are simply pandering for clicks/views while failing to even attempting to understand/explain the motivations for such a tool are worse than intellectually lazy. I think they quite likely result in needless excess deaths. It really isn't rocket science to imagine a lethal robot like this being deployed in a situation which results in deescalation, where the robot operator doesn't have to take a shot where an officer would have been forced to. And to suggest that an officer is somehow going to feel more inclined to shoot someone because its pushing a button vs pulling a trigger just shows a truly impressive amount of bias. I'd much, much rather send in a lethal robot than an officer to a situation where a use of force is likely, and I really can't fathom any logical argument that putting an officer in there is somehow going to result in less use of force. Unless your world view is that every officer is just trying to execute as many people as they possibly can. Just watch the 10 seconds here. Guy has stolen a car, walking away from officers, yells "shoot me" and "fuck you fuck you!", digging in his pockets, then quickly points at the officer in a drawing motion. If this was a robot POV instead of an officer, zero chance anyone pushes the button to shoot the guy. Why would you and deal with risking your entire career/life? You're still on the hook for all the consequences of unjustified use of force, and you have the time to wait and verify if the suspect has a gun, so you do. The officer on the other hand is put in an impossible situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s I'd much rather have a lethal robot be put in that above situation than an officer, and I'd love to hear anyone explain otherwise. (Also, I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "casual", not "causal": `“legal precedence justifying the causal use of weapons”`, but I ain't no english major)

33 points by cpeterso 4y ago

Clickbait title. Remote control bomb disposal devices with an explosive charge to detonate bombs are hardly "robots with shotguns"

bastawhiz 4y ago
I largely agree, but the explosive charge can be a shotgun blank. Which also means it can be substituted for a normal shotgun shell. And the police can use this pretty much at their discretion. How long will it take for this to be misused?
- jimlongton 4y ago
  They already did in 2016. [1] They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Not to mention the guy was trained military with an express desire to murder police--who knows what the police would be walking into.
    - jimlongton 4y ago
      It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1] In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists. I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.
yrgulation 4y ago
samfbiddle 4y ago
Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take it from the cop who proposed the plan! “Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”
- pizza234 4y ago
  I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is. The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.
  - samfbiddle 4y ago
    I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  > in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?
  - samfbiddle 4y ago
    It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
jimlongton 4y ago
Police have already used a bomb disposal robot to kill a person [1] in the US. The conversation they had shows slippery slope in action: > After a brief silence, Commissioner Jesse Hsieh asked the next question: “Does the department plan on using a live round in the robot PAN disruptor?” > The answer was immediately provocative. “No,” Daza-Quiroz said, before quickly pivoting to hypothetical scenarios in which, yes, just such a shotgun-armed robot might be useful to police. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  As has been shown again and again, what they plan on "now" is irrelevant. What matters is what they (or their successors) can do with it later.
rolph 4y ago
they are already armed with a functional shotgun and a hand waved at it. you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  Right. They could be using it to plant wildflowers: https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/ https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/
  - rolph 4y ago
    exactly, it could even shoot little bits of confetti that say bang, or all sorts of non lethal things that would 100% stop the fight w/o killing.
    - Ancapistani 4y ago
      They could use “dragon’s breath” rounds to safely start controlled burns! https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/ https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/ To be fair, that would imply a realistic approach to wildfire management, so it’s much less likely than the wildflowers thing.
fumeux_fume 4y ago
So you didn't read the part where police officials start descibing scenarios where it would be appropriate to arm the "bomb disposal device" with actual shotgun shells to kill people? Or the part where police refuse to prohibit the use of shotgun shells because they may want to use them one day? Or you just didn't bother to get that far before commenting?

nullc 4y ago

Killbots disrupt the suspension of disbelief that we currently use to excuse many killings by law enforcement: We find it morally acceptable for someone to use deadly force to protect themselves, and we use this to shortcut a more extensive analysis of the morality of killings by law enforcement. In many cases the deadly force wasn't actually necessary or the need was so absurdly induced by the wielder that they should be culpable by the outcome. But the line is really hard to see when you weren't there, in their shoes, so we tend to defer judgement. At the very minimum this does provide a limited check on the use of deadly force. For a killbot it couldn't be more clear: the operators life was not at risk, erasing the fiction that it was automatically excusable for personal protection and forcing us to justify the killing on a more complex basis. Not that we can't-- I think sometimes we could, but probably in many situations we can't. E.g. right now, a gunman "safely" barricaded in a house eventually gets stormed in and killed. In a killbot equipped world, I don't think we could morally send in a killbot-- I think we'd have to wait for them to try to escape at least. And if we couldn't kill them with a killbot, well then that opens questions about the morality of doing the same thing with people. I'd feel better about bots with less lethal weapons: nets, incapacitating gasses, tranquilizer darts, stun guns, etc. They may be radically less effective but one of the advantages of keeping the operator safe from harm is that a less effective weapon is easier to justify: its failure won't get the operator killed. Aside, -- the specific application here with an interchangeable cartage just sounds like asking for trouble when someone leaves the wrong munition loaded.

moistly 4y ago

I don’t understand why they don’t use a tranquilizer gun. There’s no need to murder people with a remote-control robot when you could just knock them out instead. Or use the sticky silly-string stuff that immobilizes them. Or a concussion grenade. Or taser. So many (usually) non-lethal options but, no, they choose kill. I guess the big advantage is that there’ll be no need for subsequent prosecution. Handy, that.

rolph 4y ago

if you are going to use any weapon, you need to be ready to have it taken from you or copied and, used against you

blacksmith_tb 4y ago
Well, I am sure that a drug cartel that can produce submarines[1] or drones[2] could manage an RC shotgun bot, but I am skeptical that you'd see them being used widely, compared to just handing a gun to someone? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine 2: https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-170948989.html https://news.yahoo.com/drug-cartels-attack-enemies-spread-17...
- rolph 4y ago
  i think thats because, noone has been aggreiviated,[harmed enough enough to want to do it]. if it became common usage to strap a firearm to a drone of some sort, then that looks like a contemporary use, and perhaps private citizens would commonly use armed drones to patrol property and provide a personal bodyguard.
  - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
    I am sure people would consider it, you're right. Somehow it seems like a riskier step then getting a vicious dog, given that a glitching defense-bot could shoot you or your family, or your neighbors, package delivery people, etc. Also I am not sure too many people would have the technical skill to build their own, so unless they became a product (with serious, serious liability insurance problems...) it's hard for me to picture them becoming popular somewhere like the US.
    - rolph 4y ago
      found this as a commercial example: https://www.armadainternational.com/2017/10/dogo-ultra-light-hand-held-anti-terror-robot/ https://www.armadainternational.com/2017/10/dogo-ultra-light...

adabyron 4y ago

Curious what others think. Would robot police allow police to be less scared for their lives & ask questions first instead of the fear that exists in some situations that cause them to shoot to quickly? Could this lead to a system where people can be judged properly in a court system instead of to quickly?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jollyllama 4y ago
This specific robot is just going to discourage de-escalation for suspects barricaded with guns; easier to send the shotgun robot in after such a person.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  It can plausibly also stop the suspect from killing more people. This is the tension--balancing the rights of the innocent against those of unambiguous, active mass murderers.

bryankaplan 4y ago

What are its prime directives?

mtgx 4y ago

GartzenDeHaes 4y ago

This is not new and there's not really any difference between a sniper shooting someone and shooting them with a remote controlled gadget. A person aims the gun and a person pulls the trigger.

tanseydavid 4y ago

brettproctor 4y ago

Is this really what is passing as journalism these days? Anyone who spends even a modest amount of time looking at incidents of justified use of lethal force can quickly determine that an officer having a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to themselves or others is enough to justify the force. Often times this reasonable fear is justified by actions that take place in under a second. A furtive movement towards a waistband in the right context will almost always qualify. Articles like this that push an unfounded narrative are simply pandering for clicks/views while failing to even attempting to understand/explain the motivations for such a tool are worse than intellectually lazy. I think they quite likely result in needless excess deaths. It really isn't rocket science to imagine a lethal robot like this being deployed in a situation which results in deescalation, where the robot operator doesn't have to take a shot where an officer would have been forced to. And to suggest that an officer is somehow going to feel more inclined to shoot someone because its pushing a button vs pulling a trigger just shows a truly impressive amount of bias. I'd much, much rather send in a lethal robot than an officer to a situation where a use of force is likely, and I really can't fathom any logical argument that putting an officer in there is somehow going to result in less use of force. Unless your world view is that every officer is just trying to execute as many people as they possibly can. Just watch the 10 seconds here. Guy has stolen a car, walking away from officers, yells "shoot me" and "fuck you fuck you!", digging in his pockets, then quickly points at the officer in a drawing motion. If this was a robot POV instead of an officer, zero chance anyone pushes the button to shoot the guy. Why would you and deal with risking your entire career/life? You're still on the hook for all the consequences of unjustified use of force, and you have the time to wait and verify if the suspect has a gun, so you do. The officer on the other hand is put in an impossible situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s I'd much rather have a lethal robot be put in that above situation than an officer, and I'd love to hear anyone explain otherwise. (Also, I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "casual", not "causal": `“legal precedence justifying the causal use of weapons”`, but I ain't no english major)