6 ms·

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?

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?