4 ms·

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper. I think it will usually be justified as being in the im

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper. I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people. Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.

throwaway894345 4y ago
I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.
- runnerup 4y ago
  Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment. Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after. But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone. On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    It's not clear to me that they would have had a better opportunity. "Lethal intervention" is among the best case scenarios in a mass shooting, I don't know why we are litigating it like the outcome was particularly tragic. It may not have been perfect, and I'm sure there's something to learn from it, but people are discussing it like it was Uvalde or something. It seems like it was as close to a desirable outcome as could reliably be secured--I'm glad police didn't roll the dice in hoping for a less lethal outcome with innocent lives hanging in the balance.

throwaway894345 4y ago

I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.

runnerup 4y ago
Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment. Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after. But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone. On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  It's not clear to me that they would have had a better opportunity. "Lethal intervention" is among the best case scenarios in a mass shooting, I don't know why we are litigating it like the outcome was particularly tragic. It may not have been perfect, and I'm sure there's something to learn from it, but people are discussing it like it was Uvalde or something. It seems like it was as close to a desirable outcome as could reliably be secured--I'm glad police didn't roll the dice in hoping for a less lethal outcome with innocent lives hanging in the balance.