9 ms·

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

142 points by type0 4y ago

ryan0x00 4y ago
Before going full dystopia could we perhaps try a pilot project with tranq darts? This is insane and shouldn't even be up for debate. Tbh I don't see how it's any different than drone strikes though. Just feels wrong and when something feels wrong...
warbler73 4y ago
What could possibly go wrong.
cl0ckt0wer 4y ago
How are guns not robots?
- jjulius 4y ago
  I'll bite - what makes a gun a robot?
- tmptmpgo 4y ago
  It’s a fair point. I suppose the distinction is whether the robot makes the decision to fire on its own.
  - notatoad 4y ago
    that is not the issue in question here. SFPD wants to deploy remote-controlled weaponry - an officer would still be . IMHO it's a pretty fine disinction between a remote-operated gun and a gun that needs to be held by a human hand. (to be clear, i think police should have fewer guns regardless of how the trigger gets pulled)
    - tmptmpgo 4y ago
      That was kind of my point. When a “robot” with a gun controlled by a human, is it really fundamentally different from an efficient Rube Goldberg machine that fires a gun gun. Some commentators are saying that by removing the safety of the operator from the equation changes things. Sure, it alters the ethics, but that doesn’t change the nature of machine itself.
- Alupis 4y ago
  A machine and a robot are not the same thing. A firearm is a machine. We even have so-called "Machine Guns". All firearms require external input to operate, and cannot operate autonomously. You can affix a firearm to a robot, however the firearm still requires input to operate.
dclaw 4y ago
djitz 4y ago
I can’t wait for the drone strikes on US soil
- forgetfulness 4y ago
  Now that rhymes "The Imperial Boomerang: How colonial methods of repression migrate back to the metropolis" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4383-the-imperial-boomerang-how-colonial-methods-of-repression-migrate-back-to-the-metropolis https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4383-the-imperial-boomerang...
POiNTx 4y ago
Isn't this just a remotely controlled gun? If we'd be talking about AI making its own decisions that's a different thing. In addition to this I feel better decisions would be made when the person holding the gun isn't threatened by his or her life.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
  - POiNTx 4y ago
    I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        Have you followed up on those "trained mental health workers"? Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.
        greenhorn360 4y ago
        This isn't even remotely true. My city, Portland, etc. Have had great success with these programs. The vast majority of calls they respond to don't require police. Please cite your sources (or any evidence at all) if you're going to make statements like that.
qwatx 4y ago
Imnimo 4y ago
Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems like if you have enough control over a situation that you can deploy a police robot instead of charging in, then you have enough control to make non-lethal force a viable option.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  Exactly, officers can't really say they feared for their lives in such a scenario.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    1. Hostages 2. Bystanders 3. General public (fleeing violent criminal)
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The scenario of the Texas cop shooter in 2016 was one such scenario, and involved lethal use of a robot. I'm not sure I want this to be policy, though, because it opens the door to "drone with a glock" kinds of things, which would be terrifying if deployed in any mass quantity.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Bystanders. You can't bet someone elses life based on how well a taser may or may not work. LTL is a real dice throw.
  - titzer 4y ago
    > Bystanders. Also vulnerable to bullets, as it turns out.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      There is a reason firearms come with sights and we make cops qualify with their service weapons.
blamazon 4y ago
Note that under discussion is only remote controlled electromechanical devices. They are not requesting permission for autonomous killer robots. (yet) Surprisingly, there is already precedent for this in US policing. All the way back in 2016, a gunman in Dallas was killed by police using a bomb defusal robot with remote-control explosives attached to it: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dalla...
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Yes I was hoping someone mentioned this. There's already precedent for this kind of thing, I'm honestly surprised they even need to ask for permission in this case. It's not automated, it's just remote controlled.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot. And I've never liked the notion of police shooting someone for threatening another person. The classic example being domestic disputes where they don't know who the aggressor is. A great example last year was that girl being attacked, called 911, but by the time the police arrived, she got the weapon and was threatening her attacker. They shot her. IMHO they need to shoot less, not feel safer in doing so. BYW I know the job can be scary AF. Remote control robot should reduce that, so less need to defend.
    - chroma 4y ago
      > she got the weapon and was threatening her attacker Are you talking about Ma'Khia Bryant?[1] Because in that case both parties grabbed knives, but Bonner was unarmed by the time the police arrived. Also it doesn't matter what happened beforehand. Bryant was about to stab a woman to death who was not a threat. She shouted, "I'm gonna stab the fuck out of you, bitch.", lunged toward Bonner, and ignored police commands to stop. Of course the cops are justified in shooting Bryant. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant
newaccount2021 4y ago
jef_leppard 4y ago
When people say "defund the police" this is the kind of shit they are talking about. There is no reason for a police force to have access to lethal robots. None.
- butMebbe 4y ago
  Train citizens to drive robot non-lethal surveillance drones, do paperwork, cut funding for rage prone meat bag policing. Maintain minimum required force of trigger happies for all the shooting scenarios. Our secular society isn’t anymore sacrosanct than religious based choices. It should be readily reorganize-able as logistics demand. Optimizing for 24/7 status quo politics, profit margin optimizing and rent extraction “or else the world ends” is not so different from forcing unfalsifiable magic down our throats.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    > Train citizens to drive robot surveillance drones, do paperwork Aka hire more cops. A cop in the US is just a citizen with 3-6 months of tactical and paperwork training.
    - butMebbe 4y ago
      What I am trying to describe is a very different kind of organization of policing agency and your response is to repeat old semantics, and conclude then it’s not that new?
      - thwayunion 4y ago
        You posted five sentences. Three of them are mostly just vague conglomerations of charged symbology. Did you expect an entire treatise in response...? Anyways, the point remains: the difference between a police officer and a civilian is a small amount of training and a whole lot of in-group politics. Not sure how hiring different people solves either problem.
- petilon 4y ago
LightG 4y ago
Affirmative.
kgbcia 4y ago
nope slippery slope to RoboCop
- trashface 4y ago
  Make SF residents watch the ED-209 scene
wheresmycraisin 4y ago
I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.
- anonexpat 4y ago
  The military is held to a much, much higher standard than regular law enforcement. Their rules of engagement are much stricter.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > The military is held to a much, much higher standard than regular law enforcement. Their rules of engagement are much stricter. I respect the military much more than I do the police, but it would still be a good idea to cut down on the fetish made at least of militarism for its own sake (a big, though probably not the main, part of the problem with US police forces).
    - rl3 4y ago
      Sometimes I wonder where military fetishism comes from. Early on it was toys. Then film. The last couple decades, the Call of Duty franchise has represented a kind of militarism fetish brain rot, at societal scale. What I find funny if not sad is when both law enforcement and militia types follow suit, or at least try to. There's nothing more pathetic than overweight law enforcement that can't even run a mile decked out in camouflage tactical gear they barely know how to use, with the wrong attitude thinking they're an operator or some such. It's like institutionalized stolen valor almost, they want the honor and respect without the level of hard work actual Special Forces put into it.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    Right, but the military can change the entire planet by invading Iraq (or wherever) based on a lie tomorrow leading to the destabilisation of entire regions and ramifications that will last not just for decades but potentially centuries. And it's arguable that much military abuse is actually 'held' to the higher standard as opposed to ignored covered up, or redefined (e.g. definitions of combatants), but I suppose that's another discussion.
llacb47 4y ago
Fake site with scraped content.
dools 4y ago
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a gun wielding robot being remotely controlled by a good guy EDIT: I mean, anything to avoid reducing the total number of highly lethal weapons currently available to both police and criminals in the US, right? Because that would be unconstitutional or something.
surfpel 4y ago
Pros - Police not exposed to deadly situations - Robots (presumably) equipped with variety of sensors and cameras mitigating misidentification of people or what they’re holding - Better firing accuracy - Greater accountability as all actions could be recorded Cons - Myriad of possible misuse cases - Further militarization of police - Drones on US soil
- falcolas 4y ago
  > - Greater accountability as all actions could be recorded I see exactly the opposite. There's no reason for them not to pull the trigger, as it's not as if any police will suffer the repercussions and be shot back at. And recordings... let's just say I believe they will be as broadly available as police's body camera footage is today. A shocking number of camera failures everywhere, all the time. My answer to the headline: Request Vehemently Denied
emkemp 4y ago
Do you want Cyclons? Because this is how you get Cylons.
rllearneratwork 4y ago
this is a great idea. Many (most?) killings by police are justified that by the "threat to the officer's life". With robots won't we have opportunity to minimize killings by police. The robot's well being is clearly not as important as that of a suspect.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > The robot's well being is clearly not as important as that of a suspect Said by no police officer anywhere. You've seen how they react to K9 units being assaulted (at least, how they react when the assault isn't being administered by the police themselves). I see the opposite. With no risk to the operators, they have no reason to hesitate in shutting the situation down as quickly as possible using the "easy button".
cyberphobe 4y ago
Sure hope that control protocol is secure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kirillzubovsky 4y ago
I think we've all seen Robocop and know how this works out. I am all for technology making our lives better, but autonomous robots (or even remotely controlled ones) that go around killing people at will isn't the future we should have. Theoretically it's a good idea, until for one reason or another you end up on the kill list. And then it doesn't matter who hacked it or how you go there, you're no longer available to argue. Seems like an awful idea.
Alupis 4y ago
Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce lethal force use. This opens the door to fitting the same robot with a multitude of options - further reducing the need for lethal force. Pepper balls, stun guns, blinding lights, etc. (less-lethal does not mean non-lethal, when we discuss things like stun guns, pepper balls, rubber balls, etc) In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. Sometimes they get things wrong... but when people's lives are at risk, lethal force will be employed to protect innocents and police alike. This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Because cops have such a great track record with those decisions so far? > In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. This is what cops always claim when these discussions come up, but a look at the actual data proves otherwise. Cops routinely kill civilians - including innocent ones - in situations where there is literally no possible way they could reasonably be fearing for their life or be forced to make a "snap decision".
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...
    - falcolas 4y ago
      > If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
calibas 4y ago
localtoday.news copied the article from here: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/san-francisco-police-seek-permission-for-its-robots-to-use-deadly-force-183514906.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/san-francisco-police-seek-pe... Which copied the article from here: https://www.engadget.com/san-francisco-police-seek-permission-for-its-robots-to-use-deadly-force-183514906.html https://www.engadget.com/san-francisco-police-seek-permissio... Which is a rewrite of the original article here: https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitted-under-sfpd-draft-policy/ https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitt...
- blamazon 4y ago
  I wonder what could be incentivizing all these groups to rush to publish copy pasta articles so they can run salacious headlines of killer robots. Oh, I've got it, it's journalism!
- dang 4y ago
  Right. We've changed to that from https://localtoday.news/ca/the-san-francisco-police-department-is-requesting-permission-for-their-robots-to-use-deadly-force-142138.html https://localtoday.news/ca/the-san-francisco-police-departme... and banned the latter site. Thanks!
transitivebs 4y ago
Psycho Pass
seabird 4y ago
For those who have an issue with this, I have to ask; have you actually thought this through at all? Would it really be preferable to make an officer literally risk their life trying to make the right decision? The will to survive in a situation that's shaping up to be a shootout is going to trump any reprimand or consequence. People generally don't like dying. Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  It is. The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing. Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days. Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate. << People generally don't like dying. I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks. Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable. << Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable. Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.
  - seabird 4y ago
    With very few exceptions, anybody in a life threatening (or what they perceive to be a life threatening) situation is going to pick themselves over a person that they don't know and believe is trying to kill them. It is exceedingly hard to train this out of people and the only way to know whether or not you successfully have is to observe them in actual gunfights. I would even go as far to say that the trait is probably concerning from a psychological standpoint and the pool of people you would reliably find it in would raise some eyebrows, too. Getting an officer's skin in the game doesn't make them think about what they're doing. It results in them deciding in 1-2 seconds that they're in a dangerous situation, and they're going home no matter what. I really don't think you understand what being in a life-or-death situation does to normal, mentally sound people. The idea that officers having time to decide whether or not lethal force is necessary is a bad thing just doesn't make sense.
standardUser 4y ago
According to a recent article... "Since 2000, some 58 people have been shot and killed by police in San Francisco" A dense city of 800k has about 2.5 deaths from police shootings per year. According to the "Officer Down Memorial Page", 3 police officers were killed due to hostile actions in that same time period (but I'm not certain that site is fully up-to-date). Sounds like an expensive and risky solution in search of a problem. https://www.odmp.org/agency/3445-san-francisco-police-department-california https://www.odmp.org/agency/3445-san-francisco-police-depart... https://missionlocal.org/2022/10/police-shooting-deaths-san-francisco-2000-database/ https://missionlocal.org/2022/10/police-shooting-deaths-san-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
russellbeattie 4y ago
There is zero need for a device which can't be killed to use deadly force. What are they thinking? The justification for police to have and use guns is that their lives could be in danger from so much as a broken bottle. Police have guns to protect themselves. Yes, in reality they use them to threaten, intimidate and "take out the bad guys" before they potentially harm others ("We shot him in the back 40 times as he was running away because he could have been a threat!"), but that's not what they're supposed to have them for. A remote controlled robot does not have that rationale. There is no reason for it to have anything more powerful than a taser or a flash-bang style explosive. If that doesn't work, send in another, and another. But sending in a robot with a gun or a grenade to take out the bad guys? What's the reasoning? Robots are expensive? That if they didn't use it the bad guy might get away? No. Full stop. No.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nielsbot 4y ago
Now let's connect it to CICERO
tvszzzz 4y ago
I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that is a problem we already have with police walking around with guns. - You can certainly come up with situations where someone is a danger to the public. Imagine an active shooter scenario. Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. - I don't think the slippery slope argument is helpful here. We can be against fully autonomous kill chains while still being okay with this. The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others. This is just a more effective tool for a method of last resort. I say all of this with the utmost respect for issue of concerning police militarization and abuse of power. I think these are important issues that we need to solve and the presence of them makes everyone fearful and distrusting. A just and highly effective police force shouldn't have these issues. I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of police to solve it though.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The chief concern that I can think of with a remote-controlled weapon is that it derealizes the person on the other end of the barrel, and derealizes the operation of the weapon. It's easier to kill someone when the action is disconnected from the physics. Compare, for example, the US using video game controllers to pilot drones in Afghanistan. One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking. They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think.
random314 4y ago
I think I have watched this movie before!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I for one welcome our killer robotic overlords!
Bud 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
asix66 4y ago
You have 20 seconds to comply! [1] [1] https://youtu.be/xsuo3FnG4g0 https://youtu.be/xsuo3FnG4g0
anothernewdude 4y ago
Seems like taking the money away from the Police would save more lives than giving them killer robots.
ViceCitySage 4y ago
Hell no to more government force.
sys_64738 4y ago
I thought Robocop was Detroit PD, not SFPD.
Fatnino 4y ago
The robots aren't going to get killed. They can't justify using lethal force because the robot feared for its safety. The whole benefit of a robot is that no lives are put at risk. The robot just rolls up to the suspect while tanking a hail of bullets and subues him. No one has to die. The robots should not be authorized to kill anything.
nojvek 4y ago
Every time a robot is deployed by police and harms someone, even in a non-lethal scenario, the recording ought to be publicly available if someone asks for it. If someone was shot in malice or incompetence, then they ought to face court and potentially prison time. Police need to be accountable. They have way too much power in the US.
kjfarm 4y ago
Threads like this bring out the most hate on HN. I wish I could automatically filter this crap out

142 points by type0 4y ago

Before going full dystopia could we perhaps try a pilot project with tranq darts? This is insane and shouldn't even be up for debate. Tbh I don't see how it's any different than drone strikes though. Just feels wrong and when something feels wrong...

warbler73 4y ago

What could possibly go wrong.

cl0ckt0wer 4y ago

How are guns not robots?

jjulius 4y ago
I'll bite - what makes a gun a robot?
tmptmpgo 4y ago
It’s a fair point. I suppose the distinction is whether the robot makes the decision to fire on its own.
- notatoad 4y ago
  that is not the issue in question here. SFPD wants to deploy remote-controlled weaponry - an officer would still be . IMHO it's a pretty fine disinction between a remote-operated gun and a gun that needs to be held by a human hand. (to be clear, i think police should have fewer guns regardless of how the trigger gets pulled)
  - tmptmpgo 4y ago
    That was kind of my point. When a “robot” with a gun controlled by a human, is it really fundamentally different from an efficient Rube Goldberg machine that fires a gun gun. Some commentators are saying that by removing the safety of the operator from the equation changes things. Sure, it alters the ethics, but that doesn’t change the nature of machine itself.
Alupis 4y ago
A machine and a robot are not the same thing. A firearm is a machine. We even have so-called "Machine Guns". All firearms require external input to operate, and cannot operate autonomously. You can affix a firearm to a robot, however the firearm still requires input to operate.

dclaw 4y ago

djitz 4y ago

I can’t wait for the drone strikes on US soil

forgetfulness 4y ago
Now that rhymes "The Imperial Boomerang: How colonial methods of repression migrate back to the metropolis" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4383-the-imperial-boomerang-how-colonial-methods-of-repression-migrate-back-to-the-metropolis https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4383-the-imperial-boomerang...

POiNTx 4y ago

Isn't this just a remotely controlled gun? If we'd be talking about AI making its own decisions that's a different thing. In addition to this I feel better decisions would be made when the person holding the gun isn't threatened by his or her life.

colpabar 4y ago
Cops in america already shoot way too many people. Do you think giving them the ability to do that from a remote location is going to help?
- POiNTx 4y ago
  I'm not pro gun or even American, but to me it seems a lot of those shootings happen in high stress situations, not in a remotely controlled environment.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Have you followed up on those "trained mental health workers"? Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.
      - greenhorn360 4y ago
        This isn't even remotely true. My city, Portland, etc. Have had great success with these programs. The vast majority of calls they respond to don't require police. Please cite your sources (or any evidence at all) if you're going to make statements like that.

qwatx 4y ago

Imnimo 4y ago

Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems like if you have enough control over a situation that you can deploy a police robot instead of charging in, then you have enough control to make non-lethal force a viable option.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Exactly, officers can't really say they feared for their lives in such a scenario.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  1. Hostages 2. Bystanders 3. General public (fleeing violent criminal)
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The scenario of the Texas cop shooter in 2016 was one such scenario, and involved lethal use of a robot. I'm not sure I want this to be policy, though, because it opens the door to "drone with a glock" kinds of things, which would be terrifying if deployed in any mass quantity.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Bystanders. You can't bet someone elses life based on how well a taser may or may not work. LTL is a real dice throw.
- titzer 4y ago
  > Bystanders. Also vulnerable to bullets, as it turns out.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    There is a reason firearms come with sights and we make cops qualify with their service weapons.

blamazon 4y ago

Note that under discussion is only remote controlled electromechanical devices. They are not requesting permission for autonomous killer robots. (yet) Surprisingly, there is already precedent for this in US policing. All the way back in 2016, a gunman in Dallas was killed by police using a bomb defusal robot with remote-control explosives attached to it: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dalla...

micromacrofoot 4y ago
Yes I was hoping someone mentioned this. There's already precedent for this kind of thing, I'm honestly surprised they even need to ask for permission in this case. It's not automated, it's just remote controlled.
- phkahler 4y ago
  If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot. And I've never liked the notion of police shooting someone for threatening another person. The classic example being domestic disputes where they don't know who the aggressor is. A great example last year was that girl being attacked, called 911, but by the time the police arrived, she got the weapon and was threatening her attacker. They shot her. IMHO they need to shoot less, not feel safer in doing so. BYW I know the job can be scary AF. Remote control robot should reduce that, so less need to defend.
  - chroma 4y ago
    > she got the weapon and was threatening her attacker Are you talking about Ma'Khia Bryant?[1] Because in that case both parties grabbed knives, but Bonner was unarmed by the time the police arrived. Also it doesn't matter what happened beforehand. Bryant was about to stab a woman to death who was not a threat. She shouted, "I'm gonna stab the fuck out of you, bitch.", lunged toward Bonner, and ignored police commands to stop. Of course the cops are justified in shooting Bryant. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant

newaccount2021 4y ago

jef_leppard 4y ago

When people say "defund the police" this is the kind of shit they are talking about. There is no reason for a police force to have access to lethal robots. None.

butMebbe 4y ago
Train citizens to drive robot non-lethal surveillance drones, do paperwork, cut funding for rage prone meat bag policing. Maintain minimum required force of trigger happies for all the shooting scenarios. Our secular society isn’t anymore sacrosanct than religious based choices. It should be readily reorganize-able as logistics demand. Optimizing for 24/7 status quo politics, profit margin optimizing and rent extraction “or else the world ends” is not so different from forcing unfalsifiable magic down our throats.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > Train citizens to drive robot surveillance drones, do paperwork Aka hire more cops. A cop in the US is just a citizen with 3-6 months of tactical and paperwork training.
  - butMebbe 4y ago
    What I am trying to describe is a very different kind of organization of policing agency and your response is to repeat old semantics, and conclude then it’s not that new?
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      You posted five sentences. Three of them are mostly just vague conglomerations of charged symbology. Did you expect an entire treatise in response...? Anyways, the point remains: the difference between a police officer and a civilian is a small amount of training and a whole lot of in-group politics. Not sure how hiring different people solves either problem.
petilon 4y ago

LightG 4y ago

Affirmative.

kgbcia 4y ago

nope slippery slope to RoboCop

trashface 4y ago
Make SF residents watch the ED-209 scene

wheresmycraisin 4y ago

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

anonexpat 4y ago
The military is held to a much, much higher standard than regular law enforcement. Their rules of engagement are much stricter.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > The military is held to a much, much higher standard than regular law enforcement. Their rules of engagement are much stricter. I respect the military much more than I do the police, but it would still be a good idea to cut down on the fetish made at least of militarism for its own sake (a big, though probably not the main, part of the problem with US police forces).
  - rl3 4y ago
    Sometimes I wonder where military fetishism comes from. Early on it was toys. Then film. The last couple decades, the Call of Duty franchise has represented a kind of militarism fetish brain rot, at societal scale. What I find funny if not sad is when both law enforcement and militia types follow suit, or at least try to. There's nothing more pathetic than overweight law enforcement that can't even run a mile decked out in camouflage tactical gear they barely know how to use, with the wrong attitude thinking they're an operator or some such. It's like institutionalized stolen valor almost, they want the honor and respect without the level of hard work actual Special Forces put into it.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  Right, but the military can change the entire planet by invading Iraq (or wherever) based on a lie tomorrow leading to the destabilisation of entire regions and ramifications that will last not just for decades but potentially centuries. And it's arguable that much military abuse is actually 'held' to the higher standard as opposed to ignored covered up, or redefined (e.g. definitions of combatants), but I suppose that's another discussion.

llacb47 4y ago

Fake site with scraped content.

dools 4y ago

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a gun wielding robot being remotely controlled by a good guy EDIT: I mean, anything to avoid reducing the total number of highly lethal weapons currently available to both police and criminals in the US, right? Because that would be unconstitutional or something.

surfpel 4y ago

Pros - Police not exposed to deadly situations - Robots (presumably) equipped with variety of sensors and cameras mitigating misidentification of people or what they’re holding - Better firing accuracy - Greater accountability as all actions could be recorded Cons - Myriad of possible misuse cases - Further militarization of police - Drones on US soil

falcolas 4y ago
> - Greater accountability as all actions could be recorded I see exactly the opposite. There's no reason for them not to pull the trigger, as it's not as if any police will suffer the repercussions and be shot back at. And recordings... let's just say I believe they will be as broadly available as police's body camera footage is today. A shocking number of camera failures everywhere, all the time. My answer to the headline: Request Vehemently Denied

emkemp 4y ago

Do you want Cyclons? Because this is how you get Cylons.

rllearneratwork 4y ago

this is a great idea. Many (most?) killings by police are justified that by the "threat to the officer's life". With robots won't we have opportunity to minimize killings by police. The robot's well being is clearly not as important as that of a suspect.

falcolas 4y ago
> The robot's well being is clearly not as important as that of a suspect Said by no police officer anywhere. You've seen how they react to K9 units being assaulted (at least, how they react when the assault isn't being administered by the police themselves). I see the opposite. With no risk to the operators, they have no reason to hesitate in shutting the situation down as quickly as possible using the "easy button".

cyberphobe 4y ago

Sure hope that control protocol is secure.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kirillzubovsky 4y ago

I think we've all seen Robocop and know how this works out. I am all for technology making our lives better, but autonomous robots (or even remotely controlled ones) that go around killing people at will isn't the future we should have. Theoretically it's a good idea, until for one reason or another you end up on the kill list. And then it doesn't matter who hacked it or how you go there, you're no longer available to argue. Seems like an awful idea.

Alupis 4y ago

Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce lethal force use. This opens the door to fitting the same robot with a multitude of options - further reducing the need for lethal force. Pepper balls, stun guns, blinding lights, etc. (less-lethal does not mean non-lethal, when we discuss things like stun guns, pepper balls, rubber balls, etc) In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. Sometimes they get things wrong... but when people's lives are at risk, lethal force will be employed to protect innocents and police alike. This robot removes half of the equation that leads to lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. Because cops have such a great track record with those decisions so far? > In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements. This is what cops always claim when these discussions come up, but a look at the actual data proves otherwise. Cops routinely kill civilians - including innocent ones - in situations where there is literally no possible way they could reasonably be fearing for their life or be forced to make a "snap decision".
- Alupis 4y ago
  I don't understand what you are saying. If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. With that said, you grossly overstate this "problem" and the data doesn't tell the story you think it does... but regardless, there is no way to frame this but positive. Unless you just are anti-police in general...
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > If you believe officers use excessive lethal force, then removing their lives from the equation can only make it better. Or, they feel free to use the “Easy Button” to end situations faster, precisely since there is no risk to them to do so.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

calibas 4y ago

localtoday.news copied the article from here: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/san-francisco-police-seek-permission-for-its-robots-to-use-deadly-force-183514906.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/san-francisco-police-seek-pe... Which copied the article from here: https://www.engadget.com/san-francisco-police-seek-permission-for-its-robots-to-use-deadly-force-183514906.html https://www.engadget.com/san-francisco-police-seek-permissio... Which is a rewrite of the original article here: https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitted-under-sfpd-draft-policy/ https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-be-permitt...

blamazon 4y ago
I wonder what could be incentivizing all these groups to rush to publish copy pasta articles so they can run salacious headlines of killer robots. Oh, I've got it, it's journalism!
dang 4y ago
Right. We've changed to that from https://localtoday.news/ca/the-san-francisco-police-department-is-requesting-permission-for-their-robots-to-use-deadly-force-142138.html https://localtoday.news/ca/the-san-francisco-police-departme... and banned the latter site. Thanks!

transitivebs 4y ago

Psycho Pass

seabird 4y ago

For those who have an issue with this, I have to ask; have you actually thought this through at all? Would it really be preferable to make an officer literally risk their life trying to make the right decision? The will to survive in a situation that's shaping up to be a shootout is going to trump any reprimand or consequence. People generally don't like dying. Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
It is. The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing. Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days. Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate. << People generally don't like dying. I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks. Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable. << Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable. Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.
- seabird 4y ago
  With very few exceptions, anybody in a life threatening (or what they perceive to be a life threatening) situation is going to pick themselves over a person that they don't know and believe is trying to kill them. It is exceedingly hard to train this out of people and the only way to know whether or not you successfully have is to observe them in actual gunfights. I would even go as far to say that the trait is probably concerning from a psychological standpoint and the pool of people you would reliably find it in would raise some eyebrows, too. Getting an officer's skin in the game doesn't make them think about what they're doing. It results in them deciding in 1-2 seconds that they're in a dangerous situation, and they're going home no matter what. I really don't think you understand what being in a life-or-death situation does to normal, mentally sound people. The idea that officers having time to decide whether or not lethal force is necessary is a bad thing just doesn't make sense.

standardUser 4y ago

According to a recent article... "Since 2000, some 58 people have been shot and killed by police in San Francisco" A dense city of 800k has about 2.5 deaths from police shootings per year. According to the "Officer Down Memorial Page", 3 police officers were killed due to hostile actions in that same time period (but I'm not certain that site is fully up-to-date). Sounds like an expensive and risky solution in search of a problem. https://www.odmp.org/agency/3445-san-francisco-police-department-california https://www.odmp.org/agency/3445-san-francisco-police-depart... https://missionlocal.org/2022/10/police-shooting-deaths-san-francisco-2000-database/ https://missionlocal.org/2022/10/police-shooting-deaths-san-...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

russellbeattie 4y ago

There is zero need for a device which can't be killed to use deadly force. What are they thinking? The justification for police to have and use guns is that their lives could be in danger from so much as a broken bottle. Police have guns to protect themselves. Yes, in reality they use them to threaten, intimidate and "take out the bad guys" before they potentially harm others ("We shot him in the back 40 times as he was running away because he could have been a threat!"), but that's not what they're supposed to have them for. A remote controlled robot does not have that rationale. There is no reason for it to have anything more powerful than a taser or a flash-bang style explosive. If that doesn't work, send in another, and another. But sending in a robot with a gun or a grenade to take out the bad guys? What's the reasoning? Robots are expensive? That if they didn't use it the bad guy might get away? No. Full stop. No.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nielsbot 4y ago

Now let's connect it to CICERO

tvszzzz 4y ago

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that is a problem we already have with police walking around with guns. - You can certainly come up with situations where someone is a danger to the public. Imagine an active shooter scenario. Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. - I don't think the slippery slope argument is helpful here. We can be against fully autonomous kill chains while still being okay with this. The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others. This is just a more effective tool for a method of last resort. I say all of this with the utmost respect for issue of concerning police militarization and abuse of power. I think these are important issues that we need to solve and the presence of them makes everyone fearful and distrusting. A just and highly effective police force shouldn't have these issues. I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of police to solve it though.

woodruffw 4y ago
The chief concern that I can think of with a remote-controlled weapon is that it derealizes the person on the other end of the barrel, and derealizes the operation of the weapon. It's easier to kill someone when the action is disconnected from the physics. Compare, for example, the US using video game controllers to pilot drones in Afghanistan. One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking. They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think.

random314 4y ago

I think I have watched this movie before!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I for one welcome our killer robotic overlords!

Bud 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

asix66 4y ago

You have 20 seconds to comply! [1] [1] https://youtu.be/xsuo3FnG4g0 https://youtu.be/xsuo3FnG4g0

anothernewdude 4y ago

Seems like taking the money away from the Police would save more lives than giving them killer robots.

ViceCitySage 4y ago

Hell no to more government force.

sys_64738 4y ago

I thought Robocop was Detroit PD, not SFPD.

Fatnino 4y ago

The robots aren't going to get killed. They can't justify using lethal force because the robot feared for its safety. The whole benefit of a robot is that no lives are put at risk. The robot just rolls up to the suspect while tanking a hail of bullets and subues him. No one has to die. The robots should not be authorized to kill anything.

nojvek 4y ago

Every time a robot is deployed by police and harms someone, even in a non-lethal scenario, the recording ought to be publicly available if someone asks for it. If someone was shot in malice or incompetence, then they ought to face court and potentially prison time. Police need to be accountable. They have way too much power in the US.

kjfarm 4y ago

Threads like this bring out the most hate on HN. I wish I could automatically filter this crap out