6 ms·
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
by 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 agoExactly, officers can't really say they feared for their lives in such a scenario.
- vorpalhex 4y ago1. Hostages 2. Bystanders 3. General public (fleeing violent criminal)
- pclmulqdq 4y agoThe 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 agoBystanders. 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 agoThere is a reason firearms come with sights and we make cops qualify with their service weapons.
- woodruffw 4y agoThat qualification hasn't meant much, going by the rate at which police hurt themselves (and innocent members of the public) with their own service weapons.
- vorpalhex 4y agoI agree police should get more training. You will have to fund them more if you want that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- woodruffw 4y agoAt least where I live, giving the police more funding hasn't meaningfully improved their ability to comport themselves. If anything, it's markedly declined over the last 30 years (while their funding hasn't). I think an easier way to make the police more careful with their guns is to limit which cops can carry guns, and to require cops to live in the neighborhoods they police. People tend to be a little more careful with firearms when the stray bullet might hit their friends or family.
- bombcar 4y agoLook up the rates at which a coo draws his duty weapon let alone fires it. And many places offer free range time and many cops don’t even bother.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoLTL = Less than lethal (?) How does a lethal robot mitigate bystander risk compared to a policy officer using lethal force?
- vorpalhex 4y agoLess targets. Robots can also physically go into areas cops can not. The robot getting shot is a budget issue, not a dead cop.
- stefan_ 4y agoPeople do not in fact immediately fall over just because you shoot them. The idea of shooting someone with a pistol or rifle caliber to stop them from doing something in a split second is firmly a movie trope.
- vorpalhex 4y agoAnd that is why cops get taught to mag dump suspects in center mass. Shooting someone a half dozen to a dozen times does tend to make them dead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tzs 4y agoIf I recall correctly there is some interesting discussion of that in the delightful book "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" [1]. One it describes (unless I'm mixing it up with another book) involved someone getting shot at close range through the heart, destroying their heart. They still had time to draw their own gun, aim, and fatally shoot the first shooter. Another dramatic example, which I read about in the wonderful "Bloodletters and Badmen: A Narrative Encyclopedia of American Criminals from the Pilgrims to the Present" [2] is the death of the 1930s bank robber Baby Face Nelson. He got in a shootout with two FBI agents. They shot him in the abdomen. He then advanced on their position while they continued shooting at him, hitting 8 more times in the legs. Still he managed to keep going and killed one of the agents and seriously wounded the other (who would later die of his wounds, as would Nelson). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff:_The_Curious_Lives_of_Human_Cadavers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff:_The_Curious_Lives_of_Hu... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Bloodletters-Badmen-Narrative-Encyclopedia-Criminals/dp/087131777X https://www.amazon.com/Bloodletters-Badmen-Narrative-Encyclo...
- eightysixfour 4y agoThey used a bomb disposal robot with a pound of C4 attached to stop the Dallas gunman in 2016. People did not like talking about whether it was necessary or not at the time. > Sr. Cpl. Banes said they considered using a .50 caliber rifle to fire at the shooter, which had been successful in a similar attack on police 14 months earlier. However, in that case, the suspect had driven an armored truck into police headquarters and remained inside the armored vehicle. Johnson was holed up inside a populated college with thin sheetrock walls, so the tactical team deemed that approach too dangerous. They also considered rappelling down the building or attacking Johnson through the ceiling after opening it with explosives. Both options were ruled out due to the risks they might pose to the officers who would carry it out. > Senior Corporal Jeremy Borchardt and others ultimately arrived at the idea to use a bomb disposal remote control vehicle armed with about 1 pound (0.45 kilograms) of C-4 explosive. The plan was to move the robot to a point against a wall facing Johnson and then detonate the explosives. The device exploded as intended at approximately 2:30 a.m., killing Johnson immediately. It was the first time that explosives strapped to a robot had been used in American domestic law enforcement. Although its arm sustained damage in the blast, the robot was still functional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
- mattrick 4y agoIt seems odd to me that a rifle was deemed too dangerous to use in a populated area but a pound of C4 strapped to a robot was acceptable.
- bombcar 4y agoThe blast radius is much easier (cube law) whereas a .50 cal bullet could go for miles.
- MerelyMortal 4y agoA bullet can travel further than a blast.
- 4y ago