4 ms·

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 worsh

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.
  - anonexpat 4y ago
    I think that’s a political problem, not a military one.
    - bgun 4y ago
      All political problems of sufficient gravity become military problems.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Bingo. The military is a tool wielded by the government. They don't go anywhere without being ordered.
      - spoils19 4y ago
        Do coups not exist?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        No.
        plugger 4y ago
        not in america, unless you count the recent bay of chuds attempt
        l3uwin 4y ago
        Name a successful coup of the American government by an armed force
- runarberg 4y ago
  This is true until it isn’t. Read up on the torture following the Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The accountability was really minimal, and a lot of people guilty of the horrible crime of torturing got away scot-free. See also quite a few murdering of civilians conducted by private military contractors such as Blackwater (now Constellis; in particular the Nisour Square massacre). Some were charged for the crime they committed (or for a lesser crime of manslaughter) but were later pardoned. Since this is HN it is also obligatory to mention Chelsea Manning who leaked many crimes committed by the military (in particular the murdering of the journalists Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen from an attack helicopter). She was the only person convicted for that incident. Nobody was charged with the murder of the journalists. (But they did [finally] charge Julian Assange for helping Chelsea Manning reveal these crimes to the public).
- notlukesky 4y ago
  That depends on whether they are exposed and even then the "rules" don't always apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
treeman79 4y ago
I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Why not make a robot that takes down the shooter? Doesn't need to kill. Just tackle the person and pin them down. A bit of armor would do it, right?
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    Mixed feelings about involvement of robots at all, but ABSOLUTELY YES the use of NON-LETHAL FORCE is outrageously under-utilized in every kind of policing IRL and as depicted in popular media. Set em on stun, FFS.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      I wonder if what is really happening, whether by design or a misaligned universe, is that firms that build these devices are really building for the military, and the thoughtless trend of militarizing police forces is intensifying. Why do I say this? Because the idea to use non-lethal force is frankly obvious and various think tanks were looking at this stuff for years. Ditto concerns over lethal robots. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA654-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA654-1.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/us-rejects-calls-regulating-banning-killer-robots https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/us-rejects-c... https://www.uclalawreview.org/policing-police-robots/ https://www.uclalawreview.org/policing-police-robots/ abstract: Just as they will change healthcare, manufacturing, and the military, robots have the potential to produce big changes in policing. We can expect that at least some robots used by the police in the future will be artificially intelligent machines capable of using legitimate coercive force against human beings. Police robots may decrease dangers to police officers by removing them from potentially volatile situations. Those suspected of crimes may also risk less injury if robots can assist the police in conducting safer detentions, arrests, and searches. At the same time, however, the use of robots introduces new questions about how the law and democratic norms should guide policing decisions—questions which have yet to be addressed in any systematic way. How we design, regulate, or even prohibit some uses of police robots requires a regulatory agenda now to address foreseeable problems of the future.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>over-militarized Can you explain what you mean by this? I've heard this term a lot, but it's not clear which aspect is the issue. For example, bullet proof vests: how is this bad? Similar with rifles such as the AR-15 - police already had pistols, nobody called them militarized for that. A riffle is just a more accurate pistol. I'd rather a cop have a riffle than a pistol for that reason: it's more safe. Beyond these two new things, I don't know what is new that should be called "over-militarized". For the record, I'm not in favor of these robots and actualy I think this is an example of real militarization as it allows greater control by higher ups essentially turning cities into war games run by police generals. Police are meant to generally keep peace; a murder robot has a specific objective like a solder on the battlefield. I just mean this term as it has been used generally.
- cmckn 4y ago
  Police departments literally own tanks. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/towns-dont-need-tanks-they-have-them https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/towns-dont-need-... Plus things like grenade launchers are provided to police departments by the Department of Defense, at steep discounts or for free, through the 1033 Program: https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcement/Join-The-Program/ https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcem...
  - Alupis 4y ago
    To be pedantic, that is not a tank. That is an armored personnel carrier. The article is also wrong about the military restraining from using .50 caliber machine guns on infantry... but it's very clear the person that wrote the article really doesn't know much about these things anyway. I agree the uses for a .50 caliber machine gun for policing is very, very few if any. However, .50 caliber firearms are indeed used quite often, just not automatic ones.
- eloisius 4y ago
  I think this phrase showed up around the time police departments started getting military hand-me-downs like MRAPs.
- 4y ago
Bancakes 4y ago
People like you can never answer: what do you do when a 6'3 gangster high off PCP runs at you with a knife? What about a 300lb robot doing circles on the highway so you can't safely grab it? Cops have hands, less lethal, and lethal, because they should deal with different situations properly.

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.
- anonexpat 4y ago
  I think that’s a political problem, not a military one.
  - bgun 4y ago
    All political problems of sufficient gravity become military problems.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Bingo. The military is a tool wielded by the government. They don't go anywhere without being ordered.
    - spoils19 4y ago
      Do coups not exist?
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        No.
      - plugger 4y ago
        not in america, unless you count the recent bay of chuds attempt
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        Name a successful coup of the American government by an armed force
runarberg 4y ago
This is true until it isn’t. Read up on the torture following the Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The accountability was really minimal, and a lot of people guilty of the horrible crime of torturing got away scot-free. See also quite a few murdering of civilians conducted by private military contractors such as Blackwater (now Constellis; in particular the Nisour Square massacre). Some were charged for the crime they committed (or for a lesser crime of manslaughter) but were later pardoned. Since this is HN it is also obligatory to mention Chelsea Manning who leaked many crimes committed by the military (in particular the murdering of the journalists Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen from an attack helicopter). She was the only person convicted for that incident. Nobody was charged with the murder of the journalists. (But they did [finally] charge Julian Assange for helping Chelsea Manning reveal these crimes to the public).
notlukesky 4y ago
That depends on whether they are exposed and even then the "rules" don't always apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...

treeman79 4y ago

I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.

eternalban 4y ago
Why not make a robot that takes down the shooter? Doesn't need to kill. Just tackle the person and pin them down. A bit of armor would do it, right?
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  Mixed feelings about involvement of robots at all, but ABSOLUTELY YES the use of NON-LETHAL FORCE is outrageously under-utilized in every kind of policing IRL and as depicted in popular media. Set em on stun, FFS.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    I wonder if what is really happening, whether by design or a misaligned universe, is that firms that build these devices are really building for the military, and the thoughtless trend of militarizing police forces is intensifying. Why do I say this? Because the idea to use non-lethal force is frankly obvious and various think tanks were looking at this stuff for years. Ditto concerns over lethal robots. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA654-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA654-1.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/us-rejects-calls-regulating-banning-killer-robots https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/us-rejects-c... https://www.uclalawreview.org/policing-police-robots/ https://www.uclalawreview.org/policing-police-robots/ abstract: Just as they will change healthcare, manufacturing, and the military, robots have the potential to produce big changes in policing. We can expect that at least some robots used by the police in the future will be artificially intelligent machines capable of using legitimate coercive force against human beings. Police robots may decrease dangers to police officers by removing them from potentially volatile situations. Those suspected of crimes may also risk less injury if robots can assist the police in conducting safer detentions, arrests, and searches. At the same time, however, the use of robots introduces new questions about how the law and democratic norms should guide policing decisions—questions which have yet to be addressed in any systematic way. How we design, regulate, or even prohibit some uses of police robots requires a regulatory agenda now to address foreseeable problems of the future.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

>over-militarized Can you explain what you mean by this? I've heard this term a lot, but it's not clear which aspect is the issue. For example, bullet proof vests: how is this bad? Similar with rifles such as the AR-15 - police already had pistols, nobody called them militarized for that. A riffle is just a more accurate pistol. I'd rather a cop have a riffle than a pistol for that reason: it's more safe. Beyond these two new things, I don't know what is new that should be called "over-militarized". For the record, I'm not in favor of these robots and actualy I think this is an example of real militarization as it allows greater control by higher ups essentially turning cities into war games run by police generals. Police are meant to generally keep peace; a murder robot has a specific objective like a solder on the battlefield. I just mean this term as it has been used generally.

cmckn 4y ago
Police departments literally own tanks. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/towns-dont-need-tanks-they-have-them https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/towns-dont-need-... Plus things like grenade launchers are provided to police departments by the Department of Defense, at steep discounts or for free, through the 1033 Program: https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcement/Join-The-Program/ https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcem...
- Alupis 4y ago
  To be pedantic, that is not a tank. That is an armored personnel carrier. The article is also wrong about the military restraining from using .50 caliber machine guns on infantry... but it's very clear the person that wrote the article really doesn't know much about these things anyway. I agree the uses for a .50 caliber machine gun for policing is very, very few if any. However, .50 caliber firearms are indeed used quite often, just not automatic ones.
eloisius 4y ago
I think this phrase showed up around the time police departments started getting military hand-me-downs like MRAPs.
4y ago

Bancakes 4y ago

People like you can never answer: what do you do when a 6'3 gangster high off PCP runs at you with a knife? What about a 300lb robot doing circles on the highway so you can't safely grab it? Cops have hands, less lethal, and lethal, because they should deal with different situations properly.