5 ms·

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 c

• 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
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • micromacrofoot 4y ago
    > If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot. In the Texas example the attacker had military training and was holed up and armed after sniping 5 cops. Seemed like a reasonable case for using a robot.