3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I doubt that will be the case. A lone officer shooting someone while covering their camera is far easier than hauling out this huge machine and deploying it. It literally requires only one person to make that decision all on their own. I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... The risks seem to be extremely minimal. Accountability can be built into the machine itself. We can even require multiple layers of "sign off" before the digital trigger can be activated. This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      > I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... Police have already demonstrated publicly that they don’t care about the public reaction to them killing people in their custody. I cant see how their use of robots would change that. > This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use. And I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not see how reducing the risk of using lethal force will lead to the reduction of the use of lethal force as a whole.

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.
- Alupis 4y ago
  I doubt that will be the case. A lone officer shooting someone while covering their camera is far easier than hauling out this huge machine and deploying it. It literally requires only one person to make that decision all on their own. I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... The risks seem to be extremely minimal. Accountability can be built into the machine itself. We can even require multiple layers of "sign off" before the digital trigger can be activated. This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > I also don't think it's lost on anyone how the public would react if these RC robots started to stack a body count... Police have already demonstrated publicly that they don’t care about the public reaction to them killing people in their custody. I cant see how their use of robots would change that. > This is all good stuff to have in the vein of reducing lethal force use. And I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not see how reducing the risk of using lethal force will lead to the reduction of the use of lethal force as a whole.