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 the

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.