7 ms·
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
- temptemptemp111 4y ago
- andrewfromx 4y agoreminds me of robocop movie "you have 30 seconds to comply."
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago"Dick, I am very disappointed." [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFvqDaFpXeM
- mikece 4y agoWouldn't it be more helpful to have robots scooping up [stuff] from the sidewalks and sanitizing things?
- ccvannorman 4y agoIn Singapore maybe .. this is America! If there's anything we're good at domestically, it's using lethal police force.
- donkeyd 4y agoYou can drop the 'police' from that sentence and it stays true!
- fallingknife 4y agoIf you study history, that's a good thing to be good at!
- edgyquant 4y agoNo it would be equally as helpful except that part will never get funding while drones that take the burden off of police will.
- amalcon 4y agoIf it were actual (autonomous) robots, yes. The article is actually talking about ROVs (remote-operated vehicles). The city still needs to pay a human operator, who happens to be a moderate distance away. It's arguably financially justified in the policing case because policing can be dangerous. Cleaning up [stuff] and sanitizing things isn't particularly dangerous, so you're basically just buying a robot to make your janitor less efficient.
- hirundo 4y ago> The idea of robots being legally allowed to kill has garnered some controversy. Since these "robots" are not autonomous, you can substitute "guns" for "robots" in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal. The big ethical difference is that the remote trigger puller can no longer justify the act by a threat to their own life, only to other lives.
- jobs_throwaway 4y agoyup, this is an inflammatory title that isn't what it seems on first glance. If anything, this is only a net good as remote cops won't be able to justify things based on fear for their own life
- rolph 4y agojust like a dog is equated to being an officer, police robots will be considered officers and you would be prosecuted as if you had assaulted a living being, you will not be able to claim that, a machine prone to malfunction, errant design, and fasle positives, was a threat to you when you defend yourself against it.
- donatj 4y agoIsn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger? Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.
- uluyol 4y agoOr someone else's life is at risk.
- officialjunk 4y agothis is a misconception. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
- uluyol 4y agoI never said that cops have to to pull the trigger. Just that another person's life being at risk is justification for lethal force. To be clear though, that's all I'm saying. I'm not making a statement about my overall thoughts on the US's police system.
- symfoniq 4y agoOr in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.
- didericis 4y agoWhat happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often. This is a horrifically terrible idea. It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.
- chaostheory 4y agoIt makes sense since most police departments are short staffed and things will only get worse in the future
- etiennebausson 4y agoThat project won't improve things on that front. Those robots need to be bought, then they need an operator and at least some maintenance. You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot, or try to actually train those you have in sensible law enforcement. There are better uses of the money basically everywhere.
- chaostheory 4y ago> You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot You can’t hire them because a lot of people no longer want to serve as a police officer due to various cultural and societal changes in recent years. Hence, the inevitable rise of automation and AI in law enforcement. The police shortages have been here before Floyd and the pandemic
- xbar 4y agoSan Francisco is weird. My wife and I enjoyed our visit last month where we sat at an outdoor cafe and watched people stealing bikes and furniture (yes, seriously). I am going to be less entertained by watching murder robots wandering the streets, so perhaps I will eat elsewhere next time.
- whythre 4y agoIf by ‘weird’ you mean teetering on the verge of lawlessness, then yes.
- adolph 4y agoOn July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. . . . Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. The robot charged into Johnson's legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
- amelius 4y agoYes, and perhaps these robots can use data science techniques to determine, e.g. based on looks, which people are most likely to be offenders. /s
- kneebonian 4y agoIsn't this the same city that declared policing racist and made shoplifting anything less than $1000 a misdemenoar, whose DAs refuse to prosecute crime, and who declared bail discriminatory? I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.
- rafale 4y agoPendulum always swing when property owning people get pissed. A lot of them do not like the woke policies they voted for anymore.
- kulshan 4y agoImagine if you will a police budget, police resources and jail space. Now imagine cities where every available police officer in the city is processing paperwork for misdemeanor theft. Its untenable by any means. There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors. How many officer hours would it take to process a stolen bike report, investigate and then arrest someone. Then bring the DA in on that stolen bike case. This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian. If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago> If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately. It may have been sold as being cheaper, but it is not. Now there are roving gangs who can steal tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise in moments and will beat or kill people to pursue their crime. Not only is it not saving public resources but it's putting stores out of business and injuring people. > This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian. Dystopia, check. Leftist dream, check. > There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors That's for the taxpayers to decide, not for the government to present as a reason for overriding them. At this point I bet they feel they can't afford not to enforce laws.
- cstejerean 4y agoThat seems like something people in SF tell themselves about why it can't be any other way. But deterrence works. If petty crimes are being aggressively policed the the volume of crime will be much lower. The volume is only high because criminals know there are no practical repercussions.
- chadash 4y agoThis is a bit clickbaity. The article says: "robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD."
- alar44 4y agoOh, whew, that's a relief. /s
- FrankyHollywood 4y agoNot read it yet, but the title suggests a "Love, Death & Robots" scenario :D
- at_a_remove 4y agoThey'll need to get a feed from the feces app so their treads don't grind through some poop on their way to blast someone's head off.
- scandox 4y agoCraig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete
- leereeves 4y agoHow will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?
- whoknew1122 4y agoSomething something qualified immunity. It'll still work.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- burkaman 4y agoSince there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution. Your premise as framed would only support the conclusion that ibdividual would enjoy civil immunity under the QI doctrine. They could still be criminally prosecuted, and their agency would not be civilly immune.
- burkaman 4y agoThat's true, but in practice criminal prosecution of police is even less likely to happen than successful civil suits.
- kadomony 4y agoIs this how we get Robocop killing hobos?
- doodledo32 4y agoWasn't this the plot in a Mickey Mouse movie?
- fallingknife 4y agoWon't arrest people for stealing, but wants lethal robots. JFC.
- wombatpm 4y agoThe failure modes seem overwhelming.
- swiftcoder 4y agoI really wish we'd draw some harder lines between "robot" (autonomous), versus "drones" (remote controlled by a human). The article is in fact discussing drones, not robots, so the salient point [to misquote a phrase from the gun control debate] "drones don't kill people, drone operators kill people" - the SFPD is asking here for a new and safer way to murder civilians.
- sfusato 4y agoWill weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.
- AlbertCory 4y agoNothing to see here folks; move along. > "robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD." See? Nothing there. Go about your business. > Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances See? It'll be only in extreme circumstances. Killing someone should be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it's too easy to press the button.
- dang 4y agoSan Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33728664 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33728664 - Nov 2022 (86 comments) Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 - Nov 2022 (209 comments) Robots authorized to kill in SFPD draft policy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33720719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33720719 - Nov 2022 (11 comments)