Posted on 07/08/2016 5:10:15 PM PDT by Olog-hai
When Dallas police used a bomb-carrying robot to kill a sniper, they also kicked off an ethical debate about technology’s use as a crime-fighting weapon.
In what appears to be an unprecedented tactic, police rigged a bomb-disposal robot to kill an armed suspect in the fatal shootings of five officers in Dallas. While there doesn’t appear to be any hard data on the subject, security experts and law enforcement officials said they couldn’t recall another time when police have deployed a robot with lethal intent. […]
“If lethally equipped robots can be used in this situation, when else can they be used?” says Elizabeth Joh, a University of California at Davis law professor who has followed U.S. law enforcement’s use of technology. “Extreme emergencies shouldn't define the scope of more ordinary situations where police may want to use robots that are capable of harm.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Humm,
Isn’t that the very definition of situational ethics?
On the upside, he never saw it coming.
Hopefully he wasn’t killed instantly.
Who did?
If the rules of engagement let you shoot at him, they let you throw a grenade at him. That’s all this was.
The Guess Who’s “Clap For The Wolfman” changed to “Clap For The Robot”.
Well “Prof” Prez already uses Drones.
What difference does it make eh?
I think Police Officers should go out sick when they have these problems in cites that produce all the hate and racial intimidation. It is not worth one officers life to save radical scum.
It’s possible that politics of the situation bore on it, including the fervent desire not to have the administration meddling in his case.
Why are you wishing this? It plays into The Game.
One question would be, how much control does the operator have over the machine.
The bomb-carrying bot did not just happen. Bomb bots have various things on the end or their arms, to trigger water blasters or a shotgun used as a disruptor, pull a wire, and so forth, even electrical connections. So that tech was in place.
Someone had to purchase and test a lethal explosive that FITS one of the effectors on the robot. That didn’t happen in a day. ( I saw a robot with a SAW gun and telescopic sight once)
I assume the device was tested by SOMEONE because if I’m the chief and you came up to me saying I know! Let’s put a hand grenade on the robot and send it in! I’d want assurance that it will go off only where and when it’s supposed to, that the bad guy isn’t going to grab it, and that it will be sufficiently incapacitating or lethal. I don’t think anyone would choose to wing it.
So this capability has probably been around for a while. This is the first time it’s been deployed, but how many PDs can do this and just have not yet?
And how long before some jeenyus bad guy realizes that he can get a bomb deploed without getting shot at?
There is nothing to debate. This is coming whether people like it or not.
"Swarm bots" are being developed right now. They are cheap, have magnificent control, and will eventually be loaded with explosives and sent to kill whomever their master directs them at.
We are entering Sky Net. There is no debate, it's coming and if you don't like it, you can rage in impotent frustration.
“What will we men do, if critical numbers of women are just as happy to snuggle up with their robot?????”
Learn to cook?
Was it an actual robot or a remotely operated delivery system?
Then of course there was Janet Reno and Waco, but that's another decade.
I don’t disagree but point out some assumptions you’re making:
He didn’t pose a threat to the public.
He didn’t pose a threat to police.
Those assumptions may well turn out to be unfounded.
I’m pretty sure this armored guy would have gone out in a hail of bullets and may have got a ‘lucky’ shot or two more in.
Never mind the public danger of having a sniper on a 6th floor.
We’ll see.
Appropriate here, I’d reference the Clint Eastwood movie where he’s in a car pursued by a RC model car packed with explosives. I think it was “Magnum Force.”
The question will continue to boil down to, who has control over this stuff.
They sent a robot, but a sufficiently armored person or vehicle could have done it too.
“No robots were harmed in the production of this video.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.