[Update 2: Killer Robots Approval Reversed] San Francisco considering proposal to allow Police Robots that can use Lethal Force

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Am i the only one who doesn't have a problem with drones being used against someone shooting up a school? I say send in the drone to do the work, why risk more policemen getting shot at?

The problem is not the drone, it's lethal equipment on the drone. If you don't even risk policemen, lethal force makes absolutely no sense.

A remote controlled suicide-bomber robot is a tool for terrorists and certainly not the police.

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

The problem is not the drone, it's lethal equipment on the drone. If you don't even risk policemen, lethal force makes absolutely no sense.

A remote controlled suicide-bomber robot is a tool for terrorists and certainly not the police.

The idea is because the target is still an active risk to civilian bodies. You are taking the risk of the policemen out, not the risk of civilians.

[HenrySalayne]

15 minutes ago, starsmine said:

The idea is because the target is still an active risk to civilian bodies. You are taking the risk of the policemen out, not the risk of civilians.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to blow up a suspect with C4, you should be sure there are no civilians in the vicinity. I would say this is the first rule of blowing up suspects with C4.

Teargas, foams or tasers would even pose less risk to innocent bystanders.

[starsmine]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to blow up a suspect with C4, you should be sure there are no civilians in the vicinity. I would say this is the first rule of blowing up suspects with C4.

Teargas, foams or tasers would even pose less risk to innocent bystanders.

I would imagine its highly situationally dependent. 
You can be highly targeted with explosives, and they are short range, guns are long range. So, yes you can have situations of no civilians in the vicinity of the explosion, yet still at risk of a gunman, and moving policemen in put them at risk.

[Forbidden Wafer]

Hmmm, this give me flashbacks

 

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

I would imagine its highly situationally dependent. 
You can be highly targeted with explosives, and they are short range, guns are long range. So, yes you can have situations of no civilians in the vicinity of the explosion, yet still at risk of a gunman, and moving policemen in put them at risk.

Ok, there might be this 1 in 10,000 edgecase scenario when it is the right tool for the job.

So the police has all kinds of non-lethal (less lethal) robot options already deployed and this is just a "last resort"?

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Ok, there might be this 1 in 10,000 edgecase scenario when it is the right tool for the job.

So the police has all kinds of non-lethal (less lethal) robot options already deployed and this is just a "last resort"?

Swat teams (when used correctly) yea. 
I have zero issue with giving swat team options, especially when they are cheap and low risk like this. 

 

If you want to have a debate on the over use/reliance on swat in modern policing, that is both tangential and appropriate, and I probably agree with you. That whole framing should be discussed, and deeply thought through. Some significant policy on minimizing the use and necessity of swat should exist. But what happens when they are used should still limit risk. 

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

when used correctly

isnt that exactly the problem?  (oh)