Do you approve the use of a robot to kill a criminal human?

1. 82

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   Do you approve the use of a robot to kill a criminal human?
   
   Dallas cop sniper killed 5 cops & after a 5 hour standoff, police made unprecedented decision to use a police robot & purposeful kill suspect with robot bomb.
   
   Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law who studies robotics and cyberlaw. "As far as I know, this is a first time that they've used a robot to intentionally kill someone."
   
   Cops say there was no other option but couldn't they have used a  robot to deliver a flash or smoke grenade to incapacitate a suspect?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 48

   Ericdierkerposted 8 years ago

   Ptosis I ventured onto the same basic question. Why not use non-lethal force to incapacitate the suspect? The arguments for not using other options are wiped away when we understand that we could have tried and failed and tried again.
   And then there is the other question. Why not just toss an explosive in? Why the need for a robot if all you are doing is blowing up a place? The robot seems very Hollywoodish.
   I will be interested to learn what experts and the police have to say about it. I wonder what protocols were in place and why this option was chosen.
   I surely do hope that the harsh reality that this man was suspected of killing others, particularly men in blue was not a factor in the decision to just kill him rather than subdue and arrest him.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      On May 13, 1985, Philadelphia police dropped two pounds of military explosives onto a city row house occupied by the group MOVE. The resulting fire was not fought for over an hour although firefighters were on the scene.

      replyreport
3. 82

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   The criminals had already murdered several people, risking more good people to kill the murderer would be wrong if it isn't necessary - especially since their method meant no innocent people were killed.
   In contrast, a drone strike that kills the target and untold innocents isn't as clearly acceptable.

   replyreport
   1. 48

      Ericdierkerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Aren't you kind of leaping over the judge and jury concept. And isn't that exactly what the protesters were peaceably protesting? If cops get to, after premeditation, make a conscious decision who is guilty and then kill them not in self defense?

      replyreport
   2. 82

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      unwarranted police's use of deadly force under circumstances where neither the life of the police officer, nor that of any other person was immediately endangered, perpetuate the schism between police & people.

      replyreport
   3. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What is your point??

      replyreport
4. 52

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   The shooter said that he had a bomb. Maybe a less lethal flash grenade might have worked, but what about the bomb then.
   Why do we worry so much about killers versus their victims.
   We don't know the details that were involved and what choices were available?
   Did you care that Navy Seals executed OBL?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, If there were bombs then shouldn't he be kept alive to tell the locations? Paramilitary police units foster mentalities that place their conduct above and outside the law. Summary execution by the police strips away the trust of the people.

      replyreport
   2. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Would it have made a difference if was taken out by a police sniper?
      Why didn't Obama want to take OBL alive to answer the question about 911?

      replyreport
   3. 82

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Brad, wtf has this got to do with OBL. Focus on the Q please.

      replyreport
   4. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It has to do with the ? of gov taking life, whether it is in Dallas, or at the federal level. The same factors must be used. Y the shooter may have told where bombs were located, and OBL could have told us things we need to know about terrorism. F?

      replyreport
5. 82

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Not much has changed since the 1979 NCJRS report:
   
   There is no greater issue that serves to precipitate a breakdown into civil war than the police use of deadly and excessive force. Unwarranted use of deadly force serves to perpetuate the schism between police and community; it  generates fear, hostility, a  climate of suspicion, indifference, and noncooperation.
   
   Police lawlessness is widespread and stimulates the development of disrespect for legal institutions. This disrespect has too often been earned by the conduct of law enforcement agencies. Summary executions by paramilitary police units foster mentalities that place their conduct above and outside the law. Police departments should be purged of officers who misuse their discretionary authority to cloak the racism, psychopathology, and brutality which inculpates  many officers.
   
   The police must be liable for criminal prosecution as a result of their acts, like any ordinary citizen. The present mitigating circumstances rules used to exculpate police officers from responsibility such as prosecutors who refuse to prosecute might be the beginnings of a  totalitarian system. Nothing differentiates more from the democratic policeman & his totalitarian colleague as attitude towards use of force. In a  totalitarian regime, force is frequently unbridled & often glorified.
   
   Real security within the society will only come when citizens voluntarily accept and support the law. Reliance upon the threat of violence will not provide security and stability with the indiscriminate use of deadly force. The threat of force will not lessen the conflict, it will only intensify it.
   
   The killing of a citizen by police under questionable circumstances, increases the danger to the police.  Loss of trust and a withdrawal of cooperation provides a potentially violent vacuum in which angry and frustrated citizens can target the police for all of their grievances simply because the police are the most visible and symbolic representatives of the government.

   replyreport
6. 82

   ptosisposted 8 years ago

   Where did the Dallas police department get the bomb from? If it was done in such an imminent threat, isn't only the POTUS by Executive Order have the only legal authority? read more

   replyreport