31–40 of 128 posts
While aerial lethal robotic forces have been used for years, this is the first time I've heard of ground-based lethal robots. It's amazing that it's happened first not by the military in a war situation, but by domestic police forces against it's citizenry.
It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an excellent point, that in order to bring in a robot they more or less pre-meditated executing him in the field and likely means the suspect had not moved to escalate the situation. You don't prep the bomb and then only set it off once the perp has made his choice to hurt someone else.
The perp had told the police that he was going to kill more officers if any came near him. He had already (probably) killed before, so how is it not imminent danger? You can't just "wait him out" and hope he won't escape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?
I don't think shooting him would have been legal either. You only get to shoot a suspect when there's an imminent threat, and it sounds like there wasn't one. (If there was, they wouldn't have had time to send in the robot.)
The chilling bit is that this was a death sentence for a suspect of non-imminent threat, which opens a pretty big can of worms. (What if it was the wrong guy? What if there was a hostage near him? etc)
Wow. This feels incredibly wrong. I know it is just an extension of the militarization of American police, but should they be allowed to issue a death sentence like that? I argue no. Expend the time and resources to non-lethally incarcerate him.
I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man. Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was however not immediately threatening anyone was refusing to cooperate. I think a question we should continue asking is at what point does Lethal force become acceptable?
The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.
I genuinely wonder how the secret service is going to protect against armed drones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The perp had told the police that he was going to kill more officers if any came near him. He had already (probably) killed before, so how is it not imminent danger? You can't just "wait him out" and hope he won't escape.
That's essentially every crisis situation and the normal response is a trained negotiator not an executioner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
If you have a robot you can send in with things, you have far more options than "send it in with a bomb". Tranquilizer darts? Chemical agents ("knockout gas")? Although the fact that they refer to it as their "bomb robot" suggests it's single purpose, which is idiotic - it's not clear if it's a bomb disposal robot they repurposed or some wacky military-industrial-complex contraption. Either way, I can't think of any…