Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor • Hacker News Board

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#41

Post by merpnderp » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

Forge36 wrote: post #23

eximius wrote: post #9

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 guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#42

Post by daedalus_j » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

eximius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, threat level. A cop shooting the suspect has at least the argument of supposed self-defense from imminent harm. They sought him out from a safe place with the sole purpose of his destruction.

But he was an active shooter with a deadly weapon, not surrendering. If it had been a police sniper instead of a robot, that would have been no different and perhaps more familiar and expected?

A police sniper would very likely not be authorized to kill a barricaded shooter who wasn't actively in the process of threatening a civilian or officer. "Imminent threat" is an important standard.

If they had time to rig up an IED to the robot, and drive the sucker in there, use the camera to make sure he didn't have any hostages (they did that right?), and THEN detonate the bomb, it doesn't sound like the threat was all that imminent.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#43

Post by sp332 » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #27

pionar wrote: post #21

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.

They had a negotiator, for multiple hours. I don't know if the negotiator gave up or if someone else made the decision to end the standoff.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#44

Post by merpnderp » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #34

If this catches on I am sure we'll see a shift in language from calling them "bomb disposal robots" to "threat disposal robots", or "danger mitigation robots", or something similar. 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)

It's not clear at all that he posed a non-imminent threat. He had a weapon, had just been using it to kill people, and at any moment could have started trying to kill people again. The cops shouldn't have to risk their lives in this situation.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#45

Post by noonespecial » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

If it seems oddly excessive, this might be the point. Cops are always "enthusiastic" in their response to cop-killers. I think they intentionally sought out a way to end the standoff with a little extra extravagance. An IRL sharks with frikin lasers moment.

The entire thing, from the shooting of the unarmed man by police to this end seems to be one long chain of ridiculous over-reactions. I sense a theme.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#46

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

eximius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, threat level. A cop shooting the suspect has at least the argument of supposed self-defense from imminent harm. They sought him out from a safe place with the sole purpose of his destruction.

But he was an active shooter with a deadly weapon, not surrendering. If it had been a police sniper instead of a robot, that would have been no different and perhaps more familiar and expected?

No, we don't expect police snipers to shoot a suspect who's holed up and talking and has no hostages. At least I certainly wouldn't.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#47

Post by mc32 » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

The reports so far is that talks had broken down and the suspect threatened officers. At that point they could have waited longer, which could have lead to either more fruitful talks or a stalemate. At that point they could send in a SWAT or a robot to take the guy out. Both result in a dead suspect. One could result in injury or more to officers, if suspect had other weapons explosives and wasn't going to surrender. The other you send in the robot to take the suspect out.

The only difference is that one you have people with triggers, the other you have a remote person with a button. The result is the same.

When we begin using robotic fighters in wars, the same question will arise. And we'll make the same decision. We'll send the robots instead of human soldiers to minimize danger to our people, rather than give equal footing to the person or people not us.

I must say, I didn't expect this to happen so soon, but on the other hand, it was a practical decision --with lots of open questions, as well as precedence.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#48

Post by whamlastxmas » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #35

Forge36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think that question really needs to be asked. We already have a perfectly good answer: lethal force is acceptable when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives. The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer .

>when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives

This is way too subjective.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#49

Post by danso » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

I predict a lot of unwarranted attention will be devoted to the fact that a "robot" (i.e. The robots are killing us!) was used, even though it was remote controlled and functionally not much different than if officers had lobbed an explosive grenade at the suspect. To me, it's more interesting that lethal force was used in a non-hostage situation -- did the suspect threaten to detonate his own bombs (which would make this more like a hostage situation)? Though I suppose concern over the use of robots is warranted...in the same way that drones have allowed for the conduct of a proxy war...would police have gone for the lethal option if it required officers to be put in harm's way?

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#50

Post by staunch » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

eximius wrote: post #9

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.

From the article:

> Five officers were killed and seven others were injured, as well as two civilians.

Even NBC is referring to non-police as "civilians" here which really drives the point home.