Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#51

Post by awb »

samfbiddle wrote: post #30
labrador wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title. These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans. Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer. Robots act autonomously and automatica…

It's considered a robot by its manufacturer ( https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum... ), the police who own it, and California state law, so I am confident in my choice of terms here.

What's the CA legal definition of a robot?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "robot" is: > 1. a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects) > 2A. a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line) > 2B. a mechanism guided by automatic controls > 3. a person who resembles a machine in seeming to function automatically or in lacking normal feelings or emotions

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot

Maybe a remote control device could fit the definition of 2B, but it's a stretch, as that's so broad that an alarm clock could be a "robot".

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#52

Post by throwaway894345 »

runnerup wrote: post #33
_fat_santa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting…

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper. I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people. Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.

I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#53

Post by awb »

_fat_santa wrote: post #23
samfbiddle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take…

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting…

> it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

For police, it's "you only kill when a life is in danger". It doesn't have to be your life.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#54

Post by throwaway894345 »

samfbiddle wrote: post #31
MichaelZuo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doin…

I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

> I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#55

Post by rolph »

Ancapistani wrote: post #46
rolph wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are already armed with a functional shotgun and a hand waved at it. you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.

Right. They could be using it to plant wildflowers: https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/

exactly, it could even shoot little bits of confetti that say bang, or all sorts of non lethal things that would 100% stop the fight w/o killing.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#56

Post by throwaway894345 »

jimlongton wrote: post #49
ericmcer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.

It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1] In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill…

This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#57

Post by JieJie »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #48
JieJie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...

Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone gene…

Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#59

Post by throwaway894345 »

jollyllama wrote: post #34
adabyron wrote: post #4

Curious what others think. Would robot police allow police to be less scared for their lives & ask questions first instead of the fear that exists in some situations that cause them to shoot to quickly? Could this lead to a system where people can be judged properly in a court system instead of to quickly?

This specific robot is just going to discourage de-escalation for suspects barricaded with guns; easier to send the shotgun robot in after such a person.

It can plausibly also stop the suspect from killing more people. This is the tension--balancing the rights of the innocent against those of unambiguous, active mass murderers.

Re: Oakland cops hope to arm robots with lethal shotguns

#60

Post by tanseydavid »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #50
Teever wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the distinction between teleoperated machine and autonomous robot will be very important to the family killed by this machine the next time the Oakland police do a no-knock raid on the wrong house. Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.…

The criticism was that the title is clickbait, not that there is no problem with "increased force projection". The latter doesn't justify the former.

Clickbait-accusation seems to imply "do not waste your time reading this." I think you are equivocating.
Post reply on HN