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

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

missionlocal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 225 posts

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#121

Post by Alupis »

random314 wrote: post #106
Alupis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already do put less-lethal options on these remotely controlled robots. It's even in the article... This is for when there is a significant probability violence will escalate and harm anyone besides the "bad guy" (ie. hostages, active gunman, etc). Removing officer lives from the equation means folks can keep a level head and not just go guns blazing. This is a good thing. If you think police commit too much vio…

Statistically how often does the SF police come across such a situation. What are the numbers from the past 10 years. Surely, the SFPD has provided this data to justify the lethal robots. > If you think police commit too much violence, then you should celebrate this. So the SFPD won't be carrying any guns? George Floyd wouldn't have died? Sounds great!

What is the point? They have to have had X number of hostages die in a year before we approve a remotely controlled robot?

Even if the number was zero, being able to remotely assess the situation before risking your own life and/or killing someone is nothing but a good thing.

Officers don't shoot people for funsies, despite the current prevailing narrative. We remove all risk to an officer's life, and we will get more peaceful solutions. In the event violence is required to resolve a situation without harming innocents, this is by far the safest way to do that.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#122

Post by frickinLasers »

jef_leppard wrote: post #20

When people say "defund the police" this is the kind of shit they are talking about. There is no reason for a police force to have access to lethal robots. None.

As the article mentions, they are bomb disposal robots. There is absolutely reason to have a tool capable of firing a shotgun shell attached, and an arm capable of placing a charge. You could hobble the bomb squad with legislation, make their job more deadly--or you could ban this particular use.

Source: I just know. That robot saves lives.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#123

Post by mushbino »

treeman79 wrote: post #88
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

I agree that killer robots are a bad idea. Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.

They don't, even if the victims are children and the ratio of cops to shooters is 100:1

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#125

Post by ip26 »

tvszzzz wrote: post #92

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that i…

Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process.

Yeah, this part is actually fairly intriguing. It might be easier to depersonalize and shoot, but there would be fewer defense options in court after.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#126

Post by bgun »

anonexpat wrote: post #104
bigDinosaur wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the military can change the entire planet by invading Iraq (or wherever) based on a lie tomorrow leading to the destabilisation of entire regions and ramifications that will last not just for decades but potentially centuries. And it's arguable that much military abuse is actually 'held' to the higher standard as opposed to ignored covered up, or redefined (e.g. definitions of combatants), but I suppose th…

I think that’s a political problem, not a military one.

All political problems of sufficient gravity become military problems.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#127

Post by Sebguer »

eightysixfour wrote: post #56
Imnimo wrote: post #10

Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems like if you have enough control over a situation that you can deploy a police robot instead of charging in, then you have enough control to make non-lethal force a viable option.

They used a bomb disposal robot with a pound of C4 attached to stop the Dallas gunman in 2016. People did not like talking about whether it was necessary or not at the time. > Sr. Cpl. Banes said they considered using a .50 caliber rifle to fire at the shooter, which had been successful in a similar attack on police 14 months earlier. However, in that case, the suspect had driven an armored truck into police headquar…

First time they strapped them to robots, maybe, but the police have a long and storied history of bombing folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#128

Post by germinalphrase »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #107
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

>over-militarized Can you explain what you mean by this? I've heard this term a lot, but it's not clear which aspect is the issue. For example, bullet proof vests: how is this bad? Similar with rifles such as the AR-15 - police already had pistols, nobody called them militarized for that. A riffle is just a more accurate pistol. I'd rather a cop have a riffle than a pistol for that reason: it's more safe. Beyond thes…

A great deal of the following text focuses on this exact issue. Dig in.

Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism by Stephen Graham

“ Drawing on a wealth of original research, Stephen Graham shows how Western militaries and security forces now perceive all urban terrain as a conflict zone inhabited by lurking shadow enemies. Urban inhabitants have become targets that need to be continually tracked, scanned and controlled. Graham examines the transformation of Western armies into high-tech urban counter-insurgency forces. He looks at the militarization and surveillance of international borders, the use of ‘security’ concerns to suppress democratic dissent, and the enacting of legislation to suspend civilian law. In doing so, he reveals how the New Military Urbanism permeates the entire fabric of urban life, from subway and transport networks hardwired with high-tech ‘command and control’ systems to the insidious militarization of a popular culture corrupted by the all-pervasive discourse of ‘terrorism”

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6499353-cities-under-sie...

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#130

Post by orangepurple »

woodruffw wrote: post #87
eightysixfour wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used a bomb disposal robot with a pound of C4 attached to stop the Dallas gunman in 2016. People did not like talking about whether it was necessary or not at the time. > Sr. Cpl. Banes said they considered using a .50 caliber rifle to fire at the shooter, which had been successful in a similar attack on police 14 months earlier. However, in that case, the suspect had driven an armored truck into police headquar…

There was a decent amount of conversation about it at the time[1]. Looking back, the decision to kill a man (even a violent one with a gun) remotely, using a robot, is stunning. Particularly in light of the fact that the gunman wasn't targeting members of the public; instead, the police seem to have concluded that the most expedient way to handle him was to explode him. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2…

Americans don't understand that their police forces are gangs. Yes, they have to follow the law and protocol. But the immediate second code they follow is brotherhood. When multiple officers are hurt or killed in action, they escalate the violence to the maximum extent possible, law be damned, as the AG and media is on their side and moves the spotlight away. Thankfully they usually consider public safety when they crack open the can of whoopass.
Post reply on HN