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

171–180 of 225 posts

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

#171

Post by chimeracoder »

butlerm wrote: post #151
chimeracoder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil".

> SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municip…

> That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another.

No, you are misinformed. That is, in fact, what SCOTUS ruled, not that "the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or the other."

> The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municipality that imposes no duties on their employees, perhaps you should vote for someone who will.

This is incorrect, and in fact directly backwards. SCOTUS used the premise that police don't have a Constitutional duty to protect citizens as the basis of their decision to overturn such a state law.

It's also a moot point, because state courts - including in California, which is what's relevant here - have treated the Castle ruling as binding precedent that police do not have a duty to protect citizens.

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

#172

Post by vorpalhex »

falcolas wrote: post #148
vorpalhex wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead bystanders is usually considered poor form.

Tell that to the Uvalde police department. Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives

That's a fixable problem. Police could have a legally mandated ethics code similar to lawyers and fiduciary duty.

I do believe, ethically speaking, Uvalde officers should be criminally charged. There's no legal basis of course.

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

#173

Post by neoromantique »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #158
neoromantique wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, Police Officers inside, doing their jobs. But arresting parents was indeed higher priority.

So police officers should just carry out their duty and charge with reckless abandon toward the business end of an AR-15 like automatons? Wait...

Yeah, if we go down this path, then maybe (just maybe), introducing robots with guns isn't really the best approach.

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

#174

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

seabird wrote: post #76

For those who have an issue with this, I have to ask; have you actually thought this through at all? Would it really be preferable to make an officer literally risk their life trying to make the right decision? The will to survive in a situation that's shaping up to be a shootout is going to trump any reprimand or consequence. People generally don't like dying. Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only…

It is.

The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing.

Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days.

Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate.

I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks.

Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable.

Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.

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

#175

Post by chrisseaton »

woodruffw wrote: post #152
chrisseaton wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking. They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think.

> They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think. I meant in the field, but I take your point -- drones generally have this "problem" (arguably a strength in the military's eyes). Maybe the better comparison is any degree of drone strikes, versus having to send a bunch of troops into a town.

I think drone operators actually notoriously experience high levels of PTSD compared to other operators, but can’t find a source right now.

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

#176

Post by falcolas »

vorpalhex wrote: post #172
falcolas wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the Uvalde police department. Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives

That's a fixable problem. Police could have a legally mandated ethics code similar to lawyers and fiduciary duty. I do believe, ethically speaking, Uvalde officers should be criminally charged. There's no legal basis of course.

You're correct, there is no legal basis. In fact, the police have a supreme court ruling which affirms that the police has no legal duty or responsibility to protect anyone. Even when they're given roles that would imply the responsibility (such as serving in a school).

Could we hold police more accountable? Potentially. Will we? Based on historical evidence, no.

And without that accountability, this is just another deadly weapon, one they can and will (again, based on historical evidence) use with impunity.

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

#177

Post by woodruffw »

chrisseaton wrote: post #175
woodruffw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think. I meant in the field, but I take your point -- drones generally have this "problem" (arguably a strength in the military's eyes). Maybe the better comparison is any degree of drone strikes, versus having to send a bunch of troops into a town.

I think drone operators actually notoriously experience high levels of PTSD compared to other operators, but can’t find a source right now.

I absolutely believe that, and I think the two are absolutely connected: drone operators aren't stupid, and the dissemblement the drone provides is traumatizing in its own way.

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

#178

Post by bandyaboot »

vorpalhex wrote: post #39
pstuart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the stress is manifested by the police themselves (which is an issue specifically called out by the "defund the police" movement, e.g., mental health crises when the better path is deescalation by trained mental health workers)

Have you followed up on those "trained mental health workers"? Yeah they stopped going on calls unless cops were present because they kept getting injured or used as hostages.

I did a search on this to see if I could find some source of what you’re referring to. Came up with nothing. Most of the information out there on this topic is in stark contrast to what you’re saying here.

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

#179

Post by tvszzzz »

mushbino wrote: post #146
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…

Would you object to police putting remote controlled gun turrets on the corners of buildings around the city?

I'm going to try to engage you seriously even though your question seems rhetorical and just making an appeal to emotion...

Assuming we are in agreement that our police force must be well trained and operating with good checks and balances it would be great to have a police officer on every corner. It would certainly reduce violent crime and make cities safer.

Of course we don't have the resources to do that. Putting gun turrets instead would only be useful in dangerous situations of last resort. It would be a gross misuse of resources and introduces unnecessary risk. So I'm against it but not for the reasons you might think. It's the same reason we probably don't need the police to have all of the decommissioned military hardware. An effective police department probably only needs a few remote controlled guns to be used in those dire situations and would require strict oversight.

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

#180

Post by notlukesky »

anonexpat wrote: post #78
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.

The military is held to a much, much higher standard than regular law enforcement. Their rules of engagement are much stricter.

That depends on whether they are exposed and even then the "rules" don't always apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...

Post reply on HN