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

181–190 of 225 posts

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

#181

Post by fnordpiglet »

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…

Haven’t we been killing people with drones for quite some time?

The robot in question wasn’t autonomous. That’s where a line should be drawn IMO. But basically an RC car with a bomb on it doesn’t seem like a rubicon of any sort.

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

#182

Post by fnordpiglet »

orangepurple wrote: post #130
woodruffw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I think BLM demonstrates many do in fact realize this. I would blame qualified immunity and civil asset seizure and hence our courts, before anyone else. If you give impunity to any group they’ll turn into thugs.

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

#184

Post by eternalban »

chrisweekly wrote: post #147
eternalban wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not make a robot that takes down the shooter? Doesn't need to kill. Just tackle the person and pin them down. A bit of armor would do it, right?

Mixed feelings about involvement of robots at all, but ABSOLUTELY YES the use of NON-LETHAL FORCE is outrageously under-utilized in every kind of policing IRL and as depicted in popular media. Set em on stun, FFS.

I wonder if what is really happening, whether by design or a misaligned universe, is that firms that build these devices are really building for the military, and the thoughtless trend of militarizing police forces is intensifying. Why do I say this? Because the idea to use non-lethal force is frankly obvious and various think tanks were looking at this stuff for years. Ditto concerns over lethal robots.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA654-1.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/02/us-rejects-c...

https://www.uclalawreview.org/policing-police-robots/

abstract:

Just as they will change healthcare, manufacturing, and the military, robots have the potential to produce big changes in policing. We can expect that at least some robots used by the police in the future will be artificially intelligent machines capable of using legitimate coercive force against human beings. Police robots may decrease dangers to police officers by removing them from potentially volatile situations. Those suspected of crimes may also risk less injury if robots can assist the police in conducting safer detentions, arrests, and searches. At the same time, however, the use of robots introduces new questions about how the law and democratic norms should guide policing decisions—questions which have yet to be addressed in any systematic way. How we design, regulate, or even prohibit some uses of police robots requires a regulatory agenda now to address foreseeable problems of the future.

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

#185

Post by woodruffw »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #181
woodruffw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Haven’t we been killing people with drones for quite some time? The robot in question wasn’t autonomous. That’s where a line should be drawn IMO. But basically an RC car with a bomb on it doesn’t seem like a rubicon of any sort.

We've been doing it in other countries for quite some time. But the domestic, civil setting of the 2016 bombing was somewhat unique: the police do not have the procedures, rules of engagement, etc. that the military is supposed to have.

Is the 2016 bombing unique in a moral sense? I don't think so. But I do think it sets a concerning precedent in domestic law enforcement: if you're sufficiently difficult for the police to retrieve, they can simply blow you up instead of waiting to capture you.

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

#186

Post by heavyset_go »

proc0 wrote: post #164
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.

Well, they probably are looking into this because they were defunded and don't have enough officers.

Weird, considering this administration allocated $37 billion in funds to hire another 100,000 police officers.

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

#188

Post by micromacrofoot »

phkahler wrote: post #68
micromacrofoot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I was hoping someone mentioned this. There's already precedent for this kind of thing, I'm honestly surprised they even need to ask for permission in this case. It's not automated, it's just remote controlled.

If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot. And I've never liked the notion of police shooting someone for threatening another person. The classic example being domestic disputes where they don't know who the aggressor is. A great example last year was that girl being attacked, called 911, but by the time the police arrived, she got the weapon and was threatening her attacke…

> If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot.

In the Texas example the attacker had military training and was holed up and armed after sniping 5 cops. Seemed like a reasonable case for using a robot.

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

#189

Post by heavyset_go »

Spivak wrote: post #63
cyberphobe wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the high stress situation is manufactured entirely or significantly heightened by the officers involved

Which is why I think I might be on board with this. The “police are professionals trained to keep their cool even in life threatening situations” boat sailed ages ago. So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win.

Not being in life threatening situations hasn't stopped cops from killing people before.

Robots are not going to solve the problem of people abusing the power they're given because they can. I'd argue that it would exacerbate it.

I don't see anything good coming from turning shooting real people into a video game for cops.

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

#190

Post by tmptmpgo »

notatoad wrote: post #52
tmptmpgo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fair point. I suppose the distinction is whether the robot makes the decision to fire on its own.

that is not the issue in question here. SFPD wants to deploy remote-controlled weaponry - an officer would still be . IMHO it's a pretty fine disinction between a remote-operated gun and a gun that needs to be held by a human hand. (to be clear, i think police should have fewer guns regardless of how the trigger gets pulled)

That was kind of my point. When a “robot” with a gun controlled by a human, is it really fundamentally different from an efficient Rube Goldberg machine that fires a gun gun.

Some commentators are saying that by removing the safety of the operator from the equation changes things. Sure, it alters the ethics, but that doesn’t change the nature of machine itself.

Post reply on HN