Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s a political problem, not a military one.
Bingo. The military is a tool wielded by the government. They don't go anywhere without being ordered.
Do coups not exist?
Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
191–200 of 225 posts
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#192Folks - this is not a lethal autonomous robot. This is a remotely controlled bomb disposal robot retrofitted with a gun. A human still has to pull the (digital) trigger to use lethal force. This is nothing but a good thing. Nobody cares if a robot is destroyed. A robot will allow everyone time to think and assess the situation before making a snap-judgement we all question later on. This can do nothing but reduce let…
> In the field, lethal force happens because people are forced to make snap judgements.
There are countless examples of cops killing people in situations that were not potentially harmful nor in situations where they were "forced" to make snap judgments.
Robots aren't going to fix the problem of cops abusing power or killing people with impunity simply because they can.
Turning the killing of real living civilians into a video game for cops isn't going to end well.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#193I 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.
> Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either.
They aren't asked to. In the US, they have no legal obligation to protect children being murdered, or otherwise protect innocent civilians in any way.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#194Earlier 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.
Yes, there's a model program in Eugene, OR that's being adopted elsewhere because of its success: https://www.vera.org/behavioral-health-crisis-alternatives/c...
It seems you're proposing that the only sensible option is always more cops.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#195Earlier 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.
Police being in life threatening situations is a bullshit excuse. None of these killings have the police been in a life threatening situation. They’re just murderous thugs, we should stop buying them expensive toys and start locking them up when they commit crimes
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
US police already use force too often. Presumably, something stopping police from using even more force is that they too are human: they need to look their victims in the face before deciding whether to use force. I worry what will happen if you take this humanizing, moderating aspect out of the decision for whether to use violence.
It's the opposite. If cops were invulnerable, they'd be far less likely to use lethal force. It's usually because they fear for their lives that they shoot.
That's just the excuse they've been trained to shout so they can get off scot-free should they ever end up in court, just like "stop resisting". Saying that they "feared for their life" makes what would otherwise be murder or manslaughter into a legal application of deadly force.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#197I thought Robocop was Detroit PD, not SFPD.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#198I 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…
> The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others.
There is no evidence that any of this would be true about lethal robot operators or their the use of the robots themselves.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#199I 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.
Generally if there's no danger to the responding officer, deadly force shouldn't be used. And literally one of the biggest fucking problems with the police is when they think they're in danger when they're not, and when they go and place themselves in danger in order to use deadly force.
There's this incredibly narrow, almost hypothetical, situation where someone else is in danger but the cops aren't, and where the situation has gone on long enough that something like this could be deployed. In that situation it is almost certainly better to use nonlethal force. And more importantly the cops have proven over and over and over again that if you give them an inch they will take a mile and if its okay for them to kill someone in the 0.1% case that they'll start killing people with it all the time.
And really the police need to figure out how to police with a lot fewer guns and a lot less use of deadly force. Until they figure out how to do that, giving them more ways to kill people, based on an almost hypothetical, is not something that I'm willing to agree to.
Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
One word --> Uvalde. A remote-controlled robot equipped with a gun is needed in this type of situation. The gun will be operated by a human, remotely.
How is that going to work against a target that moves, is possibly wearing armor, and is shooting back?
All you need is something to grab the shooter's attention. If he is distracted by the robot then human officers have a better opportunity to take him down.