Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
With very few exceptions, anybody in a life threatening (or what they perceive to be a life threatening) situation is going to pick themselves over a person that they don't know and believe is trying to kill them. It is exceedingly hard to train this out of people and the only way to know whether or not you successfully have is to observe them in actual gunfights. I would even go as far to say that the trait is proba…
Because, and here is the kicker, the moment cops start using those, you can rest assured it will not stay in those hands exclusively as people adapt to new normal ( edit: I do not want to spell those out on a public forum for fear of giving people ideas, but I am sure you can think of some ways this arms race could escalate further ). Unless this is the goal ( further destabilization of society ), in which case that is a really good approach.
Maybe some clarification is needed on my point. The moment an officer is walking on the street, their skin is in the game literally and figuratively. It is their job to be visible arm of the law and confirm to the general population that the rules are, in fact, being enforced. If they are not considering what they are doing, maybe this is not a career for them.
I am willing to agree and it goes back to my previous point. It is not a job for everyone.
Note. I am saying all this with cops in my extended family. I do not want them to die. I do not want expansion of police state either. Some balance is required. That balance is not achieved with gun toting robots - whether they are remote controlled or not.