This is a bit clickbaity. The article says:
"robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD."
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
21–30 of 74 posts
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.
What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often. This is a horrifically terrible idea. It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.
I don't know why people are downvoting this. Where I live the police union boss was a known white supremacist for a decade. The police department was known to have members who tallied their kill counts competitively. For dogs and for people.
We have serious problems with accountability of law enforcement in the US.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#23Not read it yet, but the title suggests a "Love, Death & Robots" scenario :D
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#24Isn't this the same city that declared policing racist and made shoplifting anything less than $1000 a misdemenoar, whose DAs refuse to prosecute crime, and who declared bail discriminatory? I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.
Pendulum always swing when property owning people get pissed. A lot of them do not like the woke policies they voted for anymore.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#25They'll need to get a feed from the feces app so their treads don't grind through some poop on their way to blast someone's head off.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#26This is a bit clickbaity. The article says: "robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD."
Oh, whew, that's a relief. /s
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#27> The idea of robots being legally allowed to kill has garnered some controversy. Since these "robots" are not autonomous, you can substitute "guns" for "robots" in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal. The big ethical difference is that the remote trigger puller can no longer justify the act by a threat to their own life, only to other lives.
just like a dog is equated to being an officer, police robots will be considered officers and you would be prosecuted as if you had assaulted a living being, you will not be able to claim that, a machine prone to malfunction, errant design, and fasle positives, was a threat to you when you defend yourself against it.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#28Isn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger? Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.
Its a preemptive measure, against what the ukraine war will spill into the civil sphere. If drug gangs get explosive suicide drones, and stack them up on some roof, callable as service, flashing the red and blue will not do.
Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone. And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now.
This is what we worked for, this is what we fought for. We destroyed humanitys ability to keep the peace.
What a interesting war of all against all this will be, once the planets ceeiling comes down.
What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles.
Any apologist, wanna take the lead and "This is actually a good thing.."wing it?
Do we get religous as defense, believing in the new human being?
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#29Isn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger? Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.
Or someone else's life is at risk.
this is a misconception. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#30Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high.