Is this how we get Robocop killing hobos?
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
31–40 of 74 posts
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#32Isn'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.
Imagine if you will a police budget, police resources and jail space. Now imagine cities where every available police officer in the city is processing paperwork for misdemeanor theft. Its untenable by any means. There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors. How many officer hours would it take to process a stolen bike report, investigate and then arrest someone. Then bring the DA in on that stolen bike case. This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian. If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#33Earlier 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.
> What happens when you fake danger
So what, you go up to a bank, with a fake gun, and then say "lul, I was just robbing you as a prank bro?"
Probably the same thing will happen to you, as would happen to you right now, if you pointed a fake gun at someone.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#34Craig 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. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete
How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#35Won't arrest people for stealing, but wants lethal robots. JFC.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#36Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#37It makes sense since most police departments are short staffed and things will only get worse in the future
That project won't improve things on that front.
Those robots need to be bought, then they need an operator and at least some maintenance.
You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot, or try to actually train those you have in sensible law enforcement.
There are better uses of the money basically everywhere.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#38Wouldn't it be more helpful to have robots scooping up [stuff] from the sidewalks and sanitizing things?
If it were actual (autonomous) robots, yes. The article is actually talking about ROVs (remote-operated vehicles). The city still needs to pay a human operator, who happens to be a moderate distance away.
It's arguably financially justified in the policing case because policing can be dangerous. Cleaning up [stuff] and sanitizing things isn't particularly dangerous, so you're basically just buying a robot to make your janitor less efficient.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#39Isn’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.
Yes, these robots are pretty slow and relatively difficult to deploy. It is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where "loss of life to members of
the public or officers is imminent", but police still somehow have time to deploy and pilot this thing into a crime scene from a safe distance. If they had time to do that, then there wasn't really an imminent danger.
Realistically, this will be used when someone has barricaded themselves in a house or something and is having a standoff with police, and they've gotten tired of standing around outside and would rather send their robot in to shoot the person so they can go home.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#40San Francisco is weird. My wife and I enjoyed our visit last month where we sat at an outdoor cafe and watched people stealing bikes and furniture (yes, seriously). I am going to be less entertained by watching murder robots wandering the streets, so perhaps I will eat elsewhere next time.
If by ‘weird’ you mean teetering on the verge of lawlessness, then yes.