No post body was provided.
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
51–60 of 74 posts
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#52Isn’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…
Yeah this happened in the Dallas police shooting a few years back. The suspect was holed up in a parking structure so they sent a bomb disposal robot with a bomb attached and blew the dude up.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#53Will weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
i not sure if this completely applies here but i think police forces should not be allowed to hire ex military into general beat cops. goon squad yes, but the headset of a soldier, and the headset of a cop are very different philosophies, though both have crept close together in the years.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#55Isn'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. The…
> If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.
It may have been sold as being cheaper, but it is not. Now there are roving gangs who can steal tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise in moments and will beat or kill people to pursue their crime.
Not only is it not saving public resources but it's putting stores out of business and injuring people.
> This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian.
Dystopia, check. Leftist dream, check.
> There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors
That's for the taxpayers to decide, not for the government to present as a reason for overriding them. At this point I bet they feel they can't afford not to enforce laws.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?
Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.
> Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.
Your premise as framed would only support the conclusion that ibdividual would enjoy civil immunity under the QI doctrine. They could still be criminally prosecuted, and their agency would not be civilly immune.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#57Earlier 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.
swatting, but with drones now.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yeah this happened in the Dallas police shooting a few years back. The suspect was holed up in a parking structure so they sent a bomb disposal robot with a bomb attached and blew the dude up.
Technically, wasn't it just doing its normal job? It disposed of a bomb, and the suspect was just some convenient collateral.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Shooting the person so they can go home. Best reason ever.
It's kind of predictable though. Let's look at another profession where lives are at stake: Doctors. One would think their ethics would prevent them from pushing C-sections and induction on women in labour for selfish reasons but birth rates on weekends have been steadily falling in western countries.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#60Isn'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. The…
That seems like something people in SF tell themselves about why it can't be any other way. But deterrence works. If petty crimes are being aggressively policed the the volume of crime will be much lower. The volume is only high because criminals know there are no practical repercussions.