Is this how we get Robocop killing hobos?
Wasn't this the plot in a Mickey Mouse movie?
San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
61–70 of 74 posts
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#62Nothing to see here folks; move along.
> "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."
See? Nothing there. Go about your business.
> Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances
See? It'll be only in extreme circumstances.
Killing someone should be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it's too easy to press the button.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#63Isn’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 wh…
> What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles
Not an apologist, but you could have at least gotten the city correct in your cynical diatribe.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#64Isn’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 wh…
> unchanged humanity
Adapt or die.
Evolution is a thing.
Your complaint reminds me of a bacteria complaining about all the oxygen.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#65Isn'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…
I must wonder then how the rest of the world, heck even the rest of the States, can get by with prosecuting also petty crimes, yes even stolen bicycles. But this means asking the difficult questions I guess...
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
In the case of the bank, or the fake gun, the prankster might get shot. In the case of the robot, the pranked person might be shot. Doesn’t quite seem the same.
No actually, the pranker would get shot in both cases.
The person pointing a fake gun at someone, would be the one shot either way, even if a robot did the shooting.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's true, but in practice criminal prosecution of police is even less likely to happen than successful civil suits.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of the bank, or the fake gun, the prankster might get shot. In the case of the robot, the pranked person might be shot. Doesn’t quite seem the same.
No actually, the pranker would get shot in both cases. The person pointing a fake gun at someone, would be the one shot either way, even if a robot did the shooting.
I don’t think you understand what GP meant. They meant faking you (as the prankster) being in danger, so the robot kills someone else (the prankee) for you.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#69Isn’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 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.
Re: San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just look at Singapore.
Or, closer to home, examine theft rates in cities which recently raised the grand larceny threshold (looking at you Oregon and Washington…) and the explosion of misdemeanor theft. My employer (a fortune 100 retailer) is actively exploring breaking leases as shrink rates have approached 50% in some locations.