Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

missionlocal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#111

Post by JadeNB »

vorpalhex wrote: post #70
woodruffw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That qualification hasn't meant much, going by the rate at which police hurt themselves (and innocent members of the public) with their own service weapons.

I agree police should get more training. You will have to fund them more if you want that.

> I agree police should get more training.

> You will have to fund them more if you want that.

I think nowhere else on Hacker News would the idea that "you're doing so badly at this job that we ought to pay you more to motivate you to do it well" get serious traction.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#112

Post by [deleted] »

wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

[deleted]

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#113

Post by JadeNB »

chimeracoder wrote: post #110
JadeNB wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Asking a cop to walk into an active shooter situation isn’t great either. Indeed, cops are just humans, and we correctly think of them as such when asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. But somehow, when it comes time to holding them accountable for misdeeds carried out in the course of their professional duties, they are held apart from other humans. At least one sid…

> asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil".

> > asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect.

> SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil".

Right, I meant "supposed" in the notional sense, like the average citizen supposes that they are going to be protected by the police, though I agree it was very confusing wording. I was referring exactly to decisions like the one you cite as evidence of cops receiving a double standard of treatment.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#114

Post by [deleted] »

standardUser wrote: post #77

According to a recent article... "Since 2000, some 58 people have been shot and killed by police in San Francisco" A dense city of 800k has about 2.5 deaths from police shootings per year. According to the "Officer Down Memorial Page", 3 police officers were killed due to hostile actions in that same time period (but I'm not certain that site is fully up-to-date). Sounds like an expensive and risky solution in search…

[deleted]

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#115

Post by chroma »

phkahler wrote: post #68
micromacrofoot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I was hoping someone mentioned this. There's already precedent for this kind of thing, I'm honestly surprised they even need to ask for permission in this case. It's not automated, it's just remote controlled.

If it's remote controlled then there isn't even a self defense justification to shoot. And I've never liked the notion of police shooting someone for threatening another person. The classic example being domestic disputes where they don't know who the aggressor is. A great example last year was that girl being attacked, called 911, but by the time the police arrived, she got the weapon and was threatening her attacke…

> she got the weapon and was threatening her attacker

Are you talking about Ma'Khia Bryant?[1] Because in that case both parties grabbed knives, but Bonner was unarmed by the time the police arrived. Also it doesn't matter what happened beforehand. Bryant was about to stab a woman to death who was not a threat. She shouted, "I'm gonna stab the fuck out of you, bitch.", lunged toward Bonner, and ignored police commands to stop. Of course the cops are justified in shooting Bryant.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#116

Post by cmckn »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #107
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

>over-militarized Can you explain what you mean by this? I've heard this term a lot, but it's not clear which aspect is the issue. For example, bullet proof vests: how is this bad? Similar with rifles such as the AR-15 - police already had pistols, nobody called them militarized for that. A riffle is just a more accurate pistol. I'd rather a cop have a riffle than a pistol for that reason: it's more safe. Beyond thes…

Police departments literally own tanks. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/towns-dont-need-...

Plus things like grenade launchers are provided to police departments by the Department of Defense, at steep discounts or for free, through the 1033 Program: https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcem...

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#117

Post by thwayunion »

butMebbe wrote: post #65
jef_leppard wrote: post #20

When people say "defund the police" this is the kind of shit they are talking about. There is no reason for a police force to have access to lethal robots. None.

Train citizens to drive robot non-lethal surveillance drones, do paperwork, cut funding for rage prone meat bag policing. Maintain minimum required force of trigger happies for all the shooting scenarios. Our secular society isn’t anymore sacrosanct than religious based choices. It should be readily reorganize-able as logistics demand. Optimizing for 24/7 status quo politics, profit margin optimizing and rent extract…

> Train citizens to drive robot surveillance drones, do paperwork

Aka hire more cops. A cop in the US is just a citizen with 3-6 months of tactical and paperwork training.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#118

Post by eloisius »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #107
wheresmycraisin wrote: post #25

I can't possibly imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea. US police are already over-militarized and under-accountable. We as Americans need to stop worshiping "men in uniform" including all levels of law enforcement and military and hold them to the same standard as any other member of society -- stop giving them everything they want and stop spoiling them when they call us unpatriotic.

>over-militarized Can you explain what you mean by this? I've heard this term a lot, but it's not clear which aspect is the issue. For example, bullet proof vests: how is this bad? Similar with rifles such as the AR-15 - police already had pistols, nobody called them militarized for that. A riffle is just a more accurate pistol. I'd rather a cop have a riffle than a pistol for that reason: it's more safe. Beyond thes…

I think this phrase showed up around the time police departments started getting military hand-me-downs like MRAPs.

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#119

Post by [deleted] »

stefan_ wrote: post #55
vorpalhex wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bystanders. You can't bet someone elses life based on how well a taser may or may not work. LTL is a real dice throw.

People do not in fact immediately fall over just because you shoot them. The idea of shooting someone with a pistol or rifle caliber to stop them from doing something in a split second is firmly a movie trope.

[deleted]

Re: Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots

#120

Post by chroma »

bcherny wrote: post #109
tvszzzz wrote: post #92

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that i…

US police already use force too often. Presumably, something stopping police from using even more force is that they too are human: they need to look their victims in the face before deciding whether to use force. I worry what will happen if you take this humanizing, moderating aspect out of the decision for whether to use violence.

It's the opposite. If cops were invulnerable, they'd be far less likely to use lethal force. It's usually because they fear for their lives that they shoot.
Post reply on HN