Slashdot Mirror
Using a Bomb Robot to Kill a Suspect Is an Unprecedented Shift in Policing (vice.com)
A police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way. The police said that negotiations broke down, an exchange of gunfire happened, but then they had no option but to use "bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was." Motherboard explains the unprecedented shift in policing. From an article: Peter W. Singer, an expert in military technology and robot warfare at the New America Foundation, tweeted that this is the first known incident of a domestic police force using a robot to kill a suspect. Singer tweeted that in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have strapped claymore mines to the $8,000 MARCbot using duct tape to turn them into jury-rigged killing devices. Singer says all indications are that the Dallas Police Department did something similar in this case -- it improvised to turn a surveillance robot into a killing machine. Improvised device or not, the concerns here mirror a debate that's been going on for a few years now: Should law enforcement have access to armed drones, or, for that matter, weaponized robots? In 2013 Kentucky Senator Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster that was focused entirely on concerns about the use of armed drones on US soil. Last year, North Dakota became the first state to legalize nonlethal, weaponized drones for its police officers. [...] The ability for police to remotely kill suspects raises due process concerns. If a shooter is holed up and alone, can they be qualified as an imminent threat to life? Are there clear protocols about when a robot can be used to engage a suspect versus when a human needs to engage him or her? When can the use of lethal force be administered remotely?
"I mean you call something a war, and pretty soon everyone is going to be running around acting like warriors." -- Major Colvin
Regan declared The War On Drugs and, unsurprisingly, people started acting like warriors. We now have a militarized police force that, in many areas, is effectively an occupying military. Guess what happens when an occupying military starts killing civilians? Insurgents are created.
I have a feeling this situation is going to spiral out of control pretty quickly.
"If a shooter is holed up and alone, can they be qualified as an imminent threat to life?"
In this case, definitely yes. Obviously a blanket judgement cannot be made for all cases. Each situation is entirely different.
5 people are dead. 5 more are in the hospital.
There are major perceived racial issues and conflicts at hand, and you want to focus on the specific equipment at hand?
This was not an autonomous killing machine. It was similar to an RC car with an explosive charge attached to it. All other attempts to kill the gunman had failed, and putting even more people into extreme risk was ill-advised. Putting him down *hard* was the best possible option given the situation.
The gunman was actively shooting other people. At that point, killing them via whatever method is the only sane option. The situation had already been escalated beyond most thresholds.
Turning the conversation into a "but... robots are evil" mess detracts from the very real issues at hand.
The police should be required to always give the option of surrender first (something that is currently broken in the policy). If a suspect refuses to surrender and continues hostile behavior then the choice seems pretty clear to me. If a suspect does not surrender, but ceases endangering the lives of others, then the policy should be to wait it out. You'd think someone would have already written a manual on this...
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This isn't an issue, as long as there is a human controlling the robot.
It's like saying that using a rifle raises issues because the rifle is isn't close to the target. Using the robot merely slows down the process of moving the killing object from the source to the target.
No, a real issue would be autonomous killing devices. They are coming and will probably be in use before there is general awareness of them. Their use is more likely after that experiment that showed an autonomous robot pilot was better than a skilled human pilot.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Authorities have bombed suspects, and their children, in our shameful past.
I hope the racist old days aren't back now that many Conservatives are now openly-racist, and even nominated a fascist as the Republican Presidential candidate.
http://www.telesurtv.net/engli...
The hashtag against racist violence is to protest the violence, not to inspire it, but the racist-right can't handle the idea of black people having the same rights as the rest of us do, so they'll pretend that a murderous nut is the fault of Black Lives Matter, even though he was shooting at BLM protesters in addition to the police.
Racist right? Like Stalin? Like the national socialists? You keep on talking about the "right" but libertarians are "right" and are all about individualism to an extreme rather than collectivism and centralised control.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Excellent use of rhetoric and ad hominems. Surely you are the voice of reason that all of us on the "racist-right" need to listen to!
Libertarians are central, not right. They tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Conservatives by definition are authoritarian and dislike individual liberties IE want to outlaw freedoms like flag burning. They tend to want things to stay the same, to conserve their ways..
Liberals by definition want to encourage INDIVIDUAL liberties.
Both sides taken to extreme become the same though.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
So you call out ad hominems and sweeping generalizations by using ad hominems and sweeping generalizations?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
That is a pretty racist thing to say, as per the definition of racist.
blacks dont disobey the law any more then us whites. They are arrested for it more though, even for crimes that us whites commit multiple times more than, and then they pay for it more with harsher sentences.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Lethal force was no longer called for once he was contained. Police have no business having never mind using explosive as an intentionally deadly weapon, realy nothing past a breaching charge or flashbang.
No sir I dont like it.
The dude explicitly stated he wanted to hurt white people, and he had pro-BLM posts all over. When you shoot 17(?) people and only two of them aren't cops, you have to wonder how much he was actually targeting the protesters.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
In Canada, the BLM movement unfortunately chose to demonstrate during the pride parade in Toronto and felt justified to delay someone else's cause for 30 minutes. I think the hashtag should be #BlackLivesMatterMOST.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The next time a robot starts driving towards a perp, that robot is going to get shot up.
The police can't kill people with bombs, they have to use small explosions in shells to speed up a specific projectile, not an accidental one with a bomb, like god intended it to be.
The police shouldn't be in the business of killing people. They're there to apprehend if at all possible, and let the courts decide their fate. The bobbies in London don't even carry firearms, and they get along reasonably well. Why the fuck do American cops need "assault rifles" (heh), tanks, and now remote controlled bombs? This one-sided arms race needs to stop, and we need to take a good hard look at the societal reasons for the violence. We keep killing or incarcerating "bad men", but nobody wants to deal with the reasons how they become this way. Meanwhile, we continue to allow an army grow within our borders that sees all of us as a possible threat. This is not headed in a positive direction.
It wasn't an autonomous system, it was a remotely operated device. Still it's a bad move, especially since it causes further emotional disconnection to the event and limits sensory input for operators that are already showing a tendency to murder first and not care about the questioning. Something that can only get worse with that shift. Additionally, they used EXPLOSIVES to kill him. You know, one of those rather non-targeting area effect fuck everything in range type nasties? Oh yeah, real good choice with the limited sensory input from a remotely operated device dumbass.... Ever hear of collateral damage and over use of force? Really not the right way to go, but then again, I doubt anyone expected the cops to bring any SUSPECTS in alive for this shooting. Of course, they may not have murdered the right guy, but hell, it's not like anyone can ask him questions now.
There is so much wrong with this entire thing.
"Conservatives by definition are authoritarian"
And modern liberals aren't authoritarian? To the point of legislating soft drink cup size? Or the shape of cucumbers in EU?
"Liberals by definition want to encourage INDIVIDUAL liberties"
That would be the definition of LIBERTARIANS and maybe CLASSIC liberals.
What inspired this cycle of violence was a problem even more basic than the race angle: the steady drift to more militarized law enforcement. What just happened was another step on this road. In the eyes of the police now, we're all burka-clad Fallujans.
Coming soon - the first purpose-built dog shooting robot.
And limit due process whenever it suits them. And get rid of some personal property rights. And take away some religious freedoms. And deny freedom of speech to anyone who organizes as a corporation. And take away freedom to carry groceries in plastic bags. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
They don't believe in individual liberties at all.
Many (but not all) libertarians, especially the American variety, are very much right-wing when it comes to egalitarianism, in that they have no problem with a tiny elite subset of the population controlling all the wealth and thus power of society, so long as it's "not the government" doing that.
The original left-right divide was not just about liberty but about equality as well. The left was for the common people, against the aristocracy; that was their ends. Their means was removing the authority of the aristocracy and granting liberty to the common people. Being nominally in favor of liberty, but perfectly OK with an aristocratic elite ruling over the common people so long as it's done by "libertarian" means, is hardly in line with the history of the left, and much more squarely aligned with the original right.
(In truth, the existence of an aristocratic elite is evidence that the supposedly libertarian principles by which they're operating aren't so libertarian after all, and some kind of authoritarian power still remains for them to exploit. There are libertarians who acknowledge this, libertarian socialists; "socialism" doesn't equal authoritarianism. My personal suspect for that bit of authority remaining to exploit is the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, especially those of rent and interest, but also things like exclusivity and non-compete arrangements).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If the suspect Johnson was shot and killed during exchanges of gunfire twenty minutes into the standoff, no one would care. He was a shooter, he was shooting at cops, he got shot. It would become a part of the tragedy that was last night, but no one would be calling for the head of the Dallas police officer who fired the gun with the bullet that ended his life.
Instead, DPD negotiated with him for hours. They gave him every opportunity to peacefully end the standoff, to lay down arms and leave with his life. I can only speculate on how those hours passed since we don't have details yet. But you don't spend that time before you drive a robot in with an explosive device without giving him several warnings. Johnson knew the only way out was if he laid down arms and came out with his hands up. Johnson chose not to do so. Instead he chose to continue to be a threat to the people of Dallas, to continue taking shots at police officers, and to continue to make threats on the citizens of the city. His life was in his own hands.
It is a tragedy that the end was what it was. This man chose to plan, organize, and execute a planned attack upon law enforcement officers who were guarding citizens demonstrating peacefully. This isn't about war, this is about terror. For the most part no one here in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is blaming anyone except for the individuals who carried out this attack. The rhetoric and platforming is primarily coming from y'all, the rest of the world. Here we're just mourning the loss of five officers who died in a peaceful situation for absolutely no reason other than other people were consumed by hatred enough to ambush them in the line of duty.
I don't care what the sides are. I don't care about anyone nitpicking the means. I care about the people around me. Y'all should too. And that's where it should end.
Hint: Police keep killing folks. Many of them unarmed, in handcuffs, and mostly black
Emphasis mine, and [Citation Needed]
Now, I can't disagree, police killing people is a problem, but why does race ALWAYS have to play a part? According to this 100 (ish) people were killed by police last month. 35 white, 27 black, 19 latino. Why do we only care about the black ones?
Even military language is standard operating procedure for police.
Police do not patrol neighborhoods, they patrol sectors. Even in small towns it is broken into sectors.
When I think of sectors, I think of militarized zones with fences and lines that need monitoring.
In order for this cycle to end there needs to be respect on both sides. #Blacklivesmatter need to call out people who are being idiots and inciting, #Police need to call out over aggressive idiots on their ranks that are abusive with force instead of condoning it silently as a bystander.
According to reports, this was one man with an AR-15 and a bunch of ammo and look at the damage.
It has to stop on both sides and it has to stop today. It is not cool when someone mows white people down with an assault rifle and it is not cool when police harass Americans for "DWB", driving while black. It is not cool that black people have to teach their children to comply with police or risk getting shot. It is not cool that so many people have nonviolent felonies that they can't get a job. It is a giant cluster mess.
This will take action from society as a whole to fix. I saw an encouraging first step in Detroit recently.
Jobseekers get nonviolent records expunged.
It is not cool that Hilary Clinton gets a get out of jail free card.
It is not cool that General Patraeous gets probation.
It is not cool when teens like Ethan Couch with affluenza walk away with probation or little jail time.
It is not cool that cities like Flint and poisoned with lead just because they are poor.
It is not cool that America rebuilds New Orleans but lets Detroit rot even though it suffered an economic Sunami of Free-Trade Agreements.
It is not cool that some kids can get a decent public education and others can not based on their zip code.
It is not cool that Jails are now a "For Profit" business further preying on people on the margins of society.
It is not cool that America incarcerates more people per capita than any other modern country in history.
American is not perfect, but Trump was right when he said the "system was rigged". While we might not be perfect, we believe in a union of people working together for the common good, freedom, and the hope of liberty and pursuing happiness. The hope to live a good life that doesn't have a violent end because you walked down the wrong street or drove in the wrong neighborhood.
I would encourage everyone looking at these events today not to take a sides, but ask,
"What can we do to fix this, before it gets worse?",
"How can we heal the racial divide?"
"How can we love our neighbor?"
The natural tendency is to be tribal, pick your tribe and then prepare to war with the other tribe. It's human, it is how we survived long ago. If we go down that path, more will die. America is awash with guns and ammo and the killing of whites, blacks, gays, muslims, seeks, mexicans NEEDS TO STOP.
Reflect and ask yourself, "how can I be the change I want to see in the world?"
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Presumably this robot, under police control, had a video camera so the operator could guide it to the target. I'd like to see that video. I'd be Ok with it not showing the gruesome outcome, but the trip to the target, what the target was doing at the time and the eventual detonation. You'd think that a robot carrying a package to an armed man would have been been viewed with some suspicion, even for this unprecedented action. Did it get close enough to see the target? Did it confirm that the target still armed and dangerous at the time? If he aimed his gun at the robot, will that be construed as an aggressive act against a police officer? Who detonated the bomb? If it's a legal, justifiable action, then knowing who did it should be public.
When that Dorner guy was burned to death, the police claimed the exact same thing: "We didn't know there would be a fire." There's hours of audio of the police radio chatter where officers ask when they would "deploy the burners" before that happened though, and for the last hour they had a "mic check" reminder every time somebody forgot to avoid the B word or mentioned burning him out loud. Claiming ignorance is the default excuse when police burn someone to death, it would seem.
I say ethics does work that way - in this narrow case it all worked out for the best. Can't argue with success.
If he wanted to defend himself in a court, he could have surrendered. By remaining a beligerant he forfeits that right.
It would really serve no purpose for the cops to take off their I am a cop hat and put on an I am a military guy hat. In fact there is some overlap between what the cops and what the military do. The cops even generally have militaryesque ranks and chains of command etc.
...
The mods here went full on conservative about a decade ago.
As I understand it:
The mods are chosen algorithmically from the non-anonymous Slashdot users.
The meta-mods, who moderate the moderators' decisions (and affect the algorithm's future awarding of moderator points) are self-chosen.
Are you saying that the algorithm went right-wing? Or that the meta-moderators drove it that way?
Or are you saying that you, personally, are so left-wing that the general membership's moderation looks right-wing to you.
= = = =
A hint, though:
Many left-wingers apply social pressure to each other to conform to certain behavioral templates. This includes agreeing with a number of ideological points, regardless of whether they are consistent with observed reality - or each other.
To someone who has internalized this idea system, any questioning of any of its points is a sign of heresy or non-membership. This calls for immediate criticism - to return the straying sheep to the fold or to attack a non-member of the flock.
Such criticism often takes the form of labelling the heretical speaker as right-wing, i.e. a member of the perceived largest group of enemies.
To a true believer, any deviation honestly appears to be a product of the alleged vast right-wing conspiracy.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Maybe the reason it's remarkable is because the difference in likelihood of being killed by a police officer is dramatically different if you happen to be black?
Race | Actual | Expected | Difference
White | 35 | 64 | 55%
Black | 27 | 12 | 225%
Latino | 19 | 16 | 119%
You provided your own citation.