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?

Comments

Major Colvin

[somenickname]

"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.

Re:Major Colvin

[fustakrakich]

I have a feeling this situation is going to spiral out of control pretty quickly.

Yes, it probably will. Any RC toy car can be made to carry a bomb underneath your vehicle for very cheap. Bombing begets bombing and anger, not submission and obedience.

Good solution

[pete6677]

"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.

Re: Good solution

[C0R1D4N]

Surprised they didn't try gas first

Re: Good solution

[Black Parrot]

No, didn't you read it? They had No Other Option.

And a new toy to try.

Re:Good solution

[smelch]

The problem is that it's difficult to contain somebody who decides they are willing to die, which is obviously what this guy was willing to do when negotiations broke down. He'd proven he would and could kill. He wounded an officer in their shootout. So what do you do to contain him in a way that doesn't cost more lives? While police have given some of their life to their cause, their lives matter some amount greater than zero. This guys life was worth exactly nothing, he forfeited it. At any point he could've done any number of things. Using a gun to shoot him vs. using a remote controlled bomb is an arbitrary distinction.

This isn't an escalation. What is the difference between this and a sniper taking somebody out? The decision to kill from safety is the same in both cases.

Re:Good solution

[AK Marc]

He was no danger to the public. He was only a danger to officers that charged him. He had no supplies. A wait should have resulted in a peaceful resolution. There were enough cops to wait him out.

No, this was a gangland execution. The gang doing the execution was the cops, who are proving they are the real thugs.

Really?

[iamwhoiamtoday]

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.

Re:Really?

[guruevi]

Not really. It just shows that most police departments are lazy and rather revenge kill than protect. We've had standoffs last weeks when it involves private militia. The shooter was driven back into a hole and had no way out nor any hostages nor a viable target. He will run out of stamina, food, bullets eventually, but he already killed a cop so he must die that hour.

Re:Really?

[silas_moeckel]

The gunman was no longer an imminent threat it was murder plain and simple, they were not protecting citizens or even themselves. Step A in all police shootings needs to be would it be ok for a citizen to do this.

This is what paramilitary training does and what you expect in war but we need to not accept from our police.

Re:Really?

[dgatwood]

If they could blow up a bomb, they could have blown up a tear gas grenade just as easily, and if he came out shooting, shot him then. Somehow, the police using a bomb just seems wrong.

Re:Really?

[liquid_schwartz]

You already underpay them to an obscene degree. ...

Are you kidding me? Most cops make more than engineers when you factor in their benefits. Retire at age 55 with almost 100% pay, retire at age 58+ with >100% pay, Plus you never get a speeding ticket / DUI / or anything else unless it's caught on camera and goes viral. I'm kinda sorry I didn't become one.

Re:option for surrender

[Holi]

Absolutely wrong. Your way throws due process out the window, and makes our police force nothing more then a death squad. I am going to guess you are not an American since you seem to have no idea how our system of justice is supposed to work.

Re:option for surrender

[silas_moeckel]

The mear fact that some idiot gave the police a bomb in the first place. They have no need ever for that sort of ordinance. Anything past a breaching charge or a flashbang.

Re:No. This is an unprecedented shit in nothing.

[silas_moeckel]

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.

Re:option for surrender

[yodleboy]

" Next step is to eliminate the threat, if cops have to tie a bomb to a robot to do that, so what."

And this is where you are exactly, completely wrong. The role of CIVILIAN law enforcement is to apprehend the suspect using the least amount of force possible and turn them over to the judicial system. they are not there to assign guilt or innocence. they are not there to render punishment. they apprehend, collect the evidence, and that's it. The role of a MILITARY FORCE is to close with and destroy the enemy. I'm not comfortable with the blurring of that line. If they could strap a bomb on it, they could have put gas grenade or flash bang. The went instead for the most lethal option. If the suspect was in fact in a secured location with no means to escape then the correct choice was to wait it out. He will surrender or suicide eventually. It's been around 100 F in Dallas this week, and a few days in an open air parking garage without water would render him too weak to fight or unconscious.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Can't be

[twotacocombo]

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.

Re:Who first used a Robot for Murder?

[meerling]

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.