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.
http://philly.curbed.com/2013/5/13/10244298/how-philadelphia-became-the-city-that-bombed-itself
"It has been 28 years since police lieutenant Frank Powell leaned from a helicopter and tossed a gym bag packed with C-4 and Tovex explosives onto a residential rowhome in West Philadelphia, leading to the deaths of six adults and five children, along with the complete destruction of 61 homes.
On May 13, 1985 at about 5:30 PM, Philadelphia gained the immortal moniker of "The City That Bombed Itself"; a brutal ending to the city's longstanding struggle with an organization that called itself MOVE."
This is a tremendous shift. They didn't just detonate a bomb nearby the subject, the PLACED a bomb near the subject and detonated it. In my opinion that is not law enforcement, that's assassination.
Opinions aside there are a few questions raised: does the bomb squad keep a stock of bombs around? Are they fragmentary devices? Undirected charges or directional? Did they fabricate this bomb themselves or repurpose an existing explosive? Is this something they train for or were they improvising on scene (potentially risking even more lives)? Who made the risk/benefit determination? Similarly, who approved this action? The police chief? The Mayor? Governor? FBI? Justice department? Was compliance with the posse comitatus act waived? By whom?
In this case they did, they negotiated for hours. Pretty sure Micah X Johnson was not going to be taken alive.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
After killing an officer, the waiting for surrender bullshit goes straight out the window.
If you kill, you should expect to be killed, end of story.
Why are cops sacrosanct compared to the populous? what about due process?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
No sir I dont like it.
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.
" 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 based on user account deletion
Per wikipedia: "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%." So if you account for 52% of murders I would imagine you'd probably also account for about half of shootings by police and... guess what? Blacks make up about 50% of police shootings. -Keep in mind that blacks are only 12% of the population in the US.
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.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
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.
Some liberals lie and say they want "reasonable" gun restrictions when their goal is a total ban (except for the elites). It's all about getting the thin edge of the wedge under the door.
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”
Gun Control Misses Mark: Sen. Feinstein Shoots-off Mouth, Hits Foot
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns