Robot Snatches Rifle From Barricaded Suspect, Ends Standoff (latimes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robot Snatches Rifle From Barricaded Suspect, Ends Standoff (latimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday September 17, 2016 @11:34PM from the cornered-in-California dept.

Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the L.A. Times: An hours-long standoff in the darkness of the high desert came to a novel end when Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies used a robot to stealthily snatch a rifle from an attempted murder suspect, authorities said Thursday. Officials said the use of the robot to disarm a violent suspect was unprecedented for the Sheriff's Department, and comes as law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on military-grade technology to reduce the risk of injury during confrontations with civilians.

"The robot was a game changer here," said Capt. Jack Ewell, a tactical expert with the Sheriff's Department -- the largest sheriff's department in the nation. "We didn't have to risk a deputy's life to disarm a very violent man."
It was only later when the robot came back to also pull down a wire barricade that the 51-year-old suspect realized his gun was gone.

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bad to the bone by marovada · 2016-09-17 23:45 · Score: 0

I can't let you take the man's wheels, son.
Now get off or I'll put you down.
That's it, goddamn it.
the enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-17 23:49 · Score: 0

"comes as law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on military-grade technology to reduce the risk of injury during confrontations with civilians."
Nothing like being prepared for the enemy, right? You brave officers of the law.
1. Re:the enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  "comes as law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on military-grade technology to reduce the risk of injury during confrontations with civilians."
  Nothing like being prepared for the enemy, right? You brave officers of the law.
  Posted by someone who would likely crap their pants if faced with an armed and dangerous criminal.
2. Re:the enemy by alphatel · 2016-09-18 00:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Next logical step: Violent offenders using Robots to stage remote assaults.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
3. Re:the enemy by drinkypoo · 2016-09-18 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Next logical step: Violent offenders using Robots to stage remote assaults.
  It's been feasible for quite some years to load a remotely controlled vehicle up with explosives, and drive/fly it into a target. You can buy an off-the-shelf FPV rig that will function over a substantial distance, or you can use the cellular network. Yet, this is not happening. Why?
  It's been feasible for basically forever to cut the chain and walk into any power substation, set some explosives, and walk away. Many towns and even cities in this country are fed by only one or maybe two lines which are easy to take out. Yet, this is not happening. Why?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re: the enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Most criminals are pretty dumb fortunately.
5. Re:the enemy by rgbatduke · 2016-09-18 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, now if WE were nefarious Dr. Evil types, WE would be able to fill full sized buses with the name of your favorite rental car company on the side right up to the pickup area of any major metropolitan area, loaded not with a single drum of witchbrew nitro but with dozens of them, with walls lined with preformed shrapnel on the terminal side and with a concrete wall on the other to direct the explosion (and likely with heavy heavy duty shocks:-). Then sure, we could remote pilot it into place in any terminal in the country with an Airplane-style inflatable driver on the front seat and detonate it on Thanksgiving weekend at peak travel hours. Even if there IS somebody literally sitting on a camera watching, they'd have to be monitoring EVERY large vehicle that EVER enters the main airport, and the only monitoring that would work worth a damn is something fully automated (transponders on every permitted vehicle?) and then you have to defend the automation!
  OR, we could do pretty much the same thing with any of a number of small planes -- turn them into de facto cruise missiles and direct them straight at the containment vessel of a nuclear power plant, or better yet, at its spent fuel dump. Or turn a 21 foot power boat into an enormous remote control "torpedo" and take out a cruise ship. The most nefarious of WE could probably figure out the laser enrichment trick, beg borrow buy steal a few dozen tons of Uranium, enrich our own U235 in our basement, and build a REAL bomb and simply drop it in the middle of any random city, anywhere. Or, if Uranium is all locked down maybe we could buy up less-controlled Thorium and cook it down into bomb grade U233. Yes, these require a really big basement, but plenty of countries, all drug lords, and lots of billionaires all have "big basements". The drug lords already have fully debugged means of delivery that don't even require electronics!
  All of these things are why Homeland Security people get ulcers. They aren't stupid, or at least some of them aren't stupid, and they probably have whole spreadsheets of identified pathways for bad people to do bad things (and activities that "might" serve as a signal for these bad things in preparation). And they know that all of this is really pissing into the wind -- just as 9/11 came out of the blue, the next attack will come out of the blue, and EVEN if it follows one of the identified scenarios, they ultimately rely as much on luck as anything else to detect it and successfully intervene. They just haven't been too lucky, recently. Too much dike -- a UNIVERSE of dike, all rotten and crumbling in the storm -- and not enough fingers.
  Ultimately, one has to hope that smart people are too smart, usually, to want to mass-murder their neighbors. Admittedly, history doesn't provide a whole lot of support for this hope, but in the end, anybody who really IS smart, and patient, and who has the resources to invest in it (big tour bus sized buses aren't all that cheap, and it isn't that easy to buy the materials to make good explosives or to make GOOD chemical explosives, defined to be ones that blow up when you want them to instead of when you are halfway through making them and get crystallization of unstable nitrates on the lips of your reaction vessels) can probably figure out a bunch of ways to kill people hundreds to thousands at a time, especially if they don't care WHO they kill or WHEN it happens and can just target any old event where large numbers of people are concentrated in a comparatively small space.
  There was a science fiction short story I remember reading (but I cannot remember who wrote it, or when) where somebody discovered a way of basically destroying the world using the moral equivalent of household cleaners from under the sink. The "recipe" was widely disbursed so suddenly everybody -- everybody -- knew how to kill every other person in the world (and themselves). The story explored whether suddenly every human alive would instantly become moral and treat everybody else as if they co
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
6. Re:the enemy by AchilleTalon · 2016-09-18 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  You are an idiot or an ignorant. Like you can enrich uranium in your basement to military grade using your kitchen pots. Or destroy a nuclear plant containement vessel with small airplanes and so on. Seems you have an blockbusters overdose here.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
7. Re:the enemy by ColdWetDog · 2016-09-18 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  "Sir, please come with us. Quietly. We have a robot here."
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:the enemy by ColdWetDog · 2016-09-18 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  "You too, sir, please come with us. Quietly. We have a robot here."
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
9. Re:the enemy by LifesABeach · 2016-09-18 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it's time to start building a system that is 3 Laws Safe?
10. Re:the enemy by sydsavage · 2016-09-18 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  More than feasible:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
11. Re:the enemy by mysidia · 2016-09-18 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's been feasible for quite some years to load a remotely controlled vehicle up with explosives, and drive/fly it into a target.
  It IS a problem that flying Drones are being used by criminals, though, to do things such as smuggle drugs into prisons. So remote controlled small vehicles are used for a crime, but those are commodities widely available to everyone.
  As far as I know, the use of explosives and complex systems in the commission of a crime are pretty rare, and requires technical
  skill and knowledge that most violent offenders don't have. Remote controlled vehicles of significant size are highly-expensive or require specialized knowledge to configure, also, most people wouldn't have access to instructions and materials to make a large explosion; certainly not commodities that are within the capability of the average person to setup.
  Also, violent offenders are probably in most cases not driven to murder as many people as possible as quickly as possible;
  Offenders have either become mentally unstable, OR want to accomplish something by targeting individual people for different reasons, these are not the kind of crimes that have an executive plan made out months in advance, with the acquisition of large bill of materials and implementation of bespoke devices to support their crime; If it's not sold at Wal-mart, a local store, or some popular Website ready to go, then it's probably not really going to be used in crimes.
12. Re: the enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Some of that is silly, but preparing Sarin or explosives is hardly unprecedented. Fortunately, most people either aren't sociopathic or patient enough to really harm a lot of people.
13. Re:the enemy by rgbatduke · 2016-09-18 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  You are an idiot or an ignorant.
  Possibly both at the same time! Let's see:
  http://newatlas.com/silex-lase...
  Hmmm, 1/5th the cost already affordable by nearly any "kitchen pot" dictatorship around the world. And this isn't new technology -- rumor in the physics world has it that this is how Israel has been making its bombs for decades. So right, not quite in my kitchen with my pots, but in a small warehouse somewhere? Maybe, if I have a few million and access to uranium 238 (which is, one profoundly hopes, not THAT easy to arrange, actually). In a small production facility in (pick a place loosely controlled by your favorite world group that you really don't want to have nuclear devices)? Without question. It's just a matter of time, although frankly centrifuges are already more than sufficient to build uranium bombs with or to enrich fuel-grade uranium to where you can cook out plutonium. Plutonium is, no argument, hard to squeeze off in a bomb, but enriched Uranium is laughably easy.
  Thorium is arguably more of a challenge. For one thing, making U233 involves the Pa chain and a breeder reactor that makes lots of gamma rays and neutrons, so it probably isn't a good candidate for basements unless one's basement has thick lead and concrete walls and one has a degree in nuclear engineering. OTOH, separating out U233 is just chemistry once you get there. So far, it has been easier and cheaper to stick to U235 and plutonium for reasons that are well described and discussed elsewhere:
  https://whatisnuclear.com/arti...
  but there is little doubt that one can make bombs from Thorium, and further, that the bombs you make are the nice, easy to manage Uranium bombs and not the nasty, prematurely detonating fizzling fissioning (unless you build them just right) plutonium bombs. You can store the bomb grade material without any particular precautions other than keeping it subcritical and our borders are totally porous (a nation's worth of heroin addicts agree!) so again, a terror group in any country that has access to e.g. Monazite sands -- India, Australia, Madagascar, Western North Carolina... can if they wish follow this alternative route to a Uranium bomb that doesn't even require a laser OR a centrifuge (although it does require building a breeder with a chemical separation step, plus some fuel grade material to get it started). Basement stuff? I was kidding -- or being sarcastic if you prefer -- because while no, one cannot do it in a literal garage, it is still a technology well within the reach of middle-tier proliferation risks who might have a comparatively hard time getting their hands on Uranium.
  Best of all, nowadays they could trumpet to the world that they were fixing Global Warming by building thorium based nuclear self-sufficiency and all it takes in a MSR is to divert the breeder-enriched salts into a chemical extraction step and siphon off a steady supply of bomb-grade material. Material that you can even show that you NEED (in at least some capacity) to restart your reactor after fuelling or start a new one...
  The point is -- to repeat myself -- that killing large numbers of people is easy enough to be nearly impossible to prevent if:
  a) You don't care if you die yourself in the process;
  b) You don't care who you kill, and are perfectly happy to take the lowest hanging fruit you can find if people take steps to protect one possible target (say, the super bowl). Are people going to be able to provide the same protection to every football, soccer, basketball game, forever? How about airports, train stations? How about high-profile, expensive, human filled skyscrapers in every city?
  c) You have at least some money to put towards the project. To kill more than 100 people at a time will likely require some investment and a co
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
14. Re:the enemy by blindseer · 2016-09-18 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Basement stuff? I was kidding -- or being sarcastic if you prefer -- because while no, one cannot do it in a literal garage, it is still a technology well within the reach of middle-tier proliferation risks who might have a comparatively hard time getting their hands on Uranium.
  I'd call it hyperbole. That's just me though.
  
  but there is little doubt that one can make bombs from Thorium, and further, that the bombs you make are the nice, easy to manage Uranium bombs and not the nasty, prematurely detonating fizzling fissioning (unless you build them just right) plutonium bombs.
  There is a lot of doubt that anyone can build a thorium bomb because no one has done so yet. Even using thorium to breed U-233 for a bomb is theoretical.
  Your claim that someone can "simply" extract U-233 from a breeder is idiotic. Thorium breeders operate on slim margins of neutrons, extracting too many neutrons risks the reactor going sub-critical. Going sub-critical means the reaction stops. Removing U-233 means removing neutrons.
  Thorium reactors require a fissile starter fuel to operate. This usually takes the form of enriched U-235 but Pu-239 and U-233 have been used and proposed as well. If one has the means to obtain the U-235 or Pu-239 to start their thorium reactor then why would they bother with the U-233 to make a bomb?
  I've communicated with real nuclear engineers online about the proliferation resistance of thorium breeder reactors and while using them to produce weapons grade material is theoretically possible it is highly impractical. If one has a breeder reactor and chemical separation facilities capable of handling radioactive materials then it would be much easier to get weapon grade plutonium than use the much more dangerous to handle U-233 to make a weapon.
  You seem to claim that one can just dig up thorium from beach sand, run it through a breeder reactor, and weapon grade U-233 poops out. What is missing is the starter fuel, which needs to come from a particle accelerator, some other kind of reactor, or some kind of enrichment process. That starter fuel for the thorium reactor, whatever it's form, would be much more useful for a weapon than the U-233 that comes out of the thorium breeder.
  What is more probable is using a thorium breeder to produce weapon grade plutonium. The problem is that the rate of production would be very slow but the purity would be very high. How slow? How pure? It depends on the reactor. The benefit with this reactor is that one can start with a low quality fuel, like low enriched uranium, and end up with a high quality fuel, weapon grade plutonium.
  Read your source citation again. They claim it is theoretically possible but they make no claims on its practicality compared to other materials. They also show no evidence of a successful test.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
15. Re:the enemy by drinkypoo · 2016-09-18 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately, one has to hope that smart people are too smart, usually, to want to mass-murder their neighbors. Admittedly, history doesn't provide a whole lot of support for this hope,
  The other problem is that the "missing pieces" from the puzzle are all basically toy technology. Anybody who can understand basic (and I mean really basic) electronics and follow a howto can build a GPS-guided drone. And since IEDs are a thing, we know that "they" know how to blow stuff up real good. In fact, we gave many of "them" the training. It's very like how we know that Saddam did at one time have WMDs: We kept the receipts.
  
  Personally, I think that if you put a magic button that would destroy the entire world in front of every person on Earth, the button would be pressed almost instantly by millions of people worldwide. It isn't a story that would end well.
  This general train of thought, coupled with the one I expressed earlier, is why I think that terrorists are incredibly rare. Doing this stuff is trivial on the scale of things they're already doing.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:the enemy by Maritz · 2016-09-18 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Could it be because the terrorist threat is massively exaggerated? Maybe?
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
17. Re:the enemy by Maritz · 2016-09-18 21:49 · Score: 2
  
  We don't have robots that know what 'humans' or 'harm' are yet, though.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
18. Re: the enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-20 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't kill us.
They disarmed him? by Calydor · 2016-09-17 23:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
1. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yes, this is not American. I'm pretty sure they violated his Second Amendment rights by disarming rather than killing him.
2. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, you see, this guy probably isn't black, and probably didn't kill any of their cop buddies, so instead of being outright executed he gets to have his day in court.
3. Re:They disarmed him? by tomhath · 2016-09-18 00:07 · Score: 2
  
  He also wasn't shooting at them.
4. Re:They disarmed him? by Joce640k · 2016-09-18 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?
  That's step 2 of this plan for "confrontation with civilians".
  
  --
  No sig today...
5. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Police officer fired for not shooting a suspect:
  http://www.post-gazette.com/lo...
  (not the Onion).
6. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? One good cop fired and the two trigger happy asshats praised and rewarded. That's just sick.
7. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Fear not citizen, for in the future, the Order-Restore(r) robots will be equipped with meat axes and Go Pro cameras to entertain and educate the masses.
8. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Twitch streams where Americans gamify the use of remote drones in lawless warzones.
  Tip $5 to fire mounted flamethrower! Tip $10 for 10 minutes of joypad control!
  Ding ding ding!
9. Re:They disarmed him? by Calydor · 2016-09-18 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Only because they took his gun! That's unconstitutional!
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
10. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?
  This suspect was likely white.
11. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-18 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?
  He was a white guy. If he'd been black, they would have nuked him from space.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-18 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  He also wasn't shooting at them.
  Neither was Tyre King or Tamir Rice, and that didn't stop police from gunning them down. In fact, they didn't even have real guns.
  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
  http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
13. Re:They disarmed him? by PrimaryConsult · 2016-09-18 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This deserves an up-vote; further proof that law enforcement agencies are actively trying to filter out anyone who thinks on the job. They thought an ex-marine would be trigger happy like the rest of them, forgetting that the actual marines need to think on their feet to avoid international incidents.
14. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's evident that any good cop is a liability for the interests of the rest of them so can't let that happen. The question is if the taxpayers will let them abuse their trust one more way.
15. Re:They disarmed him? by tomhath · 2016-09-18 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I'll correct myself to say he didn't point what looked like a gun at them in a manner that made them think he was going to shoot them.
16. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you and fuck your race card, the weapon of the weak of the mind.
17. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-18 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I'll correct myself to say he didn't point what looked like a gun at them in a manner that made them think he was going to shoot them.
  You need to add, "...while black".
  Remember this guy at the Bundy standoff in Nevada?
  http://static1.businessinsider...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
18. Re:They disarmed him? by Solandri · 2016-09-18 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  That suspect was holding his rifle and actively searching all around him for any threats. The robot positioned the explosives out of sight, behind a brick wall. Technically the robot wasn't needed - a person could've done it. But the Dallas Police decided to sacrifice the robot rather than risk sending a person in there to plant the explosives.
  
  If you read TFA, in this case the suspect was lying prone on his stomach, with the rifle at his feet. The police distracted him by yelling at him over megaphones and buzzing him with a helicopter, while the robot took the rifle.
19. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, when the cops were out gunned and out numbered by people with a legal right to be where they were, they weren't stupid enough try to shoot them.
  As opposed to King or Rice, both of whom were threatening people, then when the cops appeared to stop the supposed violent crime, pulled out the gun and pointed it at the police.
  The fact that it wasn't a real gun doesn't matter - it looked exactly like one. Any reasonable person seeing it would assume it was a real gun.
20. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?
  Well, you see, they only had one of those...
21. Re: They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Tyre was an A student who, at the sweet age of 13, was already involved in assault and robbery. Imagine what a wonderful person he would have become if allowed to blossom in a juvenile correction facility...
22. Re:They disarmed him? by KiloByte · 2016-09-18 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  He was fired for endangering his colleagues and innocent bystanders. If you risk your own life to make a live arrest of an armed and dangerous perp who's clearly not going to submit, that's your decision, but he could easily have caused the deaths of others. And it wasn't the only offense he was fired for -- this was his third strike.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
23. Re:They disarmed him? by LifesABeach · 2016-09-18 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ran out of bombs? This IS law enforcement we're talking about; they're keeping KAOS at bay...
24. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  My read: He was fired for showing up his colleagues and department.
  You know that saying about how B-level managers hire C-level people, because they see A-level people as a threat? It applies to B-level police chiefs as well.
25. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  So the Dallas robot was a terrorist suicide murderer, and the LA robot is a ninja. Bad Ass Robot of the Year (BARY) Award goes to LAPD robot.
26. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  fuck you
27. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, when the cops were out gunned and out numbered by people with a legal right to be where they were
  Did you look at the picture the GP linked? There's no legal right to brandish firearms at anyone, including police officers. I think the police are generally way too trigger happy, but those people should have been shot. Fairly hard to do since they considered it ok to use unarmed women and children as human shields (and, in fact, were enthusiastic about them being shot since it would give them a justification for self-righteous fury).
28. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  So what would your reaction be if this "A-level" person's suspicions had been incorrect and an officer ended up wounded/dead because of his decision?
29. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  really? which war has the US won on it's own?
30. Re:They disarmed him? by dcooper_db9 · 2016-09-18 17:08 · Score: 2
  
  Not according to the chief who recommended termination or the city manager who actually fired him. They say it had nothing to do with the shooting.
  This officer is wrong about one thing. He should find a decent lawyer. In PA you can fire someone without giving a reason but if you fire someone for cause it has to be legal. The city now says the officer was fired for the two earlier incidents, but he was never reprimanded. The letter of termination had two pages detailing what the officer did wrong in the shooting and two sentences each that mention the other incidents.
  One of the incidents was a failure to report a DOA. That incident involved the same two officers involved in the shooting. They had 14 and 11 years of experience. This officer had 11 months. None of the three officers reported the DOA and the more experienced officers were not disciplined.
  The other incident was a complaint from a citizen who's husband was arrested. She accused the officer of swearing. Give me a break, if every cop that cursed were fired we wouldn't have any police at all.
  Look, I don't have a problem with the shooting. These officers had every right to defend themselves. But I do have a problem with a police chief who fires a cop and then lies about his reasons. This chief even gave a press conference where he told the public that all three officers were back on the job. That was less than 24 hours after he fired the rookie.
  
  --
  I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
31. Re:They disarmed him? by Maritz · 2016-09-18 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  On it's own what?
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
32. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-19 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  No, what this means is that every cop is now going to shoot to kill in every situation to save their jobs. Speeding, shoot to kill. Not using a blinker, shoot to kill. Jaywalking shoot to kill.
  The general public has become the enemy. Avoid the police at all cost.
33. Re:They disarmed him? by ebvwfbw · 2016-09-19 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to sending in the robot with a bomb to kill the suspect?
  That's so last month. Self awareness is just around the corner. Next - skynet.
34. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-19 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, what this means is that every cop is now going to shoot to kill in every situation to save their jobs... Not using a blinker, shoot to kill.
  This is an appropriate response.
35. Re:They disarmed him? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-21 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Read through the account, and the other articles that it links to. The chief lied to the public, disciplined this officer for some actions while ignoring other involved officers, and never gave the fired officer a chance to defend his actions. Heck, he didn't even have the courtesy to contact the guy and let him know about the decision to fire him.
  Basically, calling the chief B-level is probably a compliment.
  So what would your reaction be if this "A-level" person's suspicions had been incorrect and an officer ended up wounded/dead because of his decision?
  The word you are looking for is judgement; not suspicions, judgement. He was the only officer on the scene for much of the encounter, and in his judgement, he had the situation under control.
  You can legitimately critique his judgement here, but I don't think your question is based on looking carefully at what happened. Instead, you are implying that he should have just opened fire, because he had an excuse, and you know, bad stuff maybe possibly might have happened.
  That's the opposite of judgement.
36. Re:They disarmed him? by Coren22 · 2016-09-21 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Pulling a BB gun that looks like a handgun and pointing it at police should be expected to result in that action. Would you rather the police instead got shot if it were a real firearm? Do you expect the police to be able to distinguish between a firearm and a BB gun designed to appear as a firearm?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
37. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-21 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Pulling a BB gun that looks like a handgun and pointing it at police should be expected to result in that action.
  How about pulling an actual sniper rifle and pointing it at police?
  http://static1.businessinsider...
  http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
38. Re:They disarmed him? by Coren22 · 2016-09-21 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  What does that have to do with the particular incidents you talked about that I responded to?
  Pulling a gun on a police officer in a threatening manner often will lead to your death, even if the gun turns out to be a BB gun designed to look like a handgun.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
39. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-21 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Pulling a gun on a police officer in a threatening manner often will lead to your death, even if the gun turns out to be a BB gun designed to look like a handgun.
  If you're black, you don't even need to pull a gun. You just need to be black.
  https://www.yahoo.com/news/vid...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
40. Re:They disarmed him? by Coren22 · 2016-09-21 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Because of course, certain isolated incidents are now the normal and indicate that this is what the police are supposed to do?
  These incidents happen with white people all the time, but because they aren't black, it doesn't even make more than the local news. Supposedly being a police officer is scary, but maybe if we removed those officers who are proven to do the wrong thing, things will start getting better. However, trying to hold police to some kind of higher standard when the shootings are justified...that is just silliness.
  You start out with two incidents where kids pointed non guns that looked quite close to guns at the police and were shot, now you are totally off on a tangent about an incident where police officers will likely go to jail. Do you have a point in here somewhere? The police get locked up too when they do the wrong thing, acting like they always get off, and are all bad doesn't solve any problems, but that is what the media has been doing recently.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
41. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-21 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  certain isolated incidents
  There have been 15 black men killed by police just since Colin Kaepernick started kneeling during the anthem a couple of weeks ago. They're not "isolated incidents" any more.
  And if "pulling a gun on law enforcement" is what it takes to get shot by police, why is the guy who set up with his sniper rifle and trained it on FBI at the Bundy standoff still walking around without repercussions?
  You know your story about the kid with the BB gun getting killed by police? Look what happens when it's a white guy:
  http://www.wmur.com/news/polic...
  Here's what happens when a white guy points his rifle at cops:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
  And here's what happens when a drunken white guy pulls a gun on cops:
  http://www.wfmj.com/story/2775...
  If you'd like, I could go on and on and on. Being white in this country has privileges. One of them is the Second Amendment.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
42. Re:They disarmed him? by Coren22 · 2016-09-21 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps that is different people acting in different ways and different situations dealt with in different ways.
  How many white people have been killed by police? How many of the black people were in the process of committing a crime? How many were justified self defense? You act like every time a black person dies by police, it is all about the police being in the wrong. Do you expect that the police aren't subject to the same justice as a citizen?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
43. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-21 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Do you expect that the police aren't subject to the same justice as a citizen?
  We've seen for certain that police are not subject to the same justice as citizens.
  http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
44. Re:They disarmed him? by Coren22 · 2016-09-21 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you point at that as some kind of miscarriage of justice just shows how wrong you are. You do realize that that one was ruled self defense, and that every witness except the kid's friend said that Wilson was defending himself? I suppose when your view is so slanted, even justified self defense looks like murder, but I suppose you think that someone who assaulted a police officer, tried to take his gun, and discharged the firearm within the car somehow was innocent?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
45. Re:They disarmed him? by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-21 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you point at that as some kind of miscarriage of justice just shows how wrong you are. You do realize that that one was ruled self defense, and that every witness except the kid's friend said that Wilson was defending himself?
  You mention only one of the many cases described in that article. Some police officer were found guilty and still received no punishment.
  There are two clear videos of Terrence Crutcher being shot down by police (who all had tazers by the way). From two different angles, showing the entire encounter. If there hadn't been a video, do you doubt that the police would have planted a gun on the dead man? Oh yeah, we have video of police doing exactly that. If most police are good, then why don't they arrest the bad ones?
  The cop who killed him, Betty Shelby (she has a history of drug use, harassment and domestic violence, by the way) is not on paid administrative leave. And Terrence Crutcher, who was guilty of his car breaking down, is dead. She's a thug with a badge.
  There is clearly a miscarriage of justice. It's not even close. White people who point loaded guns at police are arrested peacefully and black people with their hands up are shot in the back.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Cyberdyne Shares by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-09-18 00:00 · Score: 1

I see Cyberdyne Systems shares are up today.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 00:08 · Score: 3, Informative

No, it's really not obligatory. It's old and tired.
It's beginning.... by Nidi62 · 2016-09-18 00:23 · Score: 4, Funny

The robots have begun to steal weapons. It's only a matter of time before the uprising starts.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:It's beginning.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  it was only a matter of time before these stupid comments would start. Congrats fuckwit.
2. Re:It's beginning.... by pedz · 2016-09-18 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  The government that governs least governs best. The citizenry that cares the least gets governed worst.
  I don't care. I just want an iPhone with the bigger GBs.
3. Re:It's beginning.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  "they will only take my gun away when they pry it from my cold steel fingers" - the robot
4. Re:It's beginning.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Having his gun snatched away by a robot? Is this guy Harrison Ford in "Blade Runner"?
5. Re:It's beginning.... by RespekMyAthorati · 2016-09-18 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  I just want an iPhone with the bigger GBs.
  I just want a girlfriend with bigger Bs.
6. Re:It's beginning.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-19 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  You know, you could always ask Siri for her measurements. Happy medium!
A little sensational? by orlanz · 2016-09-18 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

The boring short version: So they noticed the idiot left his gun at his feet while laying flat on his belly in a small dune with a wire fence. The operator extended the arm through the wire fence and yanked it out. With the police up front and a helicopter above, he didn't notice.
I guess ExtendaReach to the rescue? I feel sorry for the operators who don't get any credit. I wonder if those firefighter axes got similar treatment. "Firefighter Ax clears way out of burning building for trapped firefighter and baby."
1. Re:A little sensational? by tomhath · 2016-09-18 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  I feel sorry for the operators who don't get any credit.
  If you had bothered to read the first sentence of the summary you would know that they did get credit.
  
  Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies used a robot to stealthily snatch a rifle from an attempted murder suspect
2. Re:A little sensational? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-18 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I was wondering how someone wouldn't notice a robot sneaking up on him, but now I know. What kind of moron puts down his weapon like that? (Answer, a total nutbag, apparently.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:A little sensational? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he did it deliberately so that he would not get taken out by a sniper if he had been holding the weapon.
4. Re:A little sensational? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-18 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he did it deliberately so that he would not get taken out by a sniper if he had been holding the weapon.
  From the story it sounds more like he just put it down temporarily while doing something.
  Slow down cowboy! Because Slashdot is only for slow people
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:A little sensational? by Darkling-MHCN · 2016-09-18 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  http://i.huffpost.com/gen/9849...
The next protest movement by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-09-18 01:09 · Score: 0

Public: "Human lives matter!"
Cops: "Bite my shiny metal ass!"
Yiip Yap by onyxruby · 2016-09-18 01:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems every time someone discovers how to do old thing on a new medium and it makes news. Put missiles on a drone, bully someone online, use a new technology to commit a heinous crime? All of these things received widespread news coverage, when they are really nothing more than pencils with erasers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
In reality these are human nature stories, not technology stories. There is nothing new here, just the combination of things that have already been invented. I want to hear about innovation and invention, not pencil erasers. This is a technology site and should be better than this.
1. Re:Yiip Yap by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at your submissions over the past couple of years I don't see any about innovation and invention. Just you complaining about things.
2. Re:Yiip Yap by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  But will the police patent stealing somebody's weapons with a drone?
The pecking order by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 01:13 · Score: 1

Of course, they would have sent in the DEPUTY instead of the robot to disarm the suspect. Wouldn't want to risk anyone with seniority...
Not blowed up? by AndyKron · 2016-09-18 01:18 · Score: 0

Why didn't they blow him up like that other guy?
1. Re:Not blowed up? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Presumably to avoid damaging the robot.
2. Re:Not blowed up? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  It would've been cooler to have the robot shoot him with his own gun.
Today's Dilbert by pedz · 2016-09-18 01:18 · Score: 2

http://images.protopage.com/im...
The good news by c · 2016-09-18 01:24 · Score: 2

Fortunately for the suspect, arming a robot isn't a criminal offence or they'd probably charge him for it.

--
Log in or piss off.
Good News Everybody! by Herkum01 · 2016-09-18 01:59 · Score: 2

We got a robot that is stealing stuff, we are finally making progress on creating bending units and robot personalities.
1. Re:Good News Everybody! by AchilleTalon · 2016-09-18 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  In case you haven't noticed, robot here stands for a remote controlled vehicle equipped with some remotely controlled gizmos. This isn't an autonomous robot programmed with a mission and making decisions on how to accomplish it.
  
  --
  Achille Talon
  Hop!
2. Re:Good News Everybody! by Herkum01 · 2016-09-18 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  The WHOOSHING sound that you heard is the Planet Express Ship flying over your head.
3. Re:Good News Everybody! by blindseer · 2016-09-18 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why not Zoidberg?
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That's not all it took by DrXym · 2016-09-18 02:13 · Score: 5, Funny

It also took his clothes, his boots and his motorcycle.
1. Re:That's not all it took by drew_kime · 2016-09-18 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  And his sunglasses. Damn, how could you forget that?
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
2. Re:That's not all it took by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-18 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  It also took his clothes, his boots and his motorcycle.
  Thanks for that. Best laugh off the week.
3. Re:That's not all it took by blindseer · 2016-09-18 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  And, he forgot to say, "Please."
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
4. Re:That's not all it took by antdude · 2016-09-18 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sun glasses, dude.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
New NRA slogan by colinrichardday · 2016-09-18 02:23 · Score: 1

You'll get my gun when your robot takes it from me.
Yet Another Robot/Waldo Nuisance Story by TheRealHocusLocus · 2016-09-18 02:23 · Score: 1

Where's Waldo? Everywhere.
Where's the robot? Still trying to climb stairs.
When robots finally do arrive we won't realize that it happened, because the word 'robot' will have been applied to every device out there to which no human is presently attached, but yet is attached through the miracle of radio.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN squinting into a video display with a joystick in his hand... THIS... IS... A... ROBOT!

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
1. Re:Yet Another Robot/Waldo Nuisance Story by BronsCon · 2016-09-18 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why yes, that's what a robot is. You're thinking androids.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
IED by GrahamJ · 2016-09-18 02:35 · Score: 1

At least the robot wasn't carrying a bomb this time.
Police overreach by thegarbz · 2016-09-18 02:40 · Score: 1, Funny

What ever happened to the second amendment! This is just the cops over-reaching and infringing on my constitutional rights again!
1. Re:Police overreach by blindseer · 2016-09-18 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, right! And prisons infringe on my right to assemble! [/snark]
  Oh please. I'm likely one of the biggest proponents of the Second Amendment you'll ever hear from and yet I recognize the need for police to disarm those intent on harming others. It's kind of the point of the Second Amendment, isn't it? To be able to stop the other guy before they stop you? Doing so without killing them is always preferred but not always possible.
  Or, more succinctly, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.
  Also, I find the logic over guns from the Democrats rather hypocritical. They will claim that the police are hunting and killing people, especially young Black men. They will also claim that if you feel threatened then you should not carry a gun, only rely on the police to carry guns to protect you. Tell me, if all of these police gone mustang are hunting down unarmed citizens then would it not be logical to allow these victims of police harassment to arm themselves against these police officers? If these police officers are murderers then do they still have the legal protections of acting under the color of law? I'd think not because if so then it's not just the individual police officer killing innocent citizens it is our government. The government should want these mustang officers gone as much as the citizenry, and therefore should not be concerned if they are shot, even if that means killing them rather than just injuring them.
  So Democrats, which is it, are police bad or are they good? If they are bad then I'd think we should be rid of the police, or at least disarm them like any other citizen. If they are good then we should not fear being shot by them and they can keep their guns.
  For a long time the police were the good guys and at least the reliance on them to protect us from the bad guys had some logic to it. A flawed logic since an armed public could then assist the police in controlling crime but that can be explained away with things like access to cellphones with cameras so that people could at least be good witnesses. When the police became the bad guys then we are at a place where we cannot allow the public to be armed, or the police to be armed, but yet the criminals are armed. How is an unarmed person, common citizen or police, supposed to stop a criminal armed with a lethal weapon?
  Criminals should be disarmed. To do so takes people that are also armed. If people can disarm a criminal with a wheeled drone then that works for me. It also means that the "arms" as protected by the Second Amendment includes many things, such as wheeled drones.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
2. Re:Police overreach by thegarbz · 2016-09-19 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit man, I was going for a LOL not a novel!
Brock Ray Bunge is a rather unique name by GrumpySteen · 2016-09-18 02:44 · Score: 1

I'm guessing he started shooting because his construction work wasn't killing enough people.
Re: Nuked from space by hackwrench · 2016-09-18 02:52 · Score: 1

Well, of course! It's the only way to be sure...
"Please put down your weapon... by Harold+Halloway · 2016-09-18 03:18 · Score: 1

...you have 20 seconds to comply."
Re:Oblig by ColdWetDog · 2016-09-18 04:11 · Score: 1, Troll

So are you.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I cant decide... by WolfgangVL · 2016-09-18 06:40 · Score: 2

Does this get the Robocop joke? Terminator? Jonny 5? Robot overlord?
Wait....Go-Go Gadget Extendo.......no. Forget it. I'm not funny.

--
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
More importantly... by BronsCon · 2016-09-18 06:58 · Score: 1

"The robot was a game changer here," said Capt. Jack Ewell, a tactical expert with the Sheriff's Department -- the largest sheriff's department in the nation. "We didn't have to risk a deputy's life to disarm a very violent man."
More importantly, nobody had to die. They were able to diffuse the situation without filling the guy with bullets, he gets his day in court, and there's no police scandal surrounding his death. This is a win; now, if every other PD would follow suit and use some of their "urban tank" budget on these instead.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
1. Re:More importantly... by ebvwfbw · 2016-09-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be so sure. Assholes will still argue BS. The robot is racist, or the guy running it is racist, or they have the wrong guy somehow... anything to put BS out there. Anything to try to get away with committing criminal acts.
2. Re:More importantly... by BronsCon · 2016-09-19 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be so sure of what? That nobody had to die? Well, the robot went in and disarmed the suspect. Nobody died and the situation was diffused. The situation ended, no shots were fired, and nobody died. I'm absolutely sure nobody had to die to diffuse and end that situation.
  
  Regardless of any claims of racism, or that they got the wrong guy, that may or may not arise, the situation was diffused with nobody having to die. Whether or not a scandal arises from the use of the robot, no scandal will arise from the death of the suspect (which is all I claimed) because the suspect didn't die. I'm, again, absolutely sure of that.
  
  And if more police departments used these unarmed robots instead of putting their poorly trained and well-armed officers in situations they're really and truly not trained to handle (they used to be, but not so much in the past couple decades, ask any cop who's been on the force for that long), those poorly trained officers wouldn't feel threatened enough to (or be in a physical location where they even could) shoot and kill potentially innocent suspects. Not that this guy was (even potentially) innocent, but that's for the court system to decide, not the cops. That's two more things I'm absolutely sure of.
  
  And yes, that would be a win. That makes 5.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
3. Re:More importantly... by ebvwfbw · 2016-09-19 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Let me be very blunt - sometimes when someone dies, it's not a bad thing. I know this concept is hard, sometimes very foreign to people.
4. Re:More importantly... by BronsCon · 2016-09-19 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, no, I fully get that. That's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. It's still up to the courts system to dole out that punishment, though; not the police.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
5. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-19 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's a foreign concept to anyone who values life.
6. Re:More importantly... by ebvwfbw · 2016-09-19 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  And back to what I was saying originally. I'm afraid they'll use (be required to use) this instead of taking more decisive action, such as killing the guy while the rest of us are put at risk.
  It's really simple and some activist have come to understand this after some police departments have taken then through some training - if they're compliant, no problem. Act like a dumbass, suffer dumbass consequences. I'm kind of for making sure dumbasses suffer dumbass consequences instead of sticking it to the rest of us to save these people. They'll just go out and do it again. A leopard doesn't change it's spots as a state trooper explained to me.
7. Re:More importantly... by BronsCon · 2016-09-19 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what your experience is, but every cop I know (that's more than a handful, from local deputies all the way up to federal agents) would much rather peacefully diffuse every situation if possible. They hate paperwork and the paperwork involved in dutiful discharge of a weapon is bad enough; the paperwork involved in shooting a suspect is hell for them.
  
  Are there situations where this robot would not be ideal? Of course there are, quite a number of them; in fact, they're likely the majority. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.
  
  And yes, cops do make mistakes and it's not entirely unheard of for them to shoot or arrest the wrong person. It's not up to the cops to dole out punishment; their job is to apprehend and let the court system dole out punishment.
  
  Again, that's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. And, again, that's for the courts to dole out, not the cops.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Overheard at the encounter by Provocateur · 2016-09-18 07:10 · Score: 1

Dead or alive, you're coming with me!

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Improved application of robotics by meerling · 2016-09-18 07:31 · Score: 1

Sure beats all to hell those cowardly idiots that strapped a bomb to a robot and blew up an armed suspect.
U-233 is worthless for bombs by blindseer · 2016-09-18 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative

U-233 bombs are theoretical and the handful of times it has been tried were failures. The "failures" didn't mean they didn't explode since the conventional explosives used to initiate the nuclear reaction is sufficient to cause considerable damage and turn the core into a dirty bomb. Those that did achieve fission with U-233 did so only with a mix with another fuel, U-235 or Pu-239, and with a yield lower than expected. The value of U-233 to "boost" the yield of a weapon is debatable because of the results of these tests. Other materials and methods, like common natural uranium as a second or third stage, are much more feasible. This still leaves the value of U-233 as a primary fission source as theoretical.
Another problem with using U-233 as a weapon core is dealing with U-232 contamination. U-232 has a bad habit of decaying with it's (relatively) short half life and sometimes doing so with spontaneous fission. The radiation from the weapon core might be dealt with by using heavy shielding or by not caring if the laborers get potentially lethal doses of radiation. Another way to deal with it is to allow the U-232 to decay away but that requires lengthy planning. By "lengthy" I mean waiting out the ~70 year half life long enough that the unwanted isotopes decay away. If one is dealing with U-232 by simply not caring about the radiation load then there is still the problem of the spontaneous fission. I'm not sure what those effects would be but I assume it means a short shelf life for the weapon, a potential "fizzile" (extremely low yield), and possibly premature detonation. None of those effects can be good.
Use of U-233 as a weapon core is so far from practical that it may as well be considered impossible. Obtaining useful quantities of sufficiently pure U-235 and/or Pu-239 is so much easier that weaponizing U-233 will likely never be attempted again. If it is attempted then it will be by some people that are very desperate or people with enough experience in making nuclear weapons that the U-233 bomb would be more of a theoretical exercise than anything considered as viable weapon research.
People spreading the FUD of U-233 as possible weapon grade material do so out of ignorance or by knowing that such weapons are effectively impossible but don't like nuclear power for one reason or another. The reasons to oppose nuclear power in all it's forms may again be based on ignorance but I'm starting to believe that there are political reasons to oppose it even though it is worthless to produce weapons.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Shotgun not rifle by ArtemaOne · 2016-09-18 09:12 · Score: 1

Shotguns generally don't have rifled barrels, thus this was not a rifle.
other tasks by micahraleigh · 2016-09-19 04:56 · Score: 1

Since the government is also monitoring our emails, maybe we could send robots out to help people write their emails? Help them know what is okay and what isn't, etc.

And since DHS wants to control all the voting machines, maybe we can send the robots to help that get going and stop people from voting for opposition candidates.

And since the IRS is charging taxes based on political views, maybe we could send robots out to vote on behalf of other people or take the guns away from people who don't have the correct political views?

And maybe the robots can help the EPA "crucify" people?

And maybe the robots can help NASA with their muslim outreach?

Maybe we could use the robots to help the NEA popularize the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?

Human life is too precious to be doing these things (like making choices, etc). Robots should be doing those things. Government and robots can work together to protect us!
Re:Oblig by martinfb · 2016-09-19 09:07 · Score: 1

Then you do agree to take the Blue Pill?!

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.