
Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? - eplanit
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-08/are-police-allowed-to-robot-bomb-suspects
======
germinalphrase
If police are not allowed to use deadly force, except to protect their own
lives/lives of other people in the immediate area - how do we confront the
question of "deadly threat" when using a machine capable of applying deadly
force?

Do we merely need the "potential" for deadly threat on the police to justify
the use of a machine capable of applying deadly force? If this machine can
deliver a bomb, it seems likely that it could deliver less-than-lethal
alternatives, as well (?).

In this instance, those less-than-lethal options may not have been available;
however, it feels really problematic to say "our only option was to kill this
man because attempting to subdue/apprehend him in any other way would have -
definitely - led to a deadly threat on our officers".

That could be true - but it also seems very different than a police officer
reacting to an imminent threat with deadly force. To that point, the presence
of a knife in a suspect's hand is not inherently a lethal threat. They are
given the opportunity to drop the knife as officers approach to apprehend
them. If they raise that knife, or begin approaching the officer rapidly, then
this becomes a lethal threat.

In this mechanized situation, are they still offered that same opportunity to
self-disarm before lethal force is applied?

Does this lower the bar for 'lethal threat' so that police can send a small
machine to kill a suspect because they have the _potential_ to apply deadly
force on the police (but haven't imminently demonstrated that ability)?

~~~
gherkin0
From what I've read, the shooter was contained and did not have hostages. They
didn't need to bomb him to death because "negotiations failed," they could
have kept him under siege until he was forced to surrender due to lack of
supplies. The fact that they had to drive in a bomb is a strong indication
that the shooter was not an immediate threat. If he was, a sniper could have
got him.

I think the police should never use lethal violence if there are any passive
options available to them. This guy was obviously guilty of murder, but I'm
more worried about other cases where the police might decided to use
techniques like this in the name of safety, such as a "drug bust" against
"armed and dangerous criminals" that happens to be carried out against
innocents at the wrong address.

~~~
rrauenza
I've read a report that a factor in the decision was the suspect had put IED's
around the area. So they can't approach and can't clear the area of potential
IED's due to his presence...

I think we are owed more explanation for this precedent.

------
supernovae
So are they saying "robot bomb" to cover up the fact it was probably a hand
grenade? I'm not sure what to think about the entire thing. People should just
stop killing people. Cops should be civilians, civilians should be civilians.
When we start killing for every threat and blowing each other up, everything
has gone way too far.

If a robot was that close, are there no other non lethal ways to disable
someone?

~~~
throwanem
With a bomb robot? Doubtful. I've also heard reports that the explosive device
was of the type that'd be used to trigger a bomb which couldn't be safely
defused in place, rather than a hand grenade. I'm not sure that changes the
complexion of the matter substantially, but a hand grenade would likely be
somewhat harder for a police force to lay hands upon.

> People should just stop killing people.

I mean, sure, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, the entire history of our
species, to say nothing of every other on the planet, militates strongly
against it.

------
cinquemb
Up next, domestic metadata drone strikes. Empire's largess abroad is bound to
find new outlets at home, preferably through more programs like 1033.

------
khnd
is this bad because the police is becoming more like the military? since the
military/cia robot bomb suspects on the daily.

------
bahjoite
It must be time to begin building open source countermeasures against
murderous robots. Perhaps something like a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse
generator.

------
nadezhda18
so they killed a potentially innocent person? I guess it does not surprise
anymore anybody.

hard to believe it is happening for real, this is some form of horror
surrealism

~~~
type0
> so they killed a potentially innocent person?

They executed the guy who killed police officers, they must have been quite
certain at that to actually do it.

------
SNvD7vEJ
How is using an explosive device any different than using a sniper to take out
a threat?

(assuming that no one else is hurt by the explosive device, and that sniping
down the suspect is not possible)

If there were no immediate threat any longer, they should have waited, but
considering the guy still had a sniper rifle and a vantage point (?), he was
definitely an ongoing threat.

~~~
mtgx
The same way tasers were initially promoted as a "safe alternative to shooting
the target" and then the cops ended up abusing it and killing old men with it,
or doing it in scenarios where their use was completely unnecessary.

Just because it didn't kill anyone else now, doesn't mean it won't in the
future, when cops use it as more of a routine to take out targets, and even
less intelligent cops get to do it. Will those cops be punished? Of course not
(in the current system of mostly unaccountable cops). It will probably be
called "collateral damage", so they get to borrow even more from the military.

------
Wonnk13
this smacks of a revenge killing. A SWAT sniper shooting an active shooter has
the same result (death), but for some reason this rubs me the wrong way. Was
the suspect given a chance to surrender? Did he know the robot approaching was
intended to kill him?

