
Robot's role in killing Dallas shooter is a first - acjohnson55
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/technology/dallas-robot-death/index.html
======
rayiner
It's worthwhile for students of American history to compare this to the
apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. After Oswald shot and killed President
Kennedy, he shot and killed a police officer. And when police cornered him at
the Texas Theater, he fired at another police officer, but his gun jammed.
Oswald was not executed in a hail of bullets. Instead, he was lawfully taken
into custody.

John Hinkley, Jr., who shot President Reagan, also was not executed by police
or the Secret Service. Indeed, he received due process and it turned out he
was mentally ill, and he was incarcerated and treated accordingly.

Both McKinley's and Garfield's assassins received trials, and were executed
after due process of law. Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was executed
in a farmhouse by a soldier, Boston Corbett. Although Corbett claimed Booth
drew a gun on him, Corbett's superior reported he shot Booth without pretext.
Corbett was arrested until public opinion forced his release.

Even going back to one of the first attempted assainations of a President, a
shooter who fired two pistols at Andrew Jackson both of which misfired, due
process was given. The would-be killer was found not guilty by reason of
insanity and confined to a mental asylum.

~~~
maroonblazer
As I understand it he was well-armed and well-armored, such that getting into
a position to take him down non-lethally wasn't an option.

The robot/bomb solution does seem crude. How far off are we from robots who
can get close enough to deploy some non-lethal method of disabling someone
similarly armed.

~~~
falcolas
If they had a robot capable of taking in a bomb, could they have not used some
other gas grenade option? To me, a bomb seems too likely to cause collateral
damage (barring all other ethical concerns).

~~~
nradov
What sort of "gas grenade option"? Tear gas is only marginally effective. In
reality there is no such thing as safe and effective knock out gas like you
see in the movies.

~~~
dTal
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent)

"Safe", no. Better than a bomb, absolutely.

~~~
pandaman
Moscow's was a special forces (think Delta/SEAL Team 6 level) operation. City
police departments, even in Russia, do not have equipment nor training to wage
chemical warfare on short notice.

------
hanklazard
I haven't yet been able to understand why using this explosive-carrying robot
was "necessary" in this situation. It seems that they had the suspect cornered
in a parking garage and, to me, that would seem like a good opportunity for
some sort of non-lethal option. What am I missing here?

~~~
afarrell
The fact that exercising non-lethal options against a currently active shooter
exposes you to greater risk of being shot. You are of course free to argue
that the police made the wrong call in the probabilistic tradeoff between
their lives and the life of the shooter.

Given the circumstances of facing a trained active shooter who has killed and
continues to try to kill officers, I would think that > 99% of cops would find
the argument that you must preserve his life at the (high) risk to officers'
lives incredibly insulting.

> they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage

Being cornered doesn't stop someone from shooting a gun. It especially doesn't
stop someone who has a gas mask. It isn't unreasonable to suspect someone has
a gas mask if he is firing at crowd-control officers in the sort of pop-pop-
pause pattern reminiscent of the military.

Being cornered also doesn't stop someone from detonating a suicide vest.

EDIT: I would be interested to know how this comment doesn't contribute to the
discussion, given the comment it is replying to.

~~~
hanklazard
I wouldn't say that an active shooter should be kept alive at all costs, it
just seems that if robots exist that can deliver an explosive device to the
shooter, a robot could also deliver a tranquilizer dart to the shooter.

In addition to ethical implications, keeping your suspect alive also has
practical advantages for information-gathering purposes. As it stands now,
we'll have to settle for interviews with friends/family, social media autopsy,
etc.

As I said in my original comment, I just don't understand how the situation
got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I
certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best
option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it.

~~~
jessriedel
> I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no
> choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there
> are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that
> I've read so far just don't seem to justify it.

Agreed. The distinction isn't between robots and guns per se. It's that lethal
force is only allowed when someone poses a grave and imminent threat, and it's
hard to imagine such a situation where a slow robot is useful.

~~~
afarrell
The slowness of the robot is a good point to bring up and a pretty strong
counterargument because it indicates that the robot was _only_ useful in a
situation where the police perceived[1] that they had control of the
situation.

[1] remember, if we're talking about what procedure police should follow, we
have to think about the perceptions that they are responding to.

------
cs702
The specifics of this situation matter less than the precedent it has set for
future police actions around the world.

From now on, when faced with difficult or dangerous situations, police forces
everywhere will at least consider using robots, because "Dallas police did it,
and there was neither public outrage nor political fallout."

~~~
jj12
And following from that I guess robots doing traffic stops in high risk black
neighborhoods.

The only positive I can think of, from this escalating into totally
unimaginable madness is the most cities dont have the budget for all this sci-
fi shit.

I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around.

~~~
afarrell
> I can't even believe Dallas had a bomb placing robot lying around.

That isn't uncommon actually. One common approach to handling potential
unexploded ordinance is to evacuate the area and have a controlled detonation
nearby. If you hear one boom, it was nothing. If you hear two booms, it was a
bomb. Robots are often used for this.

Source: This is coming from my memory as part of MIT's Community Emergency
Response Team back in 2012 & 2013\. We didn't receive EOD training of course.
We just did first aid training and crowd control at a few events, but we also
go to sit in on discussions of EOD procedures and a tabletop excercise of an
active shooter scenario.

------
patcheudor
It's important to remember that the shooter was specifically targeting police
officers over what he viewed as massive injustices towards his own community.
Using a robot with a weapon of mass destruction to execute the suspect does
nothing to defuse that frustration and anger in others who may be sympathetic
to what the shooter was trying to accomplish. In this case, two wrongs very
much don't make a right. Unfortunately I'm not sure most citizens understand
the historical significance of this event or the fact that the slippery slope
is now well greased. How many more years till our police officers are armed
with FPV multi-rotor drones capable of seeking out suspects and detonating
explosives to take them out?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Not really a response, just venting: If you saw someone actually gun down a
couple of your colleagues would you treat them as just a "suspect" or would
you treat them as a murderer. I know why it's put like this but in some cases
I find it a bit ridiculous.

~~~
patcheudor
This is the exact reason we have a justice system with courts and rule of law
rather than supporting vigilante justice. If you remember, early on in this
incident, a completely innocent individual was identified as the possible
shooter with many absolutely convinced he was.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/07/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-
armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/)

------
smaili
> Bielat's ground robots, which are designed for law enforcement, aren't
> designed to be used for lethal purposes. But that doesn't stop them from
> being used that way.

I think this is exactly why companies like Apple are afraid of working with
the gov - you just don't know how the gov will behave with what you give them
once it's in their hands.

~~~
ptaipale
Whereas, when criminals use what you give them, few people will blame you.
It's actually slightly strange.

~~~
evan_
It's strange to hold our government to a higher standard than criminals?

~~~
Symmetry
No, it's strange to hold companies selling to the government to a higher
standard than companies selling to the public.

~~~
mavhc
Doesn't seem that strange, with great power comes great responsibility

------
rebootthesystem
I've never been comfortable with the use of the term "robot" to describe a
radio controlled car (or plane, boat, whatever).

Using a ruggedized R/C car to deliver an explosive is no different from a
police officer with a good throwing arm tossing a grenade (or whatever) at the
attacker. In other words, the action is completely controlled and executed by
a person, not the machine.

Now, if this thing had autonomous "search and destroy" capabilities and the
person's role was to identify the target area and approve the kill, the term
"robot" would certainly apply.

I don't like the association being created between robotics and killing. In
this case a person was 100% in charge of killing the suspect. The machine was
not operating autonomously.

Just like the folks who attached a gun to a quadcopter. Where that thing went
and when it pulled the trigger, save a malfunction, was 100% remotely
controlled. Calling it a "drone" or "robot", which implies a level of machine-
based decision making, would be wrong.

~~~
davrosthedalek
Indeed true. However, it boils down to the "video game UI makes killing
easier" discussion. Which in this case, as far as I am concerned, is not the
discussion to have. I think it actually distracts from the discussion we
should have: Why do so many police interactions end with casualties in the US,
compared to other countries. Obviously many think it's racism, and that may
well be true, but I think it's also bad training and maybe a wrong overall
approach to policing.

------
oxryly1
It was a remote controlled device, not a robot. It had no AI or built-in
intelligence, and made no decisions. An officer at the controls is responsible
for the shooter's killing.

~~~
ccleve
Perhaps. But the fact that they used a remote-controlled device is
significant. It's quantum change in tactics for the police. It gives police
far greater powers against suspects.

How long before they use drones to shoot suspects?

What about automated traffic stops, where a device asks you to roll down the
window and scan your license and insurance?

If there's a robbery or burglary in progress, wouldn't it always make sense to
send in a device instead of exposing an officer?

What about a bunch of kids on the corner who shouldn't be there? Why expose a
cop to them, when one of them might have a gun? Instead, roll up in a well-
protected car and speak to them through speakers and microphones and video.

I'll bet a remote-controlled device could eventually cuff them and take them
into custody as well.

Don't underestimate the effect this is going to have on civil liberties.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
It might also go the other way. Many police killings are due to jittery
officers in dangerous situations. Take that out of the picture and you might
get better policing and fewer suspect deaths.

------
molmalo
Why didnt they use some some gas agent, like russians did in the theater?
(Without hostages this time, the risk of collaterals is removed).

Sending a bomb on wheels makes it look like just revenge.

~~~
T0T0R0
That gas agent (allegedly aerosolized fentanyl [1]) didn't actually work so
great, and wound up killing people anyway, so might've had the same outcome,
but with more effort and just as much controversy.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent)

~~~
yardie
It failed because they used an anesthetic and it will certainly kill you if
you can't control the dose. In this case they had 1 target who they were
carefully monitoring. Once it reached its effectiveness they could cut it off.

~~~
nradov
That's not how anesthetics work. It's impossible to deliver a controlled dose
or measure effectiveness just by spraying some gas in a general direction. Ask
an anesthesiologist.

~~~
hga
"Uh, mom?"

Seriously, she was a nurse anesthetist who retired decades ago when she had
me, and she's mentioned how it's a somewhat precision effort. They monitor the
patient to see how it's effecting them, since we're all different.

~~~
nradov
Yes they monitor the patient in an operating room using multiple instruments.
And the anesthetic is delivered in a precisely calibrated dose based on the
patient's size using a mask or IV. Which is completely different from the
actual situation in Dallas.

 _Edit:_ sorry I didn't realize that the parent post was essentially agreeing.

~~~
hga
(Uh, I wasn't the one to suggest that, seeing as how I knew from my mother
these details. Sorry for my lack of clarity.)

------
intrasight
This wasn't a robot - it was a remote controlled vehicle. I do share the
sentiments of others here that there should have been a non-lethal option to
disable the perpetrator.

------
csours
"The suspect stated that we will eventually find the IEDs." It is likely the
talk about IEDs that brought the robot out in the first place. How the
decision was made to use the robot to blow up the guy is something else
entirely.

1\. [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-
suspect-...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/dallas-police-suspect-
affiliated-group-160708132417429.html)

------
doctorstupid
Hopefully not a pioneering incident for the robotic enforcement of citizens.

------
GnarfGnarf
The CNN video says "they're used to diffuse bombs..."

I don't think so. That would defeat the purpose.

"Defuse" maybe?

------
edoceo
Not 3-Law safe

------
Mao_Zedang
I dont think police are paid enough to risk their lives against someone who is
actively trying to kill them. How much would you want to approach a situation
like that in the way you are all detailing?

------
simbalion
Militaristic police abuses cause kickback by oppressed citizens, so the police
escalate with killer robots.

Seems legit.

------
SCAQTony
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1\. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm.

2\. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders
would conflict with the First Law.

3\. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not
conflict with the First or Second Law.

At the end of Foundation and Earth he added a "zero" option:

0\. A robot may not injure humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come
to harm.

~~~
krapp
But he entire point of Asimov's Three Laws was to be a literary device for
stories about the Three Laws being a bad idea. They weren't intended to be
taken seriously, they were intended to illustrate the unintended consequences
that can arise from the hubris of trying to codify morality in the first
place. Robots governed by his laws in universe _harmed people all the time._

If we ever do want to tackle the issue of the morality that governs AI, Asimov
is the _last_ person we should refer to as a credible source of inspiration.

~~~
afarrell
> Asimov is the last person we should refer to as a credible source of
> inspiration.

Wait, why wouldn't we want to look at the failure modes he pointed out?

~~~
krapp
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I do think it's a mistake
to take them seriously, except as an example of what not to do.

~~~
afarrell
Right. Speculative fiction is just that: speculation. It is useful as
speculation.

