In 2016, Dallas police were forced to improvise in a desperate situation when a sniper killed five officers and sparked a standoff with authorities that lasted for more than an hour. It was impossible to get close to the shooter and the Corps officers ended up using a robot with an outstretched arm to launch a C-4 explosive at him and detonating it to kill the shooter. It was the first lethal use of technology by police and the incident sparked debate over whether law enforcement officers should be allowed to use robots to take lives.
The debate seems to be coming to an end. San Francisco just passed a law that they can use robots to legally kill people.
approved by majority. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted (8 to 3) to approve a policy that would allow officers to use ground robots to kill. Of course, only “when the risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers are unable to subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics.” For example, in situations such as when a shooter or a terrorist threatens the lives of officers or civilians.
In reality, that standard that rates the threat as “extremely high” is the same one that is taken into account when human officers draw their weapon to shoot a person.
For example? David Lazar, deputy chief of the San Francisco Police Department, cited as an example the gunman who opened fire from his Las Vegas hotel room in 2017, killing 60 people in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. “He’s shooting, the people are pinned down, the police are pinned down. So we’d think, ‘Okay, this is a possible option,'” he noted.
How does it work? The policy already has a fleet of ground robots for reconnaissance, bomb disposal and rescue operations, including wheeled bomb disposal robots with extendable arms similar to the one used by officers in Dallas in 2016. All of them unmanned and piloted. distance. For now, police spokesman Robert Rueca explained in this Washington Post article that the department does not plan to equip them with firearms. But he said that explosive charges could be attached to the robots to breach fortified structures, or that the robots could be deployed to “contact, incapacitate or disorient” a suspect.
It also states that the robots will be operated remotely by officers with specialized training and only with the rank of deputy chief, assistant chief or police chief. And according to him “they are not autonomous” or “preprogrammed”.
critics. Some see this change as a solution to give police a break after several mass shootings across the country. But the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office has a very different opinion. According to them, it is a “dehumanizing and militaristic” measure and they allege that it would sow mistrust within communities and not necessarily save lives. “Most law enforcement weapons are used against people of color,” Board Chairman Shamann Walton said.
So was Hillary Ronen, a city supervisor who voted against it: “Robots create a false distance that makes killing the individual easier. We don’t want to create that distance and that removal of the emotional impact of killing, of take the life of an individual.” For his part, Paul Scharre, vice president of the Center for a New American Security, explained in this article in The New York Times that “using robots to apply lethal force is the exact opposite of what we should use robots for. The advantage of these is that can create distance between police and a potential threat, giving officers more time to make decisions without putting themselves in danger. Precisely because a police officer is no longer at risk, lethal force should not be used.”