Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate

[rooster59]

Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate

MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Technology Writers
BREE FOWLER, AP Technology Writers


When Dallas police used a bomb-carrying robot to kill a sniper, they also kicked off an ethical debate about technology's use as a crime-fighting weapon.

In what appears to be an unprecedented tactic, police rigged a bomb-disposal robot to kill an armed suspect in the fatal shootings of five officers in Dallas. While there doesn't appear to be any hard data on the subject, security experts and law enforcement officials said they couldn't recall another time when police have deployed a robot with lethal intent.

The strategy opens a new chapter in the escalating use of remote and semi-autonomous devices to fight crime and protect lives. It also raises new questions over when it's appropriate to dispatch a robot to kill dangerous suspects instead of continuing to negotiate their surrender.

"If lethally equipped robots can be used in this situation, when else can they be used?" says Elizabeth Joh, a University of California at Davis law professor who has followed U.S. law enforcement's use of technology. "Extreme emergencies shouldn't define the scope of more ordinary situations where police may want to use robots that are capable of harm."

Dallas Police Chief David Brown defended his department's decision. "Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger," he said.

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings applauded Brown for making "the right call" and said he would have no qualms about resorting to the same strategy in the future. "When there's no other way, I think this is a good example," he said. "The key thing is to keep our police out of harm's way."

ROBOTS, SOLDIERS AND POLICE

Police have been using such robots for decades to dispose of suspected bombs and in hostage standoffs and fires. Meanwhile, militaries around the world have come to rely on their robotic friends to disable improvised explosive devices — a need that only increased with the U.S. occupation of Iraq following its 2003 invasion.

Many of the robots joining police forces are coming from a U.S. Department of Defense program transferring surplus equipment from the military. These exchanges have provided law enforcement agencies with robots such as Packbot made by Endeavor Robotics, the Talon from QinetiQ and the MARCbot made by Exponent.

But military experts said ground-level robots are rarely used to kill the enemy. Their main purpose is to detect and defuse bombs to save lives. Military robots are "fairly clunky and used best for reconnaissance rather than the offensive," said Tom Gorup, an infantry veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who's now an official at the IT-security firm Rook Security.

Airborne robots are another matter. The U.S. military has sent remotely piloted drones to kill hundreds of people, including civilians, in counterterror attacks launched overseas since 2009, based on estimates released last week by the Obama administration.

HOW IT (PROBABLY) WORKED

The robots working for police departments across the country range in size from devices as small as a dog bone to others as large as a truck. Some are little more than a mechanical arm mounted onto a vehicle and equipped with a video camera and two-way audio communications, according to William Flanagan, a retired deputy police chief from New York's Nassau County who now does law enforcement and technology consulting. The most versatile robots can climb stairs and navigate other tight spots, such as this one made by Icor Technology.

Many models used by police are about the size of a backpack.

Flanagan speculated that police in Dallas probably equipped their robot with a low-powered explosive — possibly one similar to what bomb squads use to blow up suspicious packages — that would only disable what's closest to it.

Dallas police didn't respond to a request for further information about their use of the robot.

MACHINE VS. HUMAN

Robotics expert Peter W. Singer, of the New America Foundation, said the killing marked the first instance he's aware of in which police have used a robot to lethal effect. But when he was researching his 2009 book "Wired for War," a U.S. soldier told him troops in Iraq sometimes used surveillance robots against insurgents, he added in an email Friday.

William Cohen, a former Exponent employee who helped design the MARCbot, said that robot was built to save lives instead of ending them. Although he was relieved the killing of the armed suspect in Dallas assured that no other police officers or bystanders would be harmed, Cohen says he's worried about what might happen next.

"It opens a whole new set of questions of how to deal with these kinds of situations," Cohen said. "Where are the police going to draw the line when trying to decide between continuing to negotiate and doing something like this?"

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-09

[stevenl]

IMO they made the right call.

[attrayant]

There's no ethical debate unless these robots start opening fire on children in schoolyards - you know, like people do.

Edited July 9, 2016 by attrayant

[mcfish]

Mob lynching is still the best method. Being half beaten to death and then set on fire is what these people really deserve, not instant painless death..

[canopus1969]

Brilliant idea - but feel sorry for the robot, RIP

[attrayant]

Brilliant idea - but feel sorry for the robot, RIP

Here's a lamp you can feel sorry about:

https://youtu.be/dBqhIVyfsRg

Edited July 9, 2016 by attrayant

[MaxYakov]

The US military has been using RPVs for years against suspected terrorists with a lot more collateral deaths of civilians than occurred in the Dallas parking garage taking this assassin out. It was definitely a "Bum Disposal" effort.

[Andaman Al]

It is not a robot. It is controlled by a man, if it shoots or explodes it does so because of the input of a man giving permission to do so. The same as pulling a trigger on any weapon, just this weapon can be moved using HD camera's wherever you want it.

[rijb]

It's time for Gates, Google and Musk to start building robocops/robosoldiers. Then, we can replace race/religion wars with human/machine wars.

Edited July 9, 2016 by rijb

[Usernames]

Yea, Robocop is here. What's the ethical problem? Put people at risk instead of robot to make it fair? Silly. There is an argument I guess that the robot could have carried some sort of gas to disable the guy, instead of a lethal explosive. But maybe he had a mask. I would have preferred he be taken alive, because I wanted him on display in a courtroom. But I'll settle for Robocop.

[Rancid]

I also see it just as a remote device, not a robot, as such the kill was made by a human. The problem comes with military airborne drones that have something like a 95% collateral kill rate, and that is a lot of civilians dying. Will the police eventually get these? If the current rate of militarization continues they just may.

Autonomous robots are the thing of science fiction at the moment, but I very much doubt if they are not on the military drawing boards.

[Basil B]

Brilliant idea - but feel sorry for the robot, RIP

I do not know how they killed him, I thought the hooked a gun to the robot, but whether they shot him or blew him up, even if they took him out with s RPG they did the right thing...

Though a suicide bot may be a wast of a good robot.

[MaxYakov]

Yea, Robocop is here. What's the ethical problem? Put people at risk instead of robot to make it fair? Silly. There is an argument I guess that the robot could have carried some sort of gas to disable the guy, instead of a lethal explosive. But maybe he had a mask. I would have preferred he be taken alive, because I wanted him on display in a courtroom. But I'll settle for Robocop.

If you remember the movie, RoboCop (1987), the "RoboCop" character was actually a Cyborg of sorts that eventually has to challenge a large, autonomous, robotic cop manufactured by a massive corporation that "runs Detroit". They probably chose RoboCop over CyborgCop for, basically, better box office draw.

Whereas the Dallas machine was basically an R/C vehicle with a remotely detonated explosive - a long way from being either a Cyborg or a robot. Closer on the family tree of remote-controlled weapons to a Predator (or some such) drone.

I agree with you, though, that it would have been (perhaps) better to disable the shooter rather than to kill him. If they had a selection of different explosives charge strengths to use, they probably said something like, "What the heck, let's go for broke and use the 'big un' and see what happens.". Can you imagine the endless drama and outcry if they had only severely maimed him?

Edited July 9, 2016 by MaxYakov

[RabC]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

[Mosha]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

BBC the police chief, a black American said they tried to negotiate for hours. He convicted himself. No defence lawyer, no endless appeal process. A win, win, win.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[neverdie]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

That's one of your more dafter comments.

The guy was actively gunning down cops. Sounds like he wasn't the negotiating type but it's big of you to suggest 'someone else' should have been trying to resolve this in person......as long as it wasn't you or one of your loved ones, right?

[neverdie]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

BBC the police chief, a black American said they tried to negotiate for hours. He convicted himself. No defence lawyer, no endless appeal process. A win, win, win.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Well said. Some folk just lack the 'grey matter' to think things they before they post.

[Mojomor]

Seems to me, to be the same debate as the ethics of drones, except this time being used by police as opposed to military.

[RabC]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

BBC the police chief, a black American said they tried to negotiate for hours. He convicted himself. No defence lawyer, no endless appeal process. A win, win, win.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Well said. Some folk just lack the 'grey matter' to think things they before they post.

No some people think before they post, it was an extrajudicial killing, read the definition. Where did I say it was right or wrong, who am I to comment on its legality as I am not an American, I was just stating a fact.

[neverdie]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

BBC the police chief, a black American said they tried to negotiate for hours. He convicted himself. No defence lawyer, no endless appeal process. A win, win, win.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Well said. Some folk just lack the 'grey matter' to think things they before they post.

No some people think before they post, it was an extrajudicial killing, read the definition. Where did I say it was right or wrong, who am I to comment on its legality as I am not an American, I was just stating a fact.

Nonesense.

His death occurred as he was shooting at law enforcement officers, whether a cop or a drone pulled the trigger it wouldn't matter.....there was no negotiating with the grub he was intent on killing and killing only.

How is it that you expected authorities to get him in front of a judge. Serenade him?

Switch on.

[RabC]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

BBC the police chief, a black American said they tried to negotiate for hours. He convicted himself. No defence lawyer, no endless appeal process. A win, win, win.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Well said. Some folk just lack the 'grey matter' to think things they before they post.

No some people think before they post, it was an extrajudicial killing, read the definition. Where did I say it was right or wrong, who am I to comment on its legality as I am not an American, I was just stating a fact.

Nonesense.

His death occurred as he was shooting at law enforcement officers, whether a cop or a drone pulled the trigger it wouldn't matter.....there was no negotiating with the grub he was intent on killing and killing only.

How is it that you expected authorities to get him in front of a judge. Serenade him?

Switch on.

Switch on and read what I posted extrajudicial is a definition it happened end of....... I was not and am not commenting on the legality or rightness of it.

[neverdie]

.he was an armed combatant, hostile and in the process of killing people. It's not a case of extrajudicial killing in anyway, shape or form.

This has been debated for years, there's lots of literature on the subject.

Edited July 9, 2016 by neverdie

[PETERTHEEATER]

Brilliant idea - but feel sorry for the robot, RIP

Here's a lamp you can feel sorry about:

https://youtu.be/dBqhIVyfsRg

??

[RabC]

Armed combatant or nutter with a gun? The difference depends on where you come from.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the legality/ethics of the death hence my comments. To have a discussion people need to accept that others have views and not just blindly regurgitate what propaganda they personally believe.

Edited July 9, 2016 by RabC

[neverdie]

Armed combatant or nutter with a gun? The difference depends on where you come from.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the legality/ethics of the death hence my comments. To have a discussion people need to accept that others have views and not just blindly regurgitate what propaganda they personally believe.

That's true, however, when someone tries to shoot a cop & the cop returns fire in a manner of self defence and or to protect others, it's not an extrajudicial killing, unless you know something no-one else here knows?

the cops just can't leave him in there, shooting at folk and go home because there's no other way to get him to court.

[Pimay1]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

Hogwash. This man gave up the right to judicial proceeding or legal process when he continually fired on and murdered the police.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Pimay1

[rijb]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

That's true.

For as long as I can remember, we've had an unwritten law in the U.S.. You kill a cop, the other cops will hunt you down and kill you.

I think that's the way it should be.

[neverdie]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

That's true.

For as long as I can remember, we've had an unwritten law in the U.S.. You kill a cop, the other cops will hunt you down and kill you.

I think that's the way it should be.

I'd like to know how you folk think the police may have been able to bring this crisis to a different ending?

Send him gifts and a letter nicely asking him to stop killing folk and come to the courthouse to see the judge?

It always amazes me how anyone with a keyboard becomes a law enforcement expert but on the same hand anyone holding a scalpel isn't instantly a surgeon.

55555

[rijb]

It always amazes me how anyone can respond to a post they haven't read.

[Basil B]

So the guy was convicted, sentenced and executed without even appearing in court. There was absolutely no intent to end the situation with him in custody, its an extrajudicial killing...........

I think you may have got it wrong... they did try to get him to surrender.

The guy used the extrajudicial killings of two black persons by white police officers as some misguided excuse... if those killings had not happened then the protest would not have happened and those unfortunate victims would probably not been there.

Just as a side note: The attendees at the "Black Lives Matter" marches are not just black people.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Basil B