Now That We've Entered The Age Of Robocop, How About Ones That Detain, Rather Than Kill?
from the robocop dept
Well, the era of robocop has begun. As you've probably heard already, in order to get the sniper in Dallas who shot and killed a whole bunch of police, the Dallas police apparently sent in a bomb robot to detonate a bomb. Normally that robot is designed to save people from bombs, but in this case the police decided to use it to deliver a bomb and blow up the guy, Micah Xavier Johnson, accused of doing the shooting. The city apparently recently got 3 Remotec robots for its bomb squad: Each one apparently costs about $200k. In asking around, it appears that those who are familiar with bomb robots can't find any examples of police using them in this way in the past. Though, of course, people have certainly raised the theoretical question of using remote automated systems, whether robots or drones, to take down killers who are on the loose.The Dallas Police have a long history of engaging in community policing designed to de-escalate situations, rather than encourage antagonism between police and the community, have been handling all of this with astounding restraint, frankly. Many other police departments would be lashing out, and yet the Dallas Police Dept, while obviously grieving for a horrible situation, appear to be handling this tragic situation professionally. And it appears that they did everything they could in a reasonable manner. They first tried to negotiate with Johnson, but after that failed and they feared more lives would be lost, they went with the robot + bomb option. And, obviously, considering he had already shot many police officers, I don't think anyone would question the police justification if they had shot Johnson.
But, still, at the very least, the whole situation raises a lot of questions about the legality of police using a bomb offensively to blow someone up. And, it raises some serious questions about how other police departments might use this kind of technology in the future. The situation here appears to be one where people reasonably concluded that this was the most effective way to stop further bloodshed. And this is a police department with a strong track record of reasonable behavior. But what about other police departments where they don't have that kind of history? What are the protocols for sending in a robot or drone to kill someone? Are there any rules at all?
Furthermore, it actually makes you wonder, why isn't there a focus on using robots to de-escalate these situations? What if, instead of buying military surplus bomb robots, there were robots being designed to disarm a shooter, or detain him in a manner that would make it easier for the police to capture him alive? Why should the focus of remote robotic devices be to kill him? This isn't faulting the Dallas Police Department for its actions last night. But, rather, if we're going to enter the age of robocop, shouldn't we be looking for ways to use such robotic devices in a manner that would help capture suspects alive, rather than dead?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bomb robot, dallas police, robocop
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extrajudicial Killing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extrajudicial Killing
There are times when the police need to end someone. This guy removed his own rights.
How many more people should they have let this guy kill so they could take him alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
So yeah, don't be surprised when people question this stuff when they use a rather unique method to really really kill a trapped suspect / shooter, and the first person this ever happens to is of course Black, regardless of the reputation and intent of the Dallas police. All too often, the cries of "Are you going to let him keep doing X", or "You can't let him get away with this", end up with the wrong people dead or in prison.
I really hope they are forthcoming with evidence, or... the mere appearance of impropriety, and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
They want special protection and exemptions yet act like a the gangs that they are supposed to be protecting us from instead. This whole thing started with police blatantly and systematically targeting black people, killing them with impunity and getting away with it for decades. The departments are finding nothing wrong with killing people when the cop claims to be such a afraid of some potential threat. Meanwhile civilians are literally living with groups of armed people robbing them of life liberty and property on a daily basis. We are told its for our own good, but it really doesn't feel like that when things like this happen and justice is preempted by the very people who are supposed to be protecting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
If it is a lawful act for police to kill a man in cold blood because waiting for him to drop from thirst, hunger or exhaustion is too hard and making an arrest is too inconvenient, what does that say for citizen's arrests?
See a crime being committed, decided a citizen's arrest is too much work, draw gun and open fire? If what the police just did in Dallas wasn't murder, then neither would this be murder!
Further, police are not exempt from arrest, either by police or private citizens. If the system rules the assassination by bombing a lawful, justified act then they will have also made it legal to shoot a cop if you see him committing an arrestable offense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
"I saw him run into that house" says officer 1
"He has a gun we're not going in there...lets get the bomb robot." says officer 2
oops wrong house...but hey later they found a roach in the rubble so it's all good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
Demonstrating a complete ignorance of how rights work does not help your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Removed his own rights"
Or in this case, send a bomb-bot at a man you want to murder.
Why allow for a trial if it means a suspect might walk away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Removed his own rights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
So you think someone shooting at the police doesn't know he's going to lose his right to freedom and probably his life as well?
Try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
Pixelation we've been watching across years how the police regard ordinary civilians as the enemy. You are a suspect, yourself, as soon as they need one. And if they decide you need to be neutralized they'll find a crime by which to imprison you, if they don't feel inclined to shoot you first.
The police resort to force not because they have to, but possibly because they enjoy discharging their strength. They certainly have been focusing less on de-escalating situations through negotiation and in fact provoking a response that allows them to justify murder.
Both Sterling and Castile show that we've lost our freedom already. We're already prisoners in occupied America, and the law enforcement agents sworn to protect and serve us instead serve their plutonic masters.
Regardless, the justification for killing someone is rendered moot once you no longer are risking human life and limb. Once they sent a robot in, they had plenty of options that weren't explosive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
"fuck the law and shoot a man that needs shooting."
The word you are looking for is Anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extrajudicial Killing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
This was beyond self-defense and beyond addressing an immediate threat to others. "Go and kill the bastard." is not an option available to police. They don't get to decide over life and death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extrajudicial Killing
Why not wait longer? Several more hours? Or even days?
Wait till he's to numb/hungry/exhausted and then move in.
After all, they had the suspect cornered.
I guess the police just wanted revenge, not justice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extrajudicial Killing
Police are authorized to use lethal force when necessary, and it's hard to argue this was not one of those times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
Police are authorized to use lethal force when it is necessary to defend their lives or those of another. They are not authorized to kill anyone they feel like, nor are they authorized to kill someone because attempting to make an arrest is too inconvenient.
It's worth noting that police have the right to defend themselves because EVERYONE has that right, not because they are police. If some who is not a cop were to see a crime being committed, think about making a citizen's arrest, decide it would be too much trouble and just pulled out a gun and killed the guy instead, would it be justified? Or would it be ruled not to be a case of self defense, and lead to murder charges?
They had the guy cornered, he was not going anywhere. They could have waited him out since they have food and water and officers on the next shift to relieve them, and the guy they had cornered did not. They could have simply stood there and waited for him to fall over from exhaustion, thirst or hunger. Instead they committed premeditated murder in cold blood because waiting him out or arresting him was just too inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wherever our military went, our police were soon to follow.
(P.S. Not a robot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wherever our military went, our police were soon to follow.
A bagpipe pipe without fingerings?
A really boring speech?
How inventive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wherever our military went, our police were soon to follow.
How inventive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Read this in the voice of ED-209)
You have 10 seconds to comply.
You have 9 seconds to comply.
You have 8 seconds to comply.
You have 7 seconds to comply.
You have 6 seconds to comply.
You have 5 seconds to comply.
You have 4 seconds to comply.
You have 3 seconds to comply.
You have 2 seconds to comply.
You have 1 seconds to comply.
*Insert Explosion Here*
"Well that shoplifter wont be stealing any bread now."
*Building collapses*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boom
- you have a nail sticking out of a wood plank
- you are trained and told to use heavy power tools at every opportunity.
you have available:
a) a hammer
b) a supper expensive all-options-included power hammer
do you:
a) use the hammer
or
b) use the all-options-included power hammer.
budget is not a factor... the suckers^H^H^H^H^H taxpayers will cover the costs anyway.
With police militarization these days they will go for option B at every opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boom
In short, they made a value decision about the value of an individual's life and decided they'd be better off with him dead.
Which is not how a justice system is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boom
While not "safe", tear gas (or, better, pepper spray) is a much safer alternative to anything that would cause unconsciousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boom
My point was that tear gas might not be the correct gas for such situations and that there might be a more effective gas for rendering someone safe and capturable, as apposed to explosives. The other side of course is how to apply constraints so that the police are not using such a weapon on jaywalkers or for other less than appropriate reasons. They don't, for example, use their guns appropriately all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robots to De-Escalate
Robots designed to deal with bomb don't generally have to worry about dealing with quick moving targets that move in variable patterns.
Not to say that's not a worthy goal and we should maybe look to that in the future, but it will be more expensive and difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robots to De-Escalate
Can suicide bombers call themselves "deescalators" as well now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why the standard practice is to lob stun grenades right before the swat team storms in. The targeted person will be too blinded and disoriented to properly fight back and pose any further threat. Another way would be to smoke him out with tear gas. All police forces possess, practice with, and regularly deploy these and many other less-lethal options that are highly effective at disabling barricaded shooters. If they could put a remote controlled bomb on a robot, they could just as easily have put tear gas on it.
"And, obviously, considering he had already shot many police officers, I don't think anyone would question the police justification if they had shot Johnson."
Everyone SHOULD question the justification of police assassinating a suspect rather than trying their best to capture him alive. Remember, police are in theory only supposed to use lethal force in self defense. That means that while it's OK to shoot to kill when confronted, when an armed combatant gets hit, drops his gun and falls to the ground motionless, it's not acceptable to keep shooting his lifeless body until the last person's gun runs out of ammunition.
But that's the standard American police practice, to use the maximum force on hand, rather than the minimum force required to accomplish the task. Police are supposed to capture people, even those who are armed and resisting arrest, and bring them back alive to stand trial, not form a hunting party with killing as their chief objective. Police today have many more less-lethal options than they had in the era of Bonnie and Clyde, yet police mentality has apparently become increasingly more aggresive and more lethal since then.
Robocop's ED-209 was supposed to represent a dystopian black comedy, not a future how-to guide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there's one thing you should have learnt by now it's that the U.S. is not a country to let a good dystopia go waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So After The Initial Reports Of “Triangulated” Shootings ...
Where have we heard that before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So After The Initial Reports Of “Triangulated” Shootings ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's great
Or if I want to stage a hostage killing situation, I don't even need to bring my own explosives any more?
Or even myself? Just hack into some car bomb robot's controls?
America is really the land of unlimited stupidity. What are SWAT teams even for if they aren't willing to risk scratching their body armor? Only for killing unarmed citizens and babies?
How about giving the police nerve gas and biological weapons? I am sure they'll find good use for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the general victim-blaming canon goes like "don't be uppity, do everything they say, don't object, don't try to make eye contact or provoke, follow orders and try getting a lawyer after you escaped hopefully unscathed" and basically whatever else applies when dealing with trigger-happy sociopathic gang leaders, muggers and rapists.
So how are policemen supposd to be better than the criminals that they take in? This is not the narrative you hear in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorrow for the lost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that said, i dread to see where this goes with the runaway police departments all over this country that fester like open sores.
we are a sick society, and i don't see where the hope to get better might come from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
situations ,
ie one with lasers,or guns.
Rather than just blow up a 200k bomb robot .
They could have just filled the building with smoke and
tear gas .
And send in a swat team in body armour .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't approve, but...
This wasn't a knee-jerk revenge. This was solving a problem when the other party was being completely unresponsive and had passed on all other options. He wanted suicide by cop and he got it, because they had no other reasonable choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't approve, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't approve, but...
It looks a lot like is was. There were numerous alternatives that apparently had not been tried. Using a bomb looks like the sort of overkill that indicates an act of vengeance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't approve, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't approve, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dead suspects...
Now we just need to attach a claymore mine onto a little flyer and zip it towards anyone the state doesn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Bomb? Really!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Bomb? Really!
Otherwise, the bomb would be described as a remote-detonated charge, probably radio-controlled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Bomb? Really!
C4 has basically replaced the previous C1, C2 and C3 compounds for all purposes. The police keep a stock of it on-hand for various purposes, such as breaching structures and blowing up other bombs. It's also handy for blowing up recalcitrant suspects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
greater heights than ever before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's turn that around just a little bit.
"And, obviously, considering that many black men had already been shot by police officers, I don't think anyone would question his justification for shooting them."
Justification is something that can be in the eye of the justifier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legitimacy of a police force is their adherence to defined policy.
When we are policed not by law but by the whims of state officers, then we are no longer a nation of laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's turn that around just a little bit.
"And, obviously, considering that many black men had already been shot by police officers, I don't think anyone would question his justification for shooting them."
Justification is something that can be in the eye of the justifier.
Just questioning the justifier will get you killed nowadays . And you wonder why they want take your guns away ???
Wake up sheeple , a disarmed nation is a dictatorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems they are all tied to the big tit of big media and are afraid to speak the truth to the people .
Endless war at home and abroad and most people have their head so far shoved up their ass they shit in their own mouths .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are we discussing robots, not bombs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are we discussing robots, not bombs?
Specifically. Don't.
For our law enforcement, it should be unthinkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up
This is certainly false. At best, blowing him up remotely was the only "safe" way that they had conveniently available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up
'Clearly guilty' or even 'actually guilty' is not a 'kill on sight' offense, and baring a situation of literal life or death, 'this person dies right now or someone else does' situation (of which this case wouldn't qualify, as if they had time to rig up a remote controlled bomb they had time for other options)everyone deserves a trial before punishment is handed out, otherwise laws become entirely optional and at the discretion of whoever happens to be there at the time.
'Justice' is replaced with 'lynch mob' basically, so long as someone with a badge or even someone without has the means to hand out the 'sentence' and the person is 'clearly guilty', whether they actually are or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Dont break the law if you dont wanna get blowed up"
And you don't have to break the law, yourself, just be at the wrong place at the wrong time and look like a suspect. The courts are already primed to assure a conviction.
And as in the cases of Sterling and Castile, they hadn't really done anything wrong, and got themselves murdered by the police.
So no, staying on the right side of the (extensive, complex, unintelligible) law does not assure one's safety from our officers meant to enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any police 'bombings' since MOVE in 1985?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
...brig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will nobody think of the Robots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will nobody think of the Robots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]