San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

If it were actual (autonomous) robots, yes. The article is actually talking about ROVs (remote-operated vehicles). The city still needs to pay a human operator, who happens to be a moderate distance away.

It's arguably financially justified in the policing case because policing can be dangerous. Cleaning up [stuff] and sanitizing things isn't particularly dangerous, so you're basically just buying a robot to make your janitor less efficient.

hirundo• 4 years ago

The idea of robots being legally allowed to kill has garnered some controversy.

Since these "robots" are not autonomous, you can substitute "guns" for "robots" in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal.

The big ethical difference is that the remote trigger puller can no longer justify the act by a threat to their own life, only to other lives.

jobs_throwaway• 4 years ago

yup, this is an inflammatory title that isn't what it seems on first glance. If anything, this is only a net good as remote cops won't be able to justify things based on fear for their own life

rolph3• 4 years ago

just like a dog is equated to being an officer, police robots will be considered officers and you would be prosecuted as if you had assaulted a living being, you will not be able to claim that, a machine prone to malfunction, errant design, and fasle positives, was a threat to you when you defend yourself against it.

donatj• 4 years ago

Isn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger?

Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.

symfoniq• 4 years ago

Or in the defense of another. It wouldn’t make sense for a robot to take a life to save its own, but it might make sense for it to take a life to save your mother’s.

didericis• 4 years ago

What happens when you fake danger to get robots to murder people for you. Or when the robot has “bugs” that kill demographics you don’t like more often.

This is a horrifically terrible idea.

It is imperative that a human always be a decision maker about lethal force so proper judgement can be made and someone can be held accountable if it is made badly.

whoknew11222• 4 years ago

What does that mean though? The whole 'suspect is holding a hostage as a human shield so you shoot the suspect before they kill the hostage' is a fun trope for TV and movies, but that's not how things work in real life.

Also, criminals will know the robots have these capabilities, too. If a barricaded suspect hears or sees a robot rummaging around, that could be interpreted as force escalation. Which may cause the criminal to react in unpredictable ways that increase risk to the public and police officers.

notabee• 4 years ago

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-polic...

uluyol2• 4 years ago

Or someone else's life is at risk.

officialjunk• 4 years ago

this is a misconception. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

winReInstall• 4 years ago

Its a preemptive measure, against what the ukraine war will spill into the civil sphere. If drug gangs get explosive suicide drones, and stack them up on some roof, callable as service, flashing the red and blue will not do.

Welcome, to the hell, that is a unchanged humanity with 300 years of tech for everyone. And it was pretty forseeable, hell drones are cheaper then guns now.

This is what we worked for, this is what we fought for. We destroyed humanitys ability to keep the peace.

What a interesting war of all against all this will be, once the planets ceeiling comes down.

What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles.

Any apologist, wanna take the lead and "This is actually a good thing.."wing it?

Do we get religous as defense, believing in the new human being?

EGreg• 4 years ago

Here's a half hearted attempt... this is actually a good thing, because then there will be less people on the planet and less garbage, pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and everyone will be richer.

Presumably, few people will try to unleash drones on nature, and even if they do, they will only have minimal effect given the enormity of the planet. On the other hand, currently we have factory farming where billions of animals are brought up in abysmal conditions to feed the population meat, they live on an ecological credit card, and it's probably far more destructive in the end through famines or just general ecosystem collapse.

Seeing what's coming from that, you might actually consider the threat nuclear war to be comforting...?

onlyrealcuzzo• 4 years ago

By every measurable metric - the world is substantially better today than 300 years ago.

If you seek, you shall find.

If you're looking for reasons why the world is burning down - you'll find them in every headline.

ceroxylon• 4 years ago

What a fitting, ironic place to start it off, then Los Angeles

Not an apologist, but you could have at least gotten the city correct in your cynical diatribe.

carapace• 4 years ago

unchanged humanity

Adapt or die.

Evolution is a thing.

Your complaint reminds me of a bacteria complaining about all the oxygen.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event )

burkaman3• 4 years ago

Yes, these robots are pretty slow and relatively difficult to deploy. It is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where "loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent", but police still somehow have time to deploy and pilot this thing into a crime scene from a safe distance. If they had time to do that, then there wasn't really an imminent danger.

Realistically, this will be used when someone has barricaded themselves in a house or something and is having a standoff with police, and they've gotten tired of standing around outside and would rather send their robot in to shoot the person so they can go home.

classified• 4 years ago

Shooting the person so they can go home. Best reason ever.

jasonladuke03112• 4 years ago

Yeah this happened in the Dallas police shooting a few years back. The suspect was holed up in a parking structure so they sent a bomb disposal robot with a bomb attached and blew the dude up.

chaostheory2• 4 years ago

It makes sense since most police departments are short staffed and things will only get worse in the future

etiennebausson• 4 years ago

That project won't improve things on that front.

Those robots need to be bought, then they need an operator and at least some maintenance.

You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot, or try to actually train those you have in sensible law enforcement.

There are better uses of the money basically everywhere.

chaostheory2• 4 years ago

You could probably hire 3+ cops for the price of one patrolling robot

You can’t hire them because a lot of people no longer want to serve as a police officer due to various cultural and societal changes in recent years. Hence, the inevitable rise of automation and AI in law enforcement. The police shortages have been here before Floyd and the pandemic

xbar• 4 years ago

San Francisco is weird. My wife and I enjoyed our visit last month where we sat at an outdoor cafe and watched people stealing bikes and furniture (yes, seriously).

I am going to be less entertained by watching murder robots wandering the streets, so perhaps I will eat elsewhere next time.

whythre• 4 years ago

If by ‘weird’ you mean teetering on the verge of lawlessness, then yes.

adolph• 4 years ago

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, shooting and killing five officers, and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. . . .

Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. The robot charged into Johnson's legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...

amelius• 4 years ago

Yes, and perhaps these robots can use data science techniques to determine, e.g. based on looks, which people are most likely to be offenders.

kneebonian• 4 years ago

Isn't this the same city that declared policing racist and made shoplifting anything less than $1000 a misdemenoar, whose DAs refuse to prosecute crime, and who declared bail discriminatory?

I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.

rafale• 4 years ago

Pendulum always swing when property owning people get pissed. A lot of them do not like the woke policies they voted for anymore.

kulshan• 4 years ago

Imagine if you will a police budget, police resources and jail space. Now imagine cities where every available police officer in the city is processing paperwork for misdemeanor theft. Its untenable by any means. There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors. How many officer hours would it take to process a stolen bike report, investigate and then arrest someone. Then bring the DA in on that stolen bike case. This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian. If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.

LawTalkingGuy• 4 years ago

If anything it's a fiscal conservatism and using public resources appropriately.

It may have been sold as being cheaper, but it is not. Now there are roving gangs who can steal tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise in moments and will beat or kill people to pursue their crime.

Not only is it not saving public resources but it's putting stores out of business and injuring people.

This isn't some leftist dream gone dystopian.

Dystopia, check. Leftist dream, check.

There simply is not the resources, officers and time to be processing thousands of misdemeanors

That's for the taxpayers to decide, not for the government to present as a reason for overriding them. At this point I bet they feel they can't afford not to enforce laws.

cstejerean• 4 years ago

That seems like something people in SF tell themselves about why it can't be any other way. But deterrence works. If petty crimes are being aggressively policed the the volume of crime will be much lower. The volume is only high because criminals know there are no practical repercussions.

soco• 4 years ago

I must wonder then how the rest of the world, heck even the rest of the States, can get by with prosecuting also petty crimes, yes even stolen bicycles. But this means asking the difficult questions I guess...

chadash• 4 years ago

This is a bit clickbaity. The article says:

"robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD."

alar44• 4 years ago

Oh, whew, that's a relief. /s

FrankyHollywood• 4 years ago

Not read it yet, but the title suggests a "Love, Death & Robots" scenario :D

at_a_remove• 4 years ago

They'll need to get a feed from the feces app so their treads don't grind through some poop on their way to blast someone's head off.

scandox• 4 years ago

Craig Strete[1] has a short story about "womb-cops" that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and "burn down" people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Strete

leereeves• 4 years ago

How will cops justify deadly force if they can't claim they feared for their safety?

whoknew11222• 4 years ago

Something something qualified immunity. It'll still work.

burkaman3• 4 years ago

Since there is no legal precedent ruling that remote robot kills are unconstitutional, officers piloting these robots will be immune from prosecution.

kadomony• 4 years ago

Is this how we get Robocop killing hobos?

doodledo32• 4 years ago

Wasn't this the plot in a Mickey Mouse movie?

fallingknife2• 4 years ago

Won't arrest people for stealing, but wants lethal robots. JFC.

wombatpm• 4 years ago

The failure modes seem overwhelming.

swiftcoder• 4 years ago

I really wish we'd draw some harder lines between "robot" (autonomous), versus "drones" (remote controlled by a human). The article is in fact discussing drones, not robots, so the salient point [to misquote a phrase from the gun control debate] "drones don't kill people, drone operators kill people" - the SFPD is asking here for a new and safer way to murder civilians.

sfusato• 4 years ago

Will weaponized robots first become a thing in the West or elsewhere? First Israel, now San Francisco, a pretty dystopic future lying ahead.

AlbertCory• 4 years ago

Nothing to see here folks; move along.

"robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to the SFPD."

See? Nothing there. Go about your business.

Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances

See? It'll be only in extreme circumstances.

Killing someone should be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it's too easy to press the button.

dang• 4 years ago

San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33728664 - Nov 2022 (86 comments)

Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33726496 - Nov 2022 (209 comments)

Robots authorized to kill in SFPD draft policy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33720719 - Nov 2022 (11 comments)

San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

Related Stories