The July 7th shooting in Dallas, when two snipers attacked police officers protecting a Black Lives Matter protest, saw the first use of a drone to kill a suspect.
A bomb squad robot fitted with explosives was driven into the sniper's position in a parking garage, and detonated next to the sniper. This was not an AI choosing to kill the sniper, but still very similar to U.S. military tactics in the Middle East. (i.e. Remote controlled drones and drone planes carrying out bombings on ISIS and Al Qaeda positions.)
I would like to hear discussion on Steemit's thoughts on where this could lead, as the first use of a remote controlled drone to kill someone on American soil. While I can be more understanding of its use in the Middle East in war, I question its use in killing someone in a police standoff. If this was more readily employed, will negotiations be used less and less in police standoffs? Could this be something employed even in situations where there are hostages? Additionally, with plans for "drone shutdown guns" available and developed with ingredients as simple as a few lines of code targeting Wifi connections and a Raspberry Pi, could these drones be turned against police, creating more of a hazard?
I am for the use of a drone in a situation like this. For one simple reason, it saves lives. The police could have just sent in a large swat force and the shooter would most likely have been just as dead. But he may have taken a few more police with him in the end.
I don't see them ever using this kind of force in a hostage situation. Far too risky. In the end, we may be closer to Robocop than we know. "Dead or alive, you're coming with me".
When I pull the trigger on a pistol it cause a small Rube Goldberg device to go through its motions (cock hammer, release hammer, fire cap, ignite cartridge, propell bullet, put hole in target.)
When a cop pushes the trigger on a drone, is is just a different Rube Goldberg device which does the same thing.
Why shouldn't a cop choose whichever device has the least risk to her?
A good question. If we allow the police to always use the device that poses the least risk to them, shouldn't we also trust then to always decide which situation to use deadly force in? Unfortunately shooting first and asking questions later will always be the choice with the least risk involved for the police officer. It may not be the right choice, but it will always be the least risky.
We need in my opinion more non lethal weapons so deadly force isn't as necessary. But in this particular case where you have a mass shooter then is it unusual that the police killed him? Most mass shooters seem to get killed and if they target police it's a near certainty that they'll be killed by the police. We have seen this before and maybe the weapon is more advanced but it's the same outcome.
I agree that more non-lethal options would be better. I wonder if the suspects demise in most mass shootings is due more to the willingness of police to kill or the commitment of the shooter to the path they chose and what they see as the ultimate outcome.
If you know someone is targeting you specifically then would you hesitate to take them out at the best opportunity? I think in cases where you're dealing with a maniac who is killing random people, if the opportunity presents itself to take the person out how would you justify not doing so?
I don't blame the cops in the instance where they are being killed. They do what they have to do in order to survive a war against them.
The decision to use deadly force is independent from the choice of what kind of force to use.
I'm not so sure. When a SWAT team moves in and starts with tear gas and flash bangs, a suspect can always throw away their weapons and spread eagle on the floor. But with a drone strike, your dead before you know it.
When they send in a drone, the ability for the suspect to change their mind and give up is greatly reduced.
If you are talking consequentialism then taking one life to save many lives is justified. The person who refused to surrender was one life who threatened many lives. This person showed a willingness to take many lives and wasn't willing to surrender. While it might be better to bring him in alive it may not have been an option.
As far as whether they police used a drone, a gun, or whatever else, it's just a matter of which is the most effective tool to solve the problem while minimizing loss of life. The only thing better than taking one life to save many is taking zero lives to save many.
I agree, the taking of a life is never a good solution, but sometimes it is the necessary solution to save innocent lives. And I do consider the police officers who would have had to try to rush the suspected shooter to be innocent.
This was murder and revenge.
They had him surrounded by swat teams and simply decided to kill him. No judge, jury, or trial, they killed the threat instead of doing their jobs. The police had superior manpower, defensive equipment, gas, tazers, riot shields, beanbag guns, and snipers pinning the guy down. And they decided to drive a robot with C4 up to the guy and fucking blow him up.
That police chief just authorized the use of a wartime tactic on a US citizen they had surrounded. This is what happens when Obamas legalized drone killing without a trial is accepted as normal, eventually the practice makes it back home to be used on citizens. Unless people start to think rationally instead of emotionally, killing suspects like this this will become normalized and accepted too.
People need to start calling and shouting about this one, or we are all in danger from legalized weaponized drones.
Well, I definitely agree with you that if people let this slide, we will be seeing it happen all the time. After Obama authorized the killing of the first US citizen on foreign soil, I said it was just a matter of time before it started happening here. And now it has.