Let's just not go down this road and not give the police the right to use lethal combat robots
Now, the ATF just makes up new rulings all the time and they aren't laws, so "legal" is always a touch fuzzy where the ATF is concerned, but you're probably going to prison for a very, very long time on a weapons charge if you make a remote-activated, electronically-fired semi auto like we're talking about here - the same way you would be if you try to make your own full auto. The exception would be the case where you are legally allowed to manufacture fully automatic weapons because you have an SOT license from the ATF. In the case of the video made in the past few months where some YouTubers mounted a rifle on a Boston Dynamics Spot, one of the YouTubers in question specifically does have an SOT, meaning they can do things that would get normal people sent to prison over an NFA violation.
At the very least, before you do something that destroys your life, call up the ATF and ask them whether what you are about to do is a dangerously bad idea legally.
I figure if a human is operating a "remote gun" the relative psychological impact would be similar why casinos have you bet with poker chips instead of actual cash—you may be more likely to pull the trigger, because the impact won't be as real to you. (I wonder if there's any data or studies around things like this?)
Robots could also keep suspects safe too, Calo points out. When officers use lethal force at their own discretion, often the justification is that the officer felt unsafe and perceived a threat. But he notes, "you send robots into a situation and there just isn't any reason to use lethal force because no one is actually endangered."
Case closed. Incapacitation should be the only usecase in a situation that removes all endangerment to officers and bystanders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZq7fW6ftlU
Anyone who approves lethal force proxy robots should have to run away from the robot and surrender to make sure they really know when a suspect is compliant.
I am not fan of law enforcement (in its current form in the US), but charitably, I figure law enforcement uses lethal force because they want/need to "win the race" of who gets shot first. But in a battle of human vs robot, the operator of the robot is afforded a bit more time & flexibility because they're, frankly, just a robot. You don't necessarily need to escalate to lethality.
Why do we have to resort to the default human impulsive tactic of "we have to kill" and not actually use the benefit that putting a non-human device in the field could bring?
Usually police want these robots for 'barricaded suspect' type situations. We have SWAT to deal with this, but entering an area held by armed suspects is still extremely dangerous. Also, because officers might need to shoot in order to save their own lives, they have to make decisions extremely quickly, which can lead to bad shootings or unnecessary use of lethal force. Since robots can take bigger risks than humans can, there are situations where they may allow officers to resolve a situation nonlethally where they otherwise couldn't
That said, there are serious problems with police robots. The first is their ability to vastly expand police surveillance. Nonlethal robots face much less public scrutiny, but their potential to automate surveillance is terrifying to me. They also present a problematic revenue source for police departments, who might use them to ding people for parking violations, set up speed traps, etc, i.e., enforcement of minor crimes without actually improving public safety.
A final criticism (relevant to lethal robots) is that, while they may improve officer safety, this doesn't always improve public safety. There are times when officers need to prioritize response speed -- Uvalde Tx being the prime example. They can create a 'it's too dangerous -- SOP is to wait for the robot' mentality -- police departments / officers need to have the courage to avoid this.
The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.
I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety.
If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force.
The more officers are at risk, the more they will use lethal force.
Nearly all theft is from drug addiction and greed.
