Use of Drone/Robots by Police (1 Viewer)

[Leonard]

There is lots of heated discussion about recent violence in the US by and against the police. I find myself appalled by it all. However, I am specifically interested in opinions regarding the Dallas Police' use of a drone armed with explosives to kill the armed gunman. There doesn't seem to be much if any in the way of protocol for such things.

FWIW, I have no complaints about the Police' use of deadly force to end the shooting spree in Dallas. I would tend to say that if a police sniper would have been justified in shooting to kill, then use of a deadly drone is just a different means to the same end. Not being anything approaching an expert in these things, I suppose that I don't know for sure that a sniper would have been justified by departmental protocol, but it seems to me that they would. Here is a shooter who has shown a willingness to kill, is still very dangerous, and is not showing any inclination to surrender. Waiting just gives him the opportunity to do more harm. Also, and quite aside from that point, I am glad we will not be subjected to a lengthy trial.

Clearly, there will need to be discourse on the use of these drones and policies/guidelines enacted.

Thoughts?

 

[H|Q]

I'm wondering how they rigged that up in the heat of the moment. Or did they have one on hand already?

 

[chkmte]

I assume when you say drone, you mean robot. It was actually a robot that delivered a package of c4 to the dude.

 

[Psypher1000]

I am specifically interested in opinions regarding the Dallas Police' use of a drone armed with explosives to kill the armed gunman.

Doesn't bother me at all, and I'm honestly a little confused by some of the outraged I've heard expressed about it. I don't think folks have any problem when bomb robots are used to investigate suspicious devices or try to trigger/disarm explosives in a controlled manner. It's only when someone happened to get killed - intentionally and seemingly justifiably, of course - in the process that I've heard the concerns. I'm not sure how it differs from human sniper taking out a target.

*shrug*

 

[Chicken Rob]

There is lots of heated discussion about recent violence in the US by and against the police. I find myself appalled by it all. However, I am specifically interested in opinions regarding the Dallas Police' use of a drone armed with explosives to kill the armed gunman. There doesn't seem to be much if any in the way of protocol for such things.

FWIW, I have no complaints about the Police' use of deadly force to end the shooting spree in Dallas. I would tend to say that if a police sniper would have been justified in shooting to kill, then use of a deadly drone is just a different means to the same end. Not being anything approaching an expert in these things, I suppose that I don't know for sure that a sniper would have been justified by departmental protocol, but it seems to me that they would. Here is a shooter who has shown a willingness to kill, is still very dangerous, and is not showing any inclination to surrender. Waiting just gives him the opportunity to do more harm. Also, and quite aside from that point, I am glad we will not be subjected to a lengthy trial.

Clearly, there will need to be discourse on the use of these drones and policies/guidelines enacted.

Thoughts?

I agree that there is little functional difference between the drone and the sniper. The drone is probably less likely to hit a civilian inadvertently as well. And it's also clear they needed to take out the shooter. Despite these things I struggle with both police snipers and explosive drones.

This is why I think we need more focus on root causes than the symptoms. But that requires cooperation between our warring political parties rather than continuing to politicize the symptoms to divide the electorate.

 

[DrStrange]

It seems like as justified a use of force that can be imagined. The only question is the means - which I do not find fault with. It seemed to me to offer little or no risk to the public or the officers while having a good chance of being effective.

There definitely are situations where this would not have been a good idea, but this was not one of them.

 

[Leonard]

I'm wondering how they rigged that up in the heat of the moment. Or did they have one on hand already?

I haven't heard one way or the other, but my guess is that somebody planned this ahead of time.

I assume when you say drone, you mean robot. It was actually a robot that delivered a package of c4 to the dude.

As I understand it, the definition of drone is likely more accurate. A robot is implied to have some degree of independent action, which I do not believe is true in this case. Just semantics in any case.

 

[GrumpyCatMalaka]

One word...Terminators

 

[BGinGA]

Curious as to why the drone could not have been used to disable the villain via stun grenade or gas, vs killing him with explosives.

 

[jbutler]

Curious as to why the drone could not have been used to disable the villain via stun grenade or gas, vs killing him with explosives.

Probably has something to do with the level of sophistication and reliability of the robot. I know nothing about stun grenades, though, so I can't even speculate.

I'm all for blowing the guy up, though, given his refusal to surrender and his admitted goal killing more police.

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, I have no qualms about using a robot or drone for delivering deadly force, if it's a safer or more cost-effective method. Just seems that it could also be used to debilitate an enemy more safely, as well.

 

[Trihonda]

Curious as to why the drone could not have been used to disable the villain via stun grenade or gas, vs killing him with explosives.

Stun grenades don't knock people out.. They're not 100% effective, and if they work, only cause some level of disorientation. They don't disable a person. They need to be followed up with a rush of swat type personnel immediately afterwards. There's some risk to officers.

Gas Doesn't knock anyone out either, and only causes disruptions to vision and sometimes pain.

Neither of these would be highly effective in open areas. To be effective, they need to used in rather enclosed areas.

given use of force guidelines, deadly force would certainly be justified, and though the means were atypical, I see no issue with them.

 

[BiGGyT]

This is a hard one for me as I was glad they got the guy, and when I heard they blew him up with the bomb squad robot, I had two thoughts.

1) Good - bad guy dead, no more loss of police or civilian lives.

2) um.....What justification do you need to blow up a suspect? At what point do Police have drones with Hellfire missiles taking out suspects without due process?

Slippery slope, hope they had a judge say "blow him the f* up, okay with me" otherwise I am not sure this is a good precedent.

I would imagine that they have charges for these robots that they use to blow up suspicious packages, probably modified that charge or added more, maybe rolled it in nails for added shrapnel.

I am curious how this all turns out and what others think about it, maybe those with some military, legal, or police experience, not just my armchair thoughts.

 

[BGinGA]

Slippery slope, hope they had a judge say "blow him the f* up, okay with me" otherwise I am not sure this is a good precedent.

I don't think a judge is involved in most (any?) field decisions to use lethal force to take down a dangerous criminal. I don't see this as any different. Precedent was set long ago, I think.

 

[jbutler]

This is a hard one for me as I was glad they got the guy, and when I heard they blew him up with the bomb squad robot, I had two thoughts.

1) Good - bad guy dead, no more loss of police or civilian lives.

2) um.....What justification do you need to blow up a suspect? At what point do Police have drones with Hellfire missiles taking out suspects without due process?

Slippery slope, hope they had a judge say "blow him the f* up, okay with me" otherwise I am not sure this is a good precedent.

I would imagine that they have charges for these robots that they use to blow up suspicious packages, probably modified that charge or added more, maybe rolled it in nails for added shrapnel.

I am curious how this all turns out and what others think about it, maybe those with some military, legal, or police experience, not just my armchair thoughts.

If a guy has killed or attempted to kill someone, still has the means and evinced the willingness to kill others, and refuses to surrender, blast away imo. Judges don't sign death warrants for local police to execute and aren't empowered to do so.

Let's take the worst case scenario and say that it was later ruled that police had somehow used excessive force in taking this guy down. It would be a FAR greater violation of his right to due process if a judge had ex parte communications with law enforcement and on the basis of whatever facts he was given signed an order empowering the police to assassinate the guy.

 

[abby99]

I'm fine with what they did. As mentioned above, I agree that using the drone/robot is functionally the same as taking the guy out with a sniper, and nobody else was endangered in the process. Sometimes deadly force is necessary, and I'm convinced that this is one of those times. I understand that there was a sincere attempt to get him to surrender, but with his threats to set off explosives coupled with what they found at home, I don't think the police had any other reasonable choice here.

 

[chkmte]

This is a hard one for me as I was glad they got the guy, and when I heard they blew him up with the bomb squad robot, I had two thoughts.

1) Good - bad guy dead, no more loss of police or civilian lives.

2) um.....What justification do you need to blow up a suspect? At what point do Police have drones with Hellfire missiles taking out suspects without due process?

Slippery slope, hope they had a judge say "blow him the f* up, okay with me" otherwise I am not sure this is a good precedent.

I would imagine that they have charges for these robots that they use to blow up suspicious packages, probably modified that charge or added more, maybe rolled it in nails for added shrapnel.

I am curious how this all turns out and what others think about it, maybe those with some military, legal, or police experience, not just my armchair thoughts.

I completely agree with @BiGGyT . I mean, hell why don't we just give them grenades. Would there be any difference? I mean, to me this IS a slippery slope.

 

[jbutler]

I completely agree with @BiGGyT . I mean, hell why don't we just give them grenades. Would there be any difference? I mean, to me this IS a slippery slope.

It's not as if every cop has a robot walking around with him ready to go blow up every car at a traffic stop. Sure, if they didn't have a robot and wanted to go to the weapons locker and use a grenade instead, I'm all for that, too. The guy had murdered multiple people and was ready to keep killing.

What are you worried is the next step in this supposed slippery slope?

 

[detroitdad]

I completely agree with @BiGGyT . I mean, hell why don't we just give them grenades. Would there be any difference? I mean, to me this IS a slippery slope.

If you can't figure out why an armed robot/drone thing is better/safer/different than grenades then there isn't any reason responding.

 

[DJ Mack]

As to how they rigged this up it's not that difficult. Bomb squads have robots, obviously. But what a lot of people don't realize is that bomb squads also carry explosives of their own. When you read about a suspicious package that police removed to a safe area and destroyed, how do you think they do it? Yep, with their own explosives that are usually deployed by a robot.

The only concern I might have in the aftermath of an incident like this is how they assured that it would be effective at quickly stopping the threat. When using deadly force, the objective isn't to kill the target per se. It isn't to wound him just enough so he gives up. It's to stop the threat.

As odd as it sounds, when you're a sniper you have certain ethical obligations. One is that you take the cleanest shot possible to neutralize the threat and minimize the pain inflicted. Purposely blowing a guy's arm off and then waiting a minute before following up with a head shot is cruel and against the rules in just about every protocol I've ever read. In my mind that carries through here too. If I were the commander in this operation I'd want to make sure that an appropriate quantity and type of explosive was used so as to stop the threat quickly with a minimum amount of pain. It would be unethical to use just enough explosive to blind him and cause him to bleed out over the next six hours.

 

[BiGGyT]

It's not as if every cop has a robot walking around with him ready to go blow up every car at a traffic stop. Sure, if they didn't have a robot and wanted to go to the weapons locker and use a grenade instead, I'm all for that, too. The guy had murdered multiple people and was ready to keep killing.

What are you worried is the next step in this supposed slippery slope?

Well, in 30 years, it might be an autonomous robot drone that pulls you over, or a robot that is controlled by an officer at the police station. Are we going to equip them with explosives or other armaments?

Once again, I am okay with them killing him, the method makes me take a step back and wonder if this is wise. Might be the best thing since bullet proof vests, hence me wondering where this will go.

Let's take the worst case scenario and say that it was later ruled that police had somehow used excessive force in taking this guy down. It would be a FAR greater violation of his right to due process if a judge had ex parte communications with law enforcement and on the basis of whatever facts he was given signed an order empowering the police to assassinate the guy.

you is law smart

Like I said, let someone with a lot more knowledge say what they think about it, because I am ignorant.

 

[chkmte]

Gentlemen / @jbutler / @detroitdad ,

In this instance, they got the bad guy without any immediate repurcussions or collateral damage - which is a good thing. I have no sympathy for the bad guy, nor do I hold any ill will towards the Dallas PD. I guess the "slippery slope" would be the fact that police departments nationwide are becoming militarized. I don't feel more firepower is our ticket out of this mess. I think it could lead to unintended consequences in the future. (Before you ask me @jbutler , no I don't know what those unintended consequences would be.)

Now, as for @detroitdad. You said "If you can't figure out why an armed robot/drone thing is better/safer/different than grenades then there isn't any reason responding." First of all, your statement assumes that an armed robot/drone thing is one-in-the-same. I disagree. I understand that a robot is on wheels and rolls up to the suspect with explosives. I understand that a drone is in the air and shoots a missle up your ass. In my non-military, non-law enforcement opinion - there really isn't a significant difference between a robot, drone or grenade. They all deliver a very similar result with a slightly different way of getting to the target.

When I said "just give them grenades", it was a somewhat smart-ass comment. The truth is, that's exactly where we'll find ourselves in X years down the road. Again, I don't think that is the way we're going to solve this divide.

 

[jbutler]

Gentlemen / @jbutler / @detroitdad ,

In this instance, they got the bad guy without any immediate repurcussions or collateral damage - which is a good thing. I have no sympathy for the bad guy, nor do I hold any ill will towards the Dallas PD. I guess the "slippery slope" would be the fact that police departments nationwide are becoming militarized. I don't feel more firepower is our ticket out of this mess. I think it could lead to unintended consequences in the future. (Before you ask me @jbutler , no I don't know what those unintended consequences would be.)

I share your concerns about the militarization of the police force, but certainly there are times when military equipment is useful and, if available to police, should be used.

But you've still not provided the next step down this supposed slippery slope that should give us cause for concern. Generally with slippery slopes, there's a place you don't want to fall. Where is it that you don't want to fall here and why would the use of this robotic device prevent us from falling? If your answer is "I don't know" then you're simply offering an argument based in fear, not logic.

 

[chkmte]

I share your concerns about the militarization of the police force, but certainly there are times when military equipment is useful and, if available to police, should be used.

But you've still not provided the next step down this supposed slippery slope that should give us cause for concern. Generally with slippery slopes, there's a place you don't want to fall. Where is it that you don't want to fall here and why would the use of this robotic device prevent us from falling? If your answer is "I don't know" then you're simply offering an argument based in fear, not logic.

Ok, the first thing that comes to mind is Waco. How'd that turn out? We need not repeat that mistake. I mean, I can't think of a better example of a massive fuck-up based on too much weaponry.

...and I disagree with you that if I answer "I don't know" my argument is based on fear. Analogy: If I mix half-dozen bottles of random chemicals from my garage "I don't know" what's going to happen - but it seems logical that something bad will eventually occur.

 

[jbutler]

Ok, the first thing that comes to mind is Waco. How'd that turn out? We need not repeat that mistake. I mean, I can't think of a better example of a massive fuck-up based on too much weaponry.

...and I disagree with you that if I answer "I don't know" my argument is based on fear. Analogy: If I mix half-dozen bottles of random chemicals from my garage "I don't know" what's going to happen - but it seems logical that something bad will eventually occur.

Yours provides a good example of why 99% of slippery slope arguments are horrible. Your argument presumes that there is no point at which we can draw a line between: (1) a robot delivering a bomb to kill one subject who had without a doubt murdered several people and stated his intent to continue murdering if given the opportunity; and (2) a bloated federal law enforcement agency bulldozing into a compound and setting fire to housing units full of innocent adults and children because they were afraid a cult leader had weapons and had kidnapped people. It's very easy to draw that line as evidenced by the fact that we're not currently bulldozing into compounds and setting fire to housing units.

Your mixing of chemicals analogy is no better. You have good reason to believe why mixing random chemicals could lead to harmful consequences. If I asked you why, you could say, "Because many chemicals, when combined, produce noxious fumes and are even flammable or lethal." Yet you have offered no reason to believe using a robotic unit in a police stand off will lead to harmful consequences.

So yes, when you simply say, "I don't like this because it could lead to unintended consequences," but have none to offer - apart from Waco - you're acting out of fear rather than reason.

 

[chkmte]

I'm not trying to argue. I'm not trying to be confrontational. You're misinterpreting my comments and backing me into a corner - which is inappropriate given the thread.

 

[jbutler]

I'm not trying to argue. I'm not trying to be confrontational. You're misinterpreting my comments and backing me into a corner - which is inappropriate given the thread.

Being wrong often feels like being backed into a corner, but that's not my fault.

EDIT: Okay, that's a little overly snarky. But I don't think my previous response was inappropriate by any measure. We're debating a point. I don't know what about the thread makes you think you should be treated with kid gloves.

 

[chkmte]

Of course, if I have a different opinion than YOU, i must be wrong. That's a real shitty response @jbutler.

Why do you have to debate everyone who has a difference of opinion? This is not a debate forum. Its a poker chip community.

To me, it should be more like old guys drinking coffee together of a morning. Unfortunately, if one voices their opinion here, theyre often chastised for it.

Your constant line of questioning can make one feel uncomfortable. You should know that. Relax.

 

[jbutler]

Of course, if I have a different opinion than YOU, i must be wrong. That's a real shitty response @jbutler.

Why do you have to debate everyone who has a difference of opinion? This is not a debate forum. Its a poker chip community.

To me, it should be more like old guys drinking coffee together of a morning. Unfortunately, if one voices their opinion here, theyre often chastised for it.

Your constant line of questioning can make one feel uncomfortable. You should know that. Relax.

This thread was opened to discuss the use of drone robots. Discussions involve opinions, which often differ. The world is not your safe space.

 

[BiGGyT]

@jbutler the slope I worry about in my paranoia fantasies of conspiracy theories is something like this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/world/la-fg-awlaki-killed-20111001

I recall the filibuster that Rand Paul held was a simple "assure us that you will not use hellfire missiles on citizens in the US" which after many hours of grandstanding was finally agreed to. Do I really think that someone sitting at Starbucks in Happyville will have a drone strike on them because they did not agree with Premiere Trump? No, but don't give him the idea that it is ok and normal to blow up people who threaten you. The man is already trying to get people who say negative things toward him punished and limit the 1st amendment, now he has robot bombs to use? Watch out Megyn Kelly, there might be a surprise at the door.

Unfortunately, it is getting more and more likely that the police will need to be more of a militarized force to protect themselves and us and we will see more instances where overwhelming force could be used and justified. It is those instances where it could be used incorrectly - to neutralize rioters, to end a standoff at some cabin in the woods, to stop some biker gang from shooting up Twin Peaks, or whatever scenario you can think up, that concerns me.

We already had a problem in Georgia with a no-knock warrant when a stun grenade was tossed into a baby crib, at the wrong house, based on false informant information. What will it take to have a drone lob a grenade into a house of suspected terrorists, or anti-capitalists, or Mormons?

Regardless, it is my opinion and paranoid concern, and once again, glad bad guy was killed without anyone else being injured. I am not saying anyone is wrong, you asked what slope, this is my thought, which is probably 98% inflated impossibility and I recognize it as such, but it is that 2% "ace on the river" chance that makes me think about the possibilities, no matter how improbable.