San Francisco considers allowing law enforcement robots to use lethal force

<i>San Francisco police consider letting robots use ‘deadly force’</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33728664" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33728664</a> - Nov 2022 (86 comments)<p><i>Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use deadly force with robots</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33726496" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33726496</a> - Nov 2022 (209 comments)<p><i>Robots authorized to kill in SFPD draft policy</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33720719" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33720719</a> - Nov 2022 (11 comments)

Isn’t the entire point of officers being allowed to use lethal force that their lives are in danger?<p>Killing people remotely when you are completely safe just seems like straight up murder.

Isn&#x27;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?<p>I am very very very confused about what is going on in SF right now.

Wouldn&#x27;t it be more helpful to have robots scooping up [stuff] from the sidewalks and sanitizing things?

I really wish we&#x27;d draw some harder lines between &quot;robot&quot; (autonomous), versus &quot;drones&quot; (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] &quot;drones don&#x27;t kill people, drone operators kill people&quot; - the SFPD is asking here for a new and safer way to murder civilians.

&gt; The idea of robots being legally allowed to kill has garnered some controversy.<p>Since these &quot;robots&quot; are not autonomous, you can substitute &quot;guns&quot; for &quot;robots&quot; in the above sentence. The sentence remains true but becomes banal.<p>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.

<i>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. . . .</i><p><i>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&#x27;s legs and detonated, which killed him. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...</a>

reminds me of robocop movie &quot;you have 30 seconds to comply.&quot;

Craig Strete[1] has a short story about &quot;womb-cops&quot; that patrol the streets from the safety of a command centre and &quot;burn down&quot; people who break the law. I think the likelihood of increased use of deadly force in a remote situation is quite high.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Craig_Strete" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Craig_Strete</a>

Nothing to see here folks; move along.<p>&gt; &quot;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.&quot;<p>See? Nothing there. Go about your business.<p>&gt; Though robots can potentially be equipped with explosive charges to breach certain structures, they would only be used in extreme circumstances<p>See? It&#x27;ll be only in extreme circumstances.<p>Killing someone <i>should</i> be difficult. Maybe it should even endanger your own life. Otherwise it&#x27;s too easy to press the button.

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

They&#x27;ll need to get a feed from the feces app so their treads don&#x27;t grind through some poop on their way to blast someone&#x27;s head off.

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

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.<p>&#x2F;s

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

Won&#x27;t arrest people for stealing, but wants lethal robots. JFC.

Is this how we get Robocop killing hobos?

The failure modes seem overwhelming.

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

This is a bit clickbaity. The article says:<p><i>&quot;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.&quot;</i>