Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects?
usnews.com
usnews.com
Do we merely need the "potential" for deadly threat on the police to justify the use of a machine capable of applying deadly force? If this machine can deliver a bomb, it seems likely that it could deliver less-than-lethal alternatives, as well (?).
In this instance, those less-than-lethal options may not have been available; however, it feels really problematic to say "our only option was to kill this man because attempting to subdue/apprehend him in any other way would have - definitely - led to a deadly threat on our officers".
That could be true - but it also seems very different than a police officer reacting to an imminent threat with deadly force. To that point, the presence of a knife in a suspect's hand is not inherently a lethal threat. They are given the opportunity to drop the knife as officers approach to apprehend them. If they raise that knife, or begin approaching the officer rapidly, then this becomes a lethal threat.
In this mechanized situation, are they still offered that same opportunity to self-disarm before lethal force is applied?
Does this lower the bar for 'lethal threat' so that police can send a small machine to kill a suspect because they have the potential to apply deadly force on the police (but haven't imminently demonstrated that ability)?
There is also a question of time pressure: if police are just camped outside my door telling me to drop my weapon I will be less inclined to do so because the threat (for both of us) is not yet imminent.
If they instead say, "we are coming in. Drop your weapon or we will shoot" the threat is now imminent for both parties.
In this situation, the police are using deadly force without (a clear) imminent threat. That feels like a big red line to relax.
I think the police should never use lethal violence if there are any passive options available to them. This guy was obviously guilty of murder, but I'm more worried about other cases where the police might decided to use techniques like this in the name of safety, such as a "drug bust" against "armed and dangerous criminals" that happens to be carried out against innocents at the wrong address.
I think we are owed more explanation for this precedent.
If a robot was that close, are there no other non lethal ways to disable someone?
> People should just stop killing people.
I mean, sure, that'd be nice. Unfortunately, the entire history of our species, to say nothing of every other on the planet, militates strongly against it.
hard to believe it is happening for real, this is some form of horror surrealism
They executed the guy who killed police officers, they must have been quite certain at that to actually do it.
(assuming that no one else is hurt by the explosive device, and that sniping down the suspect is not possible)
If there were no immediate threat any longer, they should have waited, but considering the guy still had a sniper rifle and a vantage point (?), he was definitely an ongoing threat.
Just because it didn't kill anyone else now, doesn't mean it won't in the future, when cops use it as more of a routine to take out targets, and even less intelligent cops get to do it. Will those cops be punished? Of course not (in the current system of mostly unaccountable cops). It will probably be called "collateral damage", so they get to borrow even more from the military.