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)?