Clickbait title. Remote control bomb disposal devices with an explosive charge to detonate bombs are hardly "robots with shotguns"
“Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”
The problem is that one can mistake the term for machines with some form of autonomy, while, based on my understanding, they're "just" remotely controlled ones.
Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?
I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”'
He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views.
The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy'
His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther.
There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.'
Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”'
Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).
Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
(emphasis mine)
.......
..... do you honestly think that if you give police remote control vehicles with shotguns attached to them that they WONT use them for violence and killing? These are police we are talking about here, they come from a culture of violence and extreme fear.
These devices are not robots. They are remote control devices operated by humans.
Oxford: robot, a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
Robots act autonomously and automatically. The hypothetical case where we might give such an autonomous device lethal capabilities is an ongoing discussion. Most people agree that could be a very bad idea.
But a human controlled device? I don't see the problem.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...
Personally, I don't think opening a thinly veiled accusation with "just some friendly advice" does much to mitigate the rudeness.
It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.
Even if you disagree that this is the "common" understanding, the sarcastic exaggeration is meaningless.
I agree with another commenter, that a more reasonable criticism would be that it should be called a "remote controlled robot", rather than just a robot.
According to Merriam-Webster, a "robot" is: > 1. a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects) > 2A. a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line) > 2B. a mechanism guided by automatic controls > 3. a person who resembles a machine in seeming to function automatically or in lacking normal feelings or emotions
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
Maybe a remote control device could fit the definition of 2B, but it's a stretch, as that's so broad that an alarm clock could be a "robot".
Whatever kind of machine this is at the end of the day it's a force multiplier. That's why it is used. It lets law enforcement leverage more force against people and it allows them to do so with further impunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdokBQW7Suc
It's always disconcerting when people don't see a problem with that.
How much force projection should law enforcement have anyways?
How much is too much? Is it subjective or objective?
What are the checks and balances on this kind of equipment?
In the way most people colloquially use the word "robot", that's not necessarily true; surgical robots aren't autonomous, for example, nor are telepresence robots. The word "robot" is actually surprisingly vague. A dishwasher operates autonomously, but many people don't consider it a robot. Elevators are vertical L5 autonomous vehicles, but most people don't consider them robots, either.
More importantly, though, if a device has software-activated weapons and is connected to the internet, it is theoretically possible for a hacker to load code onto it to make it an autonomous death machine, even if its OEM firmware was intended for human-controlled teleoperation only.
I think it will usually be justified as being in the imminent defense of others / the public. The sniper was actively threatening to continue shooting people.
Perhaps they’d say the hypothetical guy shooting at a robot is endangering others via any stray bullets. And perhaps sometimes that would be correct.
Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after.
But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone.
On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
I get that cops can't be trusted to only use it in this scenario (as implied by the author), but if hypothetical "better police officers" were available, should we allow it then?
EDIT: theoretically the robot (even if remote controlled) could aim better.
Emphasis mine. Is it not okay to shoot at someone who's shooting at your partner?
For police, it's "you only kill when a life is in danger". It doesn't have to be your life.
Doesn't the chief of police have to personally authorize the use of one of these robots? Do you find these scary even when used appropriately? Or is your fear that this is a slippery slope that ends in an autonomous robot sticking a shotgun in your face and demanding your ID?
The conversation they had shows slippery slope in action:
> After a brief silence, Commissioner Jesse Hsieh asked the next question: “Does the department plan on using a live round in the robot PAN disruptor?”
> The answer was immediately provocative. “No,” Daza-Quiroz said, before quickly pivoting to hypothetical scenarios in which, yes, just such a shotgun-armed robot might be useful to police.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...
In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.
you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.
https://www.cdvs.us/product/12-gauge-dragons-breath/
To be fair, that would imply a realistic approach to wildfire management, so it’s much less likely than the wildflowers thing.