News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by germinalphrase on Friday July 08, 2016 @02:25PM (#12057646)
If police are not allowed to use deadly force, except to protect their own lives/lives of other people in the immediate area - how do we confront the question of "deadly threat" when using a machine capable of applying deadly force?

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)?

Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by gherkin0 on Friday July 08, 2016 @02:44PM (#12057767)
From what I've read, the shooter was contained and did not have hostages. They didn't need to bomb him to death because "negotiations failed," they could have kept him under siege until he was forced to surrender due to lack of supplies. The fact that they had to drive in a bomb is a strong indication that the shooter was not an immediate threat. If he was, a sniper could have got him.

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.

Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by rrauenza on Friday July 08, 2016 @08:03PM (#12059414)
I've read a report that a factor in the decision was the suspect had put IED's around the area. So they can't approach and can't clear the area of potential IED's due to his presence...

I think we are owed more explanation for this precedent.

Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by throwanem on Friday July 08, 2016 @02:28PM (#12057666)
Bomb robots are not fast, and while I haven't been following the news all that closely, I strongly doubt that the remaining sniper was given no opportunity to disarm himself and surrender before he was killed.
Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by germinalphrase on Friday July 08, 2016 @02:37PM (#12057737)
One question, then, would be - did the suspect understand that the robot was going to be used to kill him? Was this announced? Was that threat obvious to him?

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.

Re:Are Police Allowed to Robot-Bomb Suspects? by hellomoto998 on Monday July 11, 2016 @09:11AM (#12070773)
The problem is that police are allowed to use deadly force at all, and that this is not a higher-priority for an item to fix in our connected society.