That's unlikely to happen. Most shootings are excused by claiming the officers life was in danger based on the information he had.

It's going to be hard for them go before a judge and say that they needed to shoot to protect the robot. The advantage of robots is that they are just a line item on a budget.

First, the "snake-head on a goose-neck" manipulator that usually mounts on Spot will have a pair of electroshock probes added, as a non-lethal means of incapacitating a suspect at touch range.

Then they will add a 20ga shotgun that shoots a single beanbag or netting cartridge.

Then, after that, they will use the lethal firearms.

Or we could not. Slippery slope arguments assume people make the worst choices, and there's no reason that's necessary.

Declare automated surveillance drones categorically unacceptable because of a hypothetical risk they could have weapons mounted on them and you get more people and animals killed unnecessarily.

I am not making that particular argument. I'd prefer to mount the .38 special revolver on the robot now, make sure the trigger-pull servo is 100% human-controlled, and train the robot operator on the rules of engagement and remote use of lethal force right from the start, rather than just wait until the inevitable happens to catch up.

A cop-controlled robot is an extension of the cop. It's not the robot's fault if its technology is misused, but the cop's. The problem underlying all this is that cops have too much unchecked power already. At least if they're shooting people remotely with armed robots, we would know the camera wasn't malfunctioning, and that the video should be available for the civil lawsuit.

Rather than freaking out about the possibility that robots might be armed, just assume that they are already weapons, and craft the human policy around the technology. I.e. when a robot is armed, the firing mechanism for the weapon must be under direct human control. If you claim your robot will never be armed or used to intimidate, you can conveniently skip out on writing that rule, so when it happens someone gets a free escape responsibility card, with "we weren't trained for this" printed on it.

But if the operator, nor anyone else, is in immediate danger of being harmed, what would ever be the rationality to use the weapon?

It's already happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...

What is the difference between police calling in a SWAT sniper or an armed robot dog? In both cases the officer has the ability to remotely order the shooting of a target.

Yet police officers do not call in snipers into every occasion. What is important is not the means, but the constraints imposed on the means to incentivize proper decision making.

Snipers are not machines.

Sure, but what is the difference between a human or a machine agreeing to the same order?

Of course the human may have free will, but the majority of people are trained to follow orders from figures of authority. It is improbable that a police sniper would refuse a hit based off of some ethical dilemma, especially when all the information they have on a situation is fed to them by their police colleagues.

Heroes are rare and their presence should not be taken for granted. Counting on a human to do the right thing is almost never the right choice if you can help it.

In an individual instance, sure, but over time people can and do defect from corrupt forces.