Police have already used a bomb disposal robot to kill a person [1] in the US.

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...

As has been shown again and again, what they plan on "now" is irrelevant. What matters is what they (or their successors) can do with it later.

Hi, author of the article here. I don't care if you read my story or don't, but if you're going to accuse me of "clickbait," I'd encourage you to actually read it. The plan here is to literally load live 12 gauge shells into the robot's PAN disrupter device, which typically only takes blank rounds, in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances. It's a shotgun. But don't take it from me, take it from the cop who proposed the plan!

“Yeah, physically a live round can go in,” Daza-Quiroz answered. “Absolutely. And you’d be getting a shotgun round.”

Hi Sam Biddle, I think it is common knowledge that writers don't choose their titles, editors do, so I wasn't criticizing your article, I was criticizing the title.

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.

It's considered a robot by its manufacturer (https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...), the police who own it, and California state law, so I am confident in my choice of terms here.

When the subject of Robot + lethal force are combined, people think of Robocop, specifically the ED-209, not the cyborg. That's the implication. An autonomous robot which carries out "justice."

It would be appropriate to call it by it's modifier, a remote-controlled robot.

I’d buy that for a dollar!

Today I learned my toaster is a robot

Observing this disagreement without having first read the article, you're coming off as unreasonable in your details, though your original criticism may make sense. Autonomy is not, in practice, a prerequisite for the label "robot", no matter how much we would like it to be (and I would like it to be). This is especially true of standins for dangerous operations. We all know that e.g. bomb disposal robots are robots in normal writing and normal conversation. It seems like a bad-faith nit-pick to assert otherwise.

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.

I'm agreement with you but think that the phrase "robots with lethal shotguns" is scare mongering.

What's the CA legal definition of 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".

Northrop-Grumman calls this specific model a robot in their press release.

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grum...

Sometimes companies exaggerate their products in order to charge higher prices. No doubt there is some strict, technical definition of "robot" that this satisfies, but it's not what people generally think of as a "robot". There's also a strict definition of "tool" that is satisfied by a rock or a stick, but that's not what I'm looking for when I ask about tools at Home Depot (and apart from the pedants, everyone generally understands this).

Just some friendly advice, that you might wanna watch where you're pointing that accusation of pedantry.

I'm not being pedantic, and I'm not accusing anyone in particular of pedantry, I'm saying it would be pedantic to consider a stick or a stone to be a tool in the context of Home Depot.

Personally, I don't think opening a thinly veiled accusation with "just some friendly advice" does much to mitigate the rudeness.

It was described in the article. That a police, which already is accused of using excessive force, gets a new means of killing people, remotely.

The police call the machine in question a robot, the army calls it a robot, even the manufacturer calls the machine in question a robot.

> Robots act autonomously and automatically.

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'm sure the distinction between teleoperated machine and autonomous robot will be very important to the family killed by this machine the next time the Oakland police do a no-knock raid on the wrong house.

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?

The criticism was that the title is clickbait, not that there is no problem with "increased force projection". The latter doesn't justify the former.

Clickbait-accusation seems to imply "do not waste your time reading this." I think you are equivocating.

Clickbait means the title is more sensational than the article delivers, it doesn't mean that the article isn't worth reading (lots of unsensational things are worth reading). An article about the lethal potential of a remotely guided bomb disposal machine is entirely worth reading, but that doesn't justify describing it as a "lethal shotgun equipped robot", which is textbook equivocation--pretty bold to suggest that I'm the one equivocating.

My massive problem with tech like this is it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger". If a cop is chasing a suspect and the suspect pulls out a gun and starts shooting a the cop, the cop would be right to shoot back and kill the suspect. But you can't apply that standard to something that isn't living, if a cop is directing a robot to chase a suspect and the suspect start shooting at the robot, the same standard just does not apply.

I had this same misgiving when Dallas PD used a robot to carry a bomb towards a hostile rooftop sniper.

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.

I mean, the Dallas (ex-military) sniper was exactly the right use of this sort of technology. He was actively, explicitly murdering cops, and the police had no reason to believe he was unwilling or unable to kill more of them if they moved to arrest him. I can understand concern that this might be used in more ambiguous circumstances, but I don't understand why anyone would object to its use in that particular case.

Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment.

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.

It's not clear to me that they would have had a better opportunity. "Lethal intervention" is among the best case scenarios in a mass shooting, I don't know why we are litigating it like the outcome was particularly tragic. It may not have been perfect, and I'm sure there's something to learn from it, but people are discussing it like it was Uvalde or something. It seems like it was as close to a desirable outcome as could reliably be secured--I'm glad police didn't roll the dice in hoping for a less lethal outcome with innocent lives hanging in the balance.

Good point. Though what if the suspect is threatening to shoot others, and there is a robot (with a live round) nearby?

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.

> the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

Emphasis mine. Is it not okay to shoot at someone who's shooting at your partner?

> it violates the basic principle of: "you only kill when your life is in danger"

For police, it's "you only kill when a life is in danger". It doesn't have to be your life.

There is a pretty huge distinction between an RC car with a camera and an attachment that can load a single shell into it and the "shotgun-toting robot" that your article conjures.

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?

I've read the article, but it doesn't define what exactly a robot is.

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.

I both named the exact model of the robot (Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros Mark 5-A1) and specify that it's operated via remote control.

Implying that someone hasn't read the article violates the site guidelines.

> in order to shoot and kill people under special emergency circumstances.

Where is this suggested by the Oakland PD?

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.

No?

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.

I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

> He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views.

The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this deflection seems really deceptive.

> I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"

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.

There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.

Michael's use was congruent with exigency's meaning--there was no reason for samfbiddle to suggest Michael didn't understand the word, particularly while ignoring Michael's actual point (that Officer Turner wasn't the department's spokesperson). samfbiddle's comment was neither proper nor appropriate.

This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.

> This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.

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.

Seeing the title I immediately thought of something AI/ML controlled. I read the article and thought the robot was autonomous up until more than halfway through where you mention it is remote-controlled. You even compare it to a Roomba, which is autonomous. It is confusing. Putting that it the first paragraph would make the article sound much different.

I largely agree, but the explosive charge can be a shotgun blank. Which also means it can be substituted for a normal shotgun shell. And the police can use this pretty much at their discretion. How long will it take for this to be misused?

They already did in 2016. [1]

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...

I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists.

I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.

He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.

It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1]

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...

This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.

Not to mention the guy was trained military with an express desire to murder police--who knows what the police would be walking into.

We need news media accountability somehow. The amount of misleading news content is outrageous. Not to mention corrupt bias towards various large corporations or political parties.

they are already armed with a functional shotgun and a hand waved at it.

you can put any 12ga. cartridge in it, and that means a lot of things.

Right. They could be using it to plant wildflowers: https://texashillcountry.com/shotgun-flower-shell/

exactly, it could even shoot little bits of confetti that say bang, or all sorts of non lethal things that would 100% stop the fight w/o killing.

They could use “dragon’s breath” rounds to safely start controlled burns!

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.

So you didn't read the part where police officials start descibing scenarios where it would be appropriate to arm the "bomb disposal device" with actual shotgun shells to kill people? Or the part where police refuse to prohibit the use of shotgun shells because they may want to use them one day? Or you just didn't bother to get that far before commenting?