"Well cops are bad, so we can't enforce any laws".
Well-intentioned ACLU action and Public backlash have made these very hard to roll out, but long term, this may be the only the solution (along with wholesale long-term welfare overhaul of course)
Nope, loot ak Ukraine. And military surplus can easily end up with the police.
We don't need to accept lethal robots, but wholesale saying "no robotic equipment at all" will simply leave us in the logjam we have now between bad cops and zero enforcement.
[1]:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/nyregion/nypd-robot-dog-b...
Lets remove that concern, no excuses left.
Cops would have you believe that LEO is the most dangerous job in America, but it's not even in the top 10.
Some cops may be afraid of getting shot, but consider that for every cop killed, cops kill roughly 21 citizens.
Copaganda has made everyone think that crime is terrible, cops are underpaid, overworked, and going into combat every time they report for work.
No more SWAT teams needed if it’s just robots doing tracking and catching.
There's zero need for local rural cops to have MRAPs and SWAT teams, and yet...
Let’s remove that excuse.
Are we really at a point where we need to have a preface, two mid-sentence disclaimers, and carefully worded language just so one does not get torn apart by one's own in-group?
If that's where we're at, I'd sooner support the other camp, whatever it is.
When did that become our current strategy? I haven't seen any sign of it in my neck of the woods.
Cops claim it’s because of too much regulation (regulations put in place because of bad cops). It doesn’t really matter if they’re lying or not, there’s now no enforcement.
And all the political capital spent putting regulations in place now means there is none left to solve the underlying root causes of crime.
This is the dynamic playing out in most cities, esp in cities with strong police unions.
[1]: https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/01/ask-the-standard-san-franc...
and as a result we have no enforcement now
That’s all I’m saying.
The thing I found interesting about it is how Kafkaesque it seemed as to loss of hope of evading capture.
Robotic dogs to apprehend people? I dunno.
they almost do that at the end.
Chase, however, I'm surprised we haven't been seeing for at least a few years. Here in Chicago, following a high-profile bystander death resulting from a police pursuit, the department adopted a new pursuit policy that effectively bans vehicular pursuits in a majority of situations.
While many contend that this policy goes too far, it's indisputable that vehicular pursuits are dangerous. The potential for tracking, for example, a robbery suspect from the air (with a considerably lower bar than scrambling one of the city's two police helicopters) via drone seems like an obvious win for safety, both in reducing dangerous pursuits and apprehending dangerous offenders.
I'd go farther than that. I'd wager that within 10 years, someone will have been shot by a mostly autonomous drone operated by a police unit somewhere. An operator will have had a approve the shot. We are probably 20-30 years from fully autonomous takedown of terrorists.
This is not meant as some kind of criticism, I believe that this is a fact which will become true regardless of us approving or disapproving it.
I mean from a technical standpoint, where the on-board AI and tracking abilities as well as the physical ones will be so capable that they will be able to replace humans chasing others, with the ability of evading thrown stones or other objects, possibly using tasers or fine but strong nets to prevent the chased person from continuing to flee.
A bit less than 10 years? Then how much longer until this is no longer a novelty?