SFPD no to guns on robot dogs. Uses explosives instead

[rodericb]

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted to give the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) permission to use robots to deploy explosives with the aim of killing suspects.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/red-alert-sf...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90818015/everybody-hat...
https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/killer-robots-to-...

[peterperkins]

It's a potentially legitimate tactic that can be considered alongside many others.

I don't have a problem with it.

[s p a c e m a n]

Exploding sheep were the best weapons in Worms

[conkerman]

I think Houston dud it a while ago.

Shooter had barricaded himself in an office building, cops sent in robot with 1lb of C4.

Cops win with minimised cop injuries.

[gotoPzero]

Please put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.

[Don Roque]

Sounds good.

[pork911]

Will it be more or less successful than stopping human officers killing innocent people?

[conkerman]

Username doesn't check out.

[eharding]

conkerman said:

I think Houston dud it a while ago.

Shooter had barricaded himself in an office building, cops sent in robot with 1lb of C4.

Cops win with minimised cop injuries.

Obviously the reliability of the delivery mechanism needs to be ensured, because otherwise you've upgraded your nutter with a gun to a nutter with a gun and some explosives.

[Getragdogleg]

We have reached the point at which we should be asking "just because we can, should we be doing this?".

Also be an appropriate time to remember that the Police are not and should never be judges, a jury nor executioners.

[eharding]

Getragdogleg said:

We have reached the point at which we should be asking "just because we can, should we be doing this?".

Also be an appropriate time to remember that the Police are not and should never be judges, a jury nor executioners.

Well, it is America. Conceivably, a robot delivered explosive device could be safer all round than the alternative, acting as a very large precision delivered flash-bang, enough to render the target incapable and disorientated so that they can be safely apprehended, but with the obvious risk of over doing it. If the rozzers wrap the explosives in ball bearings, nails and bits of barbed wire then that's a different proposition.

[irc]

conkerman said:

I think Houston dud it a while ago.

Shooter had barricaded himself in an office building, cops sent in robot with 1lb of C4.

Cops win with minimised cop injuries.

But more collateral damage to the building than a sniper putting a bullet in the head.

[Dave Hedgehog]

gotoPzero said:

Please put down your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0InSlbNakOs

[J4CKO]

Our dog managed to clear the room last night quite effectively using nothing more than some slight out of date chicken and a totally silent deployment.

[98elise]

Getragdogleg said:

We have reached the point at which we should be asking "just because we can, should we be doing this?".

Also be an appropriate time to remember that the Police are not and should never be judges, a jury nor executioners.

What about when someones life is in immediate danger?

If they are at the point of needing to shoot a suspect, then I'd have no problem with any other lethal means. The safer for innocent people the better.

[Evanivitch]

98elise said:

What about when someones life is in immediate danger?

If they are at the point of needing to shoot a suspect, then I'd have no problem with any other lethal means. The safer for innocent people the better.

Is it an immediate danger if you've had the time to request, arm and deploy the robo-dog-bomb? Is a police sniper ever called onto a scene to just shoot someone as soon as they're ready to do so?

I don't have an issue with remotely controlled "robots" providing lethal force provided it's a human pulling the remote controlled trigger. The level of autonomy, especially in robo-dogs is worthy of debate.

[98elise]

Evanivitch said:

98elise said:

What about when someones life is in immediate danger?

If they are at the point of needing to shoot a suspect, then I'd have no problem with any other lethal means. The safer for innocent people the better.

Is it an immediate danger if you've had the time to request, arm and deploy the robo-dog-bomb? Is a police sniper ever called onto a scene to just shoot someone as soon as they're ready to do so?

I don't have an issue with remotely controlled "robots" providing lethal force provided it's a human pulling the remote controlled trigger. The level of autonomy, especially in robo-dogs is worthy of debate.

It does happen.

In the UK armed police are called when it's a suspect with a gun. That takes time.

Depending on what the situation is any number of escalation can happen that take time, including the SAS arriving and kicking the doors in.

If the best option is to send a robot dog in with explosives then I'm completely happy with that.

Of course it's triggered by a person. Current robots don't have any decision making capabilities beyond coping with terrain and obstacle. Beyond that they are little more than remote controlled or route following devices.

[deckster]

Not now happening, in SF at least https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63883235. One sentence in that article however leapt out at me.

BBC said:

The vote came following a new California law requiring city police forces to keep inventories of military-grade equipment and seek approval for their use.

WTAF. I mean, I know the US police are a military force in their own right but, before this law was passed, they didn't need to keep an inventory of their weaponry? Or seek approval for their use????

[Evanivitch]

98elise said:

Of course it's triggered by a person. Current robots don't have any decision making capabilities beyond coping with terrain and obstacle. Beyond that they are little more than remote controlled or route following devices.

That's a poor over simplification. There are numerous edge processing capabilities out there that can identify humans carrying weapons and those not. It's not impractical to use systems to follow the heat signature of a person and to identify if they are openly carrying a weapon (like a rifle) to determine if they're a valid target.

[otolith]

I'd have thought that after the last time they would know better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing