5 ms·

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I b

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread but I actually don't see why you wouldn't be okay with this if you're already okay with police having guns. I believe there is a more nuanced view point here. A few points: - This is about remote controlled guns. A human is still making the decision and all of the same rules and oversight apply. You can make an argument for existing oversight is insufficient but that is a problem we already have with police walking around with guns. - You can certainly come up with situations where someone is a danger to the public. Imagine an active shooter scenario. Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. - I don't think the slippery slope argument is helpful here. We can be against fully autonomous kill chains while still being okay with this. The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others. This is just a more effective tool for a method of last resort. I say all of this with the utmost respect for issue of concerning police militarization and abuse of power. I think these are important issues that we need to solve and the presence of them makes everyone fearful and distrusting. A just and highly effective police force shouldn't have these issues. I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of police to solve it though.

heavyset_go 4y ago
> The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others. There is no evidence that any of this would be true about lethal robot operators or their the use of the robots themselves.
woodruffw 4y ago
The chief concern that I can think of with a remote-controlled weapon is that it derealizes the person on the other end of the barrel, and derealizes the operation of the weapon. It's easier to kill someone when the action is disconnected from the physics. Compare, for example, the US using video game controllers to pilot drones in Afghanistan. One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking. They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think. I meant in the field, but I take your point -- drones generally have this "problem" (arguably a strength in the military's eyes). Maybe the better comparison is any degree of drone strikes, versus having to send a bunch of troops into a town.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      I think drone operators actually notoriously experience high levels of PTSD compared to other operators, but can’t find a source right now.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I absolutely believe that, and I think the two are absolutely connected: drone operators aren't stupid, and the dissemblement the drone provides is traumatizing in its own way.
bcherny 4y ago
US police already use force too often. Presumably, something stopping police from using even more force is that they too are human: they need to look their victims in the face before deciding whether to use force. I worry what will happen if you take this humanizing, moderating aspect out of the decision for whether to use violence.
- chroma 4y ago
  It's the opposite. If cops were invulnerable, they'd be far less likely to use lethal force. It's usually because they fear for their lives that they shoot.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    That's just the excuse they've been trained to shout so they can get off scot-free should they ever end up in court, just like "stop resisting". Saying that they "feared for their life" makes what would otherwise be murder or manslaughter into a legal application of deadly force.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    They seem to shoot dogs, unarmed people, actual crime victims, when there’s no fear for their lives.
mushbino 4y ago
Would you object to police putting remote controlled gun turrets on the corners of buildings around the city?
- tvszzzz 4y ago
  I'm going to try to engage you seriously even though your question seems rhetorical and just making an appeal to emotion... Assuming we are in agreement that our police force must be well trained and operating with good checks and balances it would be great to have a police officer on every corner. It would certainly reduce violent crime and make cities safer. Of course we don't have the resources to do that. Putting gun turrets instead would only be useful in dangerous situations of last resort. It would be a gross misuse of resources and introduces unnecessary risk. So I'm against it but not for the reasons you might think. It's the same reason we probably don't need the police to have all of the decommissioned military hardware. An effective police department probably only needs a few remote controlled guns to be used in those dire situations and would require strict oversight.
ip26 4y ago
Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Yeah, this part is actually fairly intriguing. It might be easier to depersonalize and shoot, but there would be fewer defense options in court after.
lamontcg 4y ago
> Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Generally if there's no danger to the responding officer, deadly force shouldn't be used. And literally one of the biggest fucking problems with the police is when they think they're in danger when they're not, and when they go and place themselves in danger in order to use deadly force. There's this incredibly narrow, almost hypothetical, situation where someone else is in danger but the cops aren't, and where the situation has gone on long enough that something like this could be deployed. In that situation it is almost certainly better to use nonlethal force. And more importantly the cops have proven over and over and over again that if you give them an inch they will take a mile and if its okay for them to kill someone in the 0.1% case that they'll start killing people with it all the time. And really the police need to figure out how to police with a lot fewer guns and a lot less use of deadly force. Until they figure out how to do that, giving them more ways to kill people, based on an almost hypothetical, is not something that I'm willing to agree to.

heavyset_go 4y ago

> The importance is that a trained and accountable human is making the decision to take a life and that it's a method of last resort to protect others. There is no evidence that any of this would be true about lethal robot operators or their the use of the robots themselves.

woodruffw 4y ago

The chief concern that I can think of with a remote-controlled weapon is that it derealizes the person on the other end of the barrel, and derealizes the operation of the weapon. It's easier to kill someone when the action is disconnected from the physics. Compare, for example, the US using video game controllers to pilot drones in Afghanistan. One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> One wonders how many botched drone missions wouldn't have been performed in the first place had the operators been physically present in the areas they were attacking. They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > They wouldn’t be any more connected to the people if they were in a secure US camp in country, I think. I meant in the field, but I take your point -- drones generally have this "problem" (arguably a strength in the military's eyes). Maybe the better comparison is any degree of drone strikes, versus having to send a bunch of troops into a town.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I think drone operators actually notoriously experience high levels of PTSD compared to other operators, but can’t find a source right now.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I absolutely believe that, and I think the two are absolutely connected: drone operators aren't stupid, and the dissemblement the drone provides is traumatizing in its own way.

bcherny 4y ago

US police already use force too often. Presumably, something stopping police from using even more force is that they too are human: they need to look their victims in the face before deciding whether to use force. I worry what will happen if you take this humanizing, moderating aspect out of the decision for whether to use violence.

chroma 4y ago
It's the opposite. If cops were invulnerable, they'd be far less likely to use lethal force. It's usually because they fear for their lives that they shoot.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  That's just the excuse they've been trained to shout so they can get off scot-free should they ever end up in court, just like "stop resisting". Saying that they "feared for their life" makes what would otherwise be murder or manslaughter into a legal application of deadly force.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  They seem to shoot dogs, unarmed people, actual crime victims, when there’s no fear for their lives.

mushbino 4y ago

Would you object to police putting remote controlled gun turrets on the corners of buildings around the city?

tvszzzz 4y ago
I'm going to try to engage you seriously even though your question seems rhetorical and just making an appeal to emotion... Assuming we are in agreement that our police force must be well trained and operating with good checks and balances it would be great to have a police officer on every corner. It would certainly reduce violent crime and make cities safer. Of course we don't have the resources to do that. Putting gun turrets instead would only be useful in dangerous situations of last resort. It would be a gross misuse of resources and introduces unnecessary risk. So I'm against it but not for the reasons you might think. It's the same reason we probably don't need the police to have all of the decommissioned military hardware. An effective police department probably only needs a few remote controlled guns to be used in those dire situations and would require strict oversight.

ip26 4y ago

Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Yeah, this part is actually fairly intriguing. It might be easier to depersonalize and shoot, but there would be fewer defense options in court after.

lamontcg 4y ago

> Normally they are also a danger to a responding officer who is fearing for their life. This removes that fear in the decision making process. Generally if there's no danger to the responding officer, deadly force shouldn't be used. And literally one of the biggest fucking problems with the police is when they think they're in danger when they're not, and when they go and place themselves in danger in order to use deadly force. There's this incredibly narrow, almost hypothetical, situation where someone else is in danger but the cops aren't, and where the situation has gone on long enough that something like this could be deployed. In that situation it is almost certainly better to use nonlethal force. And more importantly the cops have proven over and over and over again that if you give them an inch they will take a mile and if its okay for them to kill someone in the 0.1% case that they'll start killing people with it all the time. And really the police need to figure out how to police with a lot fewer guns and a lot less use of deadly force. Until they figure out how to do that, giving them more ways to kill people, based on an almost hypothetical, is not something that I'm willing to agree to.