Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS VIA AP
Dallas police respond after shots were fired during a protest over recent fatal shootings by police in Louisiana and Minnesota on Thursday in Dallas.
When Dallas police used a bomb-carrying robot to kill a sniper, they also kicked off an ethical debate about technology’s use as a crime-fighting weapon.
In what appears to be an unprecedented tactic, police rigged a bomb-disposal robot to kill an armed suspect in the fatal shootings of five officers in Dallas. While there doesn’t appear to be any hard data on the subject, security experts and law enforcement officials said they couldn’t recall another time when police have deployed a robot with lethal intent.
The strategy opens a new chapter in the escalating use of remote and semi-autonomous devices to fight crime and protect lives. It also raises new questions over when it’s appropriate to dispatch a robot to kill dangerous suspects instead of continuing to negotiate their surrender.
“If lethally equipped robots can be used in this situation, when else can they be used?” says Elizabeth Joh, a University of California at Davis law professor who has followed U.S. law enforcement’s use of technology. “Extreme emergencies shouldn’t define the scope of more ordinary situations where police may want to use robots that are capable of harm.”
Dallas Police Chief David Brown defended his department’s decision. “Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger,” he said.
Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings applauded Brown for making “the right call” and said he would have no qualms about resorting to the same strategy in the future. “When there’s no other way, I think this is a good example,” he said. “The key thing is to keep our police out of harm’s way.”
ROBOTS, SOLDIERS AND POLICE
Police have been using such robots for decades to dispose of suspected bombs and in hostage standoffs and fires. Meanwhile, militaries around the world have come to rely on their robotic friends to disable improvised explosive devices — a need that only increased with the U.S. occupation of Iraq following its 2003 invasion.
Many of the robots joining police forces are coming from a U.S. Department of Defense program transferring surplus equipment from the military. These exchanges have provided law enforcement agencies with robots such as Packbot made by Endeavor Robotics, the Talon from QinetiQ and the MARCbot made by Exponent.
But military experts said ground-level robots are rarely used to kill the enemy. Their main purpose is to detect and defuse bombs to save lives. Military robots are “fairly clunky and used best for reconnaissance rather than the offensive,” said Tom Gorup, an infantry veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who’s now an official at the IT-security firm Rook Security.
Airborne robots are another matter. The U.S. military has sent remotely piloted drones to kill hundreds of people, including civilians, in counterterror attacks launched overseas since 2009, based on estimates released last week by the Obama administration.
HOW IT (PROBABLY) WORKED
The robots working for police departments across the country range in size from devices as small as a dog bone to others as large as a truck. Some are little more than a mechanical arm mounted onto a vehicle and equipped with a video camera and two-way audio communications, according to William Flanagan, a retired deputy police chief from New York’s Nassau County who now does law enforcement and technology consulting. The most versatile robots can climb stairs and navigate other tight spots, such as this one made by Icor Technology.
Many models used by police are about the size of a backpack.
Flanagan speculated that police in Dallas probably equipped their robot with a low-powered explosive — possibly one similar to what bomb squads use to blow up suspicious packages — that would only disable what’s closest to it.
Dallas police didn’t respond to a request for further information about their use of the robot.
MACHINE VS. HUMAN
Robotics expert Peter W. Singer, of the New America Foundation, said the killing marked the first instance he’s aware of in which police have used a robot to lethal effect. But when he was researching his 2009 book “Wired for War,” a U.S. soldier told him troops in Iraq sometimes used surveillance robots against insurgents, he added in an email Friday.
William Cohen, a former Exponent employee who helped design the MARCbot, said that robot was built to save lives instead of ending them. Although he was relieved the killing of the armed suspect in Dallas assured that no other police officers or bystanders would be harmed, Cohen says he’s worried about what might happen next.
“It opens a whole new set of questions of how to deal with these kinds of situations,” Cohen said. “Where are the police going to draw the line when trying to decide between continuing to negotiate and doing something like this?”
___
This story has been corrected to reflect that the last name of the Dallas police chief is Brown, not Warren as reported in an earlier version.
16 responses to “Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
it’s RoboCop.
More like Terminator…..
We are wondering if robots are ethical to subdue or end the life of a person trying to kill other people? If someone was trying to kill you or a member of your family will ethics be in your mind when faced with options to end the threat?
Nope. By all means necessary.
Amen islandstyl !
Agree with you 100%.
If anyone tries to kill me or my family… my goal is to kill him first with everything in my power.
What f’n debate? Whenever a criminal is homicidal send in the robot to nuke em. Stop babying criminals and maybe there will be less of them to victimize innocent victims. If the Judicial system ever comes back to its senses and realizes that laws were created to protect the innocent and NOT the guilty then maybe we can turn this war on crime around. Prisons are full and perps with 20+ priors are all around us. A losing battle right now.
Tac nukes in the hands of cops. By God now there’s an idea that’s long overdue! We’ll let President Drumpf issue that particular order.
The next POTUS’s name is Trump.
He made the choice to do what he did and the cops reacted to his choice. Plain and simple. At least we don’t have to go through a long drawn out trial and pay to house him for the rest of his life.
“Where are the police going to draw the line when trying to decide between continuing to negotiate and doing something like this?”
The guy shot ELEVEN officers.. WTF is there to negotiate?? Dallas PD used innovation and existing assets to eliminate the threat without further risk to human life. Great job officers!
“While there doesn’t appear to be any hard data on the subject, security experts and law enforcement officials said they couldn’t recall another time when police have deployed a robot with lethal intent.”
First, this isn’t technically a “robot” (autonomous device) but an “ROV” (remotely operated vehicle). It, like a drone, is controlled by a human operator at all times. Someday PDs may have actual robots. When that day comes, I hope Asimov’s First Law will prevail over quick and expedient “justice”. (Only courts — not police — dispense justice according to America’s legal system.)
Second, since this wasn’t a “robot”, the real issue here is the use of a bomb. And there we do, in fact, have a precedent although we have to go clear back to 1985. A group called MOVE lived in a building in Philly. Long story short, the Philly PD dropped two bombs on it from their helicopter. The explosions and ensuing fire killed 11 MOVE members, including five children. The fire raged out of control and burned down 65 more houses, leaving 250 people homeless.
Perhaps this is why no PD has dared to use bombs from then until now. And it’s certainly a powerful argument that these types of ordnance should be exclusively the province of our military. Our police are too militarized as it is, and don’t need this kind of weaponry, no matter how expedient its use may be.
What’s next? Stopping a fleeing car by blowing it to smithereens with a Hellfire? Yeah, how’s that for a fabulous idea.
It was only supposed to incapacitate the shooter. They might have put too much C4 by accident.
Wink…wink..
Anyone with half a brain knows the police should have used the robot to send the killer cake and ice cream which certainly would have made him surrender.
What difference does it make if he was taken out by a robot bomb or by a police sniper’s rifle?
In the end the danger from the suspect was neutralized…so no difference…the robot was simply a tool…not unlike the police rifle…it can’t decide and fire on its own accord but only a human operator can make the decision to take a life so why would there be a so called ethical debate is rather absurd….
Why is the MEDIA making an issue out of this? The MEDIA is the PROBLEM! The MEDIA should stop throwing blood in the water to enrage the sharks. The MEDIA can do a lot to defuse the tension but instead they rather create more tension so they can ensure their jobs. Why do we let the MEDIA affect our thoughts, emotions, and actions, why? Articles like this does not stimulate debate it plants a (evil) seed in our thoughts. If law enforcement was justified in using deadly force to stop the carnage then why does it matter that technology was deployed?