If the decision was your call, how would you choose to kill him and why would it be less morally reprehensible(to you) than blowing the guy up? We're all still trying to figure out what your issue with this is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
In An Apparent First, Police Used A Robot To Kill
- Thread starter Septimus Prime
- Start date
- Status
If the decision was your call, how would you choose to kill him and why would it be less morally reprehensible(to you) than blowing the guy up? We're all still trying to figure out what your issue with this is.
So is the pathway ahead chucking a bomb at this guy because I'm afraid he has more bombs and he might start using them later rather than sooner for some reason? because...
i guess my whole issue is the execution of it all.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Definitely not okay with giving police free reign to use lethal force with drones. This needs to be heavily scrutinized. I have no issue to killing the suspect here but it shouldn't be the police's job to come up with new and interesting ways to kill people.
Uhh.. no.. the pathway to this decision is that he is a psychopath who just ambushed and murdered multiple people in cold blood and is prepared and able to take out as many people who try to stop him as he possibly can.
The good thing about modern robots is that they aren't sentient or conscious yet, so having a single robot finish the guy makes a fuck ton more sense than sending actual sentient/conscious beings to die when they don't have to. Is this resolved for you yet?
They thought outside the box and ended someone's life that was a threat to officers and the general public, while threatening to detonate bombs that could have harmed more people if true. Scrutinizing the method of eliminating the threat seems absurd in his case, since the method chosen didn't put anyone else at risk and worked quickly and efficiently
Seductivpancakes
Member
They decided it was the best option after 4 hours of negotiation, while the suspect was firing at them the entire time. He was heavily armed and armored and threatened to explode bombs remotely.
I feel that the context of the situation is makes it a viable method without resulting in more cops being killed.
Of course, this shouldn't be an solution the police take lightly or use regularly.
we could perhaps even do away with the entire corrupt justice system and just send a killbot. We have a psychopathic killer armed and holed up in this parking garage, no exits, what should we do? Send in a bomb with tank treads and call it an evening, justice is served.
I would have gotten a bunch of water tankers and flooded the entire garage with water and then waited 12 hours and then go collect him after he's exhausted from doing the dog paddle in body armor. since you wanted to know.
I would have gotten a bunch of water tankers and flooded the entire garage with water and then waited 12 hours and then go collect him after he's exhausted from doing the dog paddle in body armor. since you wanted to know.
So you do think they made the choice to kill him lightly.
Fuck off with this nonsense.
That's actually the most defensible part, to my mind.
If you're okay with killing this guy from a safe vantage point, as a sniper might have in a different situation, then I don't really see why you should care that a remote-controlled robot did it instead. That's safer for the officers, after all.
Frankly, I think drones would have a lot of advantages over human police officers. They can't claim to fear for their lives and if they disable their camera they literally crash. They would remove a lot of the behaviors that police use to justify and conceal unnecessary violence.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Sure it may have the "best" option in this particular case but this shouldn't be in the standard playbook of law enforcement. There needs to be proper oversight to justify using this method. Maybe a warrant to authorize this kind of force or something. My point is using lethal force by drone isn't something I'd trust the police to deploy.
were you waiting behind the door with that club all this time? you could have knocked, I would have let you in. also no, your pull still is just a pull.
I think they were stressed and desperate and also fatigued and in pain, but I also think they made the wrong decision and took a bad course of action in killing the sniper with a remote controlled bomb.
BronsonLee
Member
IMO, it's the only thing about the endgame that is extremely abnormal.
It'd be easier to discern what your actual point is if you didn't reply with sarcasm and snark each time someone replied to you. As it stands, I've no clue why you have an issue with how things went down aside from you just not approving of it.
mechashiva
Member
They had that other guy all over social media as a suspect. What if they blew him up? This is really crazy.
how would you have done it Einchy? "I would have gotten an actual remote control car from walmart. 2 of them on sale, and then some duct tape and grenades. fuck that guy, boom!"
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Nobody is suggesting kill bots become the new justice system. This was a situation that was going to end in the criminals death no matter what. How many police lives is it worth it to get this guy into the court system? 6? 10? 20? You're letting your hatred of the police affect your intelligence and your rationality, you know better than this.
Not everyone can be taken in alive. That's the short and long of it. Even accounting for the possibility that the sniper could of committed suicide before they could reach him, there was still a high risk factor to both the police and the civilians on the scene in the time before then.
They don't take these decisions for granted, and I don't think them being fatigued caused them to just say "fuck it, send in the bomb". They have other people deciding these things besides the people on site and in person.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
If he came out with his hands up, he should receive due process right?
Sure. Like I suggested, if you're okay with snipers but not with this, I think you should think about why. They don't strike me as meaningfully distinct in this situation.
WaterAstro
Member
"What am I designed to be? Their slaves?" - Bomb Robot
BronsonLee
Member
Personally I would've sent Judge Dredd in
I'm of the same thought process, I think. I didn't follow the situation overnight so I don't want to delve too far in, though.
I'm of the same thought process, I think. I didn't follow the situation overnight so I don't want to delve too far in, though.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I know you have an almost sociopathic aversion to conscience, but this is brazen even for you.
Of course, but let's be real here... this guy would have killed himself(and dozens more) before he ever surrendered to the police.
Of course, but considering the sniper was firing intermittently and, at that point, indiscriminately, it seemed more and more unlikely to happen.
well....
interesting question with the how many lives was it worth. Interesting that you think it even has an answer.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
I wonder who has to clean that up. Has to be a fucked up job.
the barrier broken the precedent set the hypothetical next time it'll be much easier to justify unless people take some hard stances. do we execute criminals with ease once we have the ability if it means zero loss of innocent life and then how do you say no to that?
You act like this is the first time we've had to kill a dangerous psychopath who would have kept killing until he ran out of ammo... this actually isn't a new concept at all. The safer it can be done though, the better. This precedent is about method, not concept.
people fall down slopes every day.
and people are still pushing this invincible killer that will kill until killed narrative which is very convenient for justifying this thing that already happened. If it were a different world under different circumstances I wouldn't care. But in this world, it makes me pause and comment.
and people are still pushing this invincible killer that will kill until killed narrative which is very convenient for justifying this thing that already happened. If it were a different world under different circumstances I wouldn't care. But in this world, it makes me pause and comment.
The precedent has been there for many years with swat snipers. If the decision is made that someone needs to be killed to prevent a larger amount of deaths then it will likely happen, explosion or not. Lots of these large standoffs end with the perpetrator either committing suicide by their own hand or suicide by police as well, those people can't be taken in alive.
Perhaps we should all shelve the paranoia of law enforcement drones attacking us all for speeding violations until it actually becomes a reality. Because right now the only instance of this being used was for the most completely justifiable reason possible.
Drones being used in place of human SWAT members during a tense standoff with a violent and trained killing machine sounds like a fucking great idea to me. Using them during lesser crimes? Not so defensible.
Drones being used in place of human SWAT members during a tense standoff with a violent and trained killing machine sounds like a fucking great idea to me. Using them during lesser crimes? Not so defensible.
Your slope is made of straw.
he wasn't a killing machine though. he was killed by the killing machine. anyway interesting discussion. we made it to page 3
yours is made of bricks. and its located in an area with high property taxes. and you ignored proper zoning laws.
Yeah, next time something like this happens, and it's convenient to do so, they might as well just call in an airstrike or something, I mean no reason to risk human lives and dead is dead.
You're the one who's defended the second amendment, right? If so then I find this hypocritical coming from you.
I don't think that is what anyone is saying here. They made use of the tools they had at their disposal after five hours of failed negotiations and continued shooting from the suspect. If they had rushed him, he would have gotten his wish of taking out more cops while they took him down. If they waited, he could have slipped away, rushed them in an attempt to kill more of them before his death, or detonated the bombs he claimed to have everywhere.
They didn't want anyone else to die in this guys crusade. They made a choice, and it wasn't a light one.
If you seriously think that cops will now be using airstrikes against bank robbers, I don't know what to tell other than that I strongly disagree.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked