Overview
While we might still not agree on allowing fully autonomous cars to ply roads for concern of public safety, the state of San Francisco allowed usage permission for a machine that is set to divide the room: remote-controlled robots approved to kill suspects.
Whoa! Talk about a machine that’s actually mean!
The science and other stuff to know
The decision came during a heated debate of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who voted 8-3 to give a go-ahead to a highly criticized policy that would allow police to “deploy robots capable of using lethal force in extraordinary circumstances”, CNN reported.
According to a Law Enforcement Equipment Policy document, the San Francisco Police department (SFPD) currently has 17 unmanned and remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles that have various capabilities, including ones having a “chassis and manipulator that allow for accessories and tool combinations”.
The policy would allow officers to use ground-based robots to kill “when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and officers cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options or de-escalation tactics,” according to the ordinance text.
The ordinance maintains that “robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD”. It adds that only “assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the robots”.
So what?
The proposed policy has certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest, with civil rights activists having a field day lambasting the state for its attempt to further militarize the police force.
Dean Preston, one of the supervisors who opposed the policy, said at the discussion, “There is serious potential for misuse and abuse of this military-grade technology, and zero showing of necessity,” according to CNN.
Live combat or hostage situations have a lot more that evades the eye rather than what meets it. Humans, especially law enforcement officials dealing with such a situation, have the capacity to think rationally as well as emotionally, and a fine mixture of both is needed to diffuse most instances of escalation. A major reason for an officer’s attempt to pacify the actors and attempt de-escalation is his or her own physical involvement in the situation and concern for their own safety. Sanity urges the officer to always go for de-escalation.
With an official sitting miles away in the safety of a control room while analyzing a hostile situation and manning a robot with immense firepower simultaneously, it is hard to guess how sensitively he or she would act in response to the situation.
What’s next?
Robots are being prepared for varied usage, but turning them into a suspect shooter is certainly a first. The policy still requires a second vote next week and the mayor’s approval.
SFPD spokesperson Robert Rueca clarified to the Washington Post that the department had a fleet of robots and did not plan to outfit them with firearms.
The rising crime is an unfortunate reality not just in the U.S., but across the world. But is the key to controlling crime equipping authorities with an increasingly more powerful arsenal and weaponry that can kill at the touch of a button? In contrast, the cure could lie in strengthening structures that shun hate, ensure social justice, and empathize with the underprivileged.
