Police used a robot to kill

 
Related

Rio 2016 Olympics: Everything you need to know

El despacho de Luchi
406 points

Venezuela crisis: Venezuela s hospitals reduced to wartime conditions

El despacho de Luchi
688 points



Most recent

Paella, the Best Way to Enjoy a Gastronomic Tour of Valencia

About everything
50 points

9 Ways HIV Is Not Spread

Healthy Life
252 points

Are Blood Clot Risks in Your Genes?

Healthy Life
438 points

Eye-catching NuBike goes with drive levers instead of a chain

Health at home
242 points

Most beautiful cities in Andalusia

Turismo Costa del So
38 points

Weather and Mood: Rainy With a Chance of Depression

Everything
322 points
SHARE
TWEET
(edition.cnn) The use of a robot to kill the man who authorities say fatally shot five Dallas police officers has drawn attention in part because it's the first time police have used robots in such a manner.

Police used a robot to kill

Below is a series of questions that I have been asked frequently and preliminary answers. The facts remain incomplete, so these are preliminary thoughts.


Why did they use it?

"We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the subject was," Dallas Police Chief David Brown said at a news conference Friday morning. "Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger."


What robot was used?

The system has been reported as a Northrop Grumman Remotec Andros, which is a remotely-controlled bomb disposal robot commonly used by police, military and other first responders around the world. It is wheeled, weighs around 220 kg (485 pounds), and mounts various sensors and a robotic arm with grippers.


Why is this being reported as a big deal?

This is the first use of a robotic system by the police in a deliberately lethal manner.


Are there parallels or past precedents by the police?

Robots are used all the time by police bomb squads forces around the world in bomb disposals. They are also frequently used in surveillance roles by SWAT teams and the like. They have been used in standoffs with armed gunmen in a variety of examples, from helping to figure out where the gunman is hiding to delivering pizza to the gunman and hostages during negotiations when a person wasn't allowed in. But none of these involved delivering lethal force.

The closest parallel I am aware of was a case in 2011, when police in Tennessee strapped tear gas grenades to a robot that then accidentally started a fire in a mobile home. This doesn't seem a great parallel, as it does not reflect a decision deliberately to use the robot to kill. Another parallel would be the 1985 standoff in Philadelphia between law enforcement and the MOVE group. Manned police helicopters dropped two small explosive devices on the roof to try to open a breach into the building below where the group was bunkered in. Instead, the building caught fire, killing 11 in the blaze, and burning down many neighboring buildings. Again here, the parallel isn't a perfect one. While it did involve a bomb, there was no robot, nor was it a deliberate use in the way authorities used the robot in Dallas.


What about in war?

The best parallel that I am aware of is a case that I wrote about in my 2009 book "Wired for War." A U.S. Army soldier discussed how his unit in Iraq in the mid 2000s was equipped with a surveillance robot known as a MARCBOT. This is a remotely operated surveillance robot, equipped with a mast holding a small camera, not the kind used in Dallas. It costs about $8,000. Their unit used the robotic system for roles like checkpoint duty; if there was a car that was suspected of being a car bomb, they would send the robot for a close look, rather than a risk one of their people.

When they faced off with an armed insurgent holed up in an alley, the soldier told of how they came up with an ad hoc answer. They jury-rigged the robot with an explosive device (literally duct-taping a claymore mine on it) and drove it down the alley to kill the insurgent, rather than risking a soldier.


Is this another sign of the "militarization" of police in the U.S.?

I have a hard time making that connection now. The debate over the militarization of the police seems to turn on 1) the use of equipment designed for war, often provided in surplus from the U.S. military, and 2) in a manner that is intimidating or threatening to the public.

In this incident, the technology is not one that is only used in war and it was not used in a way that was targeting the broader public; indeed it was the opposite. Remember, the police in Dallas who were shot and killed were there protecting peaceful protesters, not intimidating them. Images from the scene beforehand showed police and protesters smiling together. In turn, when violence struck, the police on the scene bravely moved protesters to safety, while the media reported that protesters helped police find the shooter. The police and protesters were in it together; so we, in turn, should not let people try to exploit the tragedy as a means to divide.


What are the overall issues at hand?

Obviously, this use of robotic technology in a lethal manner was a big first and one can imagine pathways that take you into those concerns. Yet, even though I am someone who has written widely on robotics, the events of this last week leave me more concerned over other trends. The issue of robotics may be new, but the ease of mass violence in our society, the worsening of police-civilian relations, and all the challenges of race in America are problems that were there well before the tragic events in Minnesota, Louisiana, and now Texas. These are what we must face, and, most importantly, face together.

Fuente: edition.cnn.com
SHARE
TWEET
To comment you must log in with your account or sign up!
Featured content