David Megginson I doubt Asimov would characterise the robot as one which should obey the rules, since it literally only did what the human operator wanted it to.
BTW, reluctant credit … where credit is due … to the GOP-candidate-who-shall-not-be-named for a unexpectedly-human response:
“We must restore law and order,” the Republican presidential candidate said in a statement. “We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street. The senseless, tragic deaths of two motorists in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.”
That’s way off script for the GOP spin masters. In the past, whenever President Obama has condemned police killings of innocent black citizens, the GOP script has been to blame him for inciting subsequent attacks on police simply by mentioning the original murders.
Well that’s just completely fucked up. American police truly out of control. He should be tried in the court system. Once the police start determining guilt and executing civilians they will only have more instances of civilians fighting back. I’m sure there were plenty of other options they could have used to apprehend him alive
-had quite clearly killed perhaps multiple people (when a situation is live, you do not wait for a judge and jury to determine what is obvious),
-is still using that assault rifle
-has declared that he has planted “IEDs” around the city, meaning he has declared there are bombs and he may be able to trigger them.
-had already had a cop attempt to kill him and that cop failed due to the assailant’s bullet proof vest
-is prepared to kill cops in cold as well as hot blood…
Then I honestly think the actions of the Dallas police were justified. I wouldn’t even bat an eyelid to be completely honest.
And believe me, I’ve been tear gassed (3 times). It is a way wonderful way to clear the sinuses. It’s not effective to incapacitate. Flash grenades are only designed for situations where you enter a room and surprise a potentially dangerous suspect, not outside for someone who is armed to the teeth.
I didn’t think bombs were standard issue police weaponry re lethal force. You learn something everyday I guess. I expect to hear more stories of casual bomb use in future parking infringement cases. When delivered by robot they’re probably safer than using a taser.
Andrew Kidoo it’s the same police chief! Dallas is moving far down my bucket list of travel destinations.
You are right about bombs being “standard issue”. In order to safely detonate a charge, police bombs are often required. This is because any other means would potentially fail to fully detonate an explosive device when attempting a “controlled explosion” of said device.
John Hardy not a Turnbull fan it is scary. I’ll grant you that.
They could’ve just as easily flown a drone with a bomb on it (which to me seems scarier). This century will certainly at least match the last in finding all sorts of new horrific ways to commit acts of violence.
But in terms of ethics, I don’t think the Dallas PD were morally obliged to risk one of their officers in order to ‘incapacitate’ an armed assailant.
I do hope though that newer technologies will make the use of lethal force less necessary. But as we’ve seen with stun guns and capsicum spray, that can also give greater power to law enforcement official to abuse that power.
They are definitely morally obliged to try to incapacitate an armed assailant. The fact that in 2016 they don’t have any viable way to do so speaks volumes about the trillions wasted on pointless wars. It seems that US police are so entrenched in killing that developing non-lethal alternatives isn’t priority. We should instead expect citizens will be trying out their own non-lethal DIY tech as vigilante for public like the Marvel movies usually portray, but which country will have the first such masked heros is anyone’s guess atm.
Andrew Kidoo wrote “They are definitely morally obliged to incapacitate an armed assailant.”
IMO, they’re obliged to protect the public and — secondarily — themselves, but if there is an armed person holed up who has no hostages and is completely surrounded, I don’t agree with the urgency (unless s/he comes out shooting, of course).
Granted, I don’t know the situation — perhaps the shooter had a clear view of public areas that couldn’t be cleared, and the police were worried about more sniper activity.
You’re quoting me, but i wasn’t talking about the officers on the spot. I’m talking about policy and purpose and the use of technology and techniques, none of which seem to be aimed at capturing or disarming people.. (and this is the important part) ..so they used a technique first invented by the Nazi’s during World War 2. (ie. roughly 75 years ago)
I disagreed with your opening premise, but I partly agree with the need for more non-lethal options.
One problem, however, is that when police do have non-lethal options (e.g. tear gas, tasers), they tend to abuse them, and extend their use to less-dangerous situations (e.g. crowd control, subduing agitated mentally-ill people), so, counter-intuitively, the death toll can actually rise (heart attacks from being tased, respiratory failure during tear gassing).
John Hardy Developer 
So much for Asimov’s first rule.
LikeLike
David Megginson I doubt Asimov would characterise the robot as one which should obey the rules, since it literally only did what the human operator wanted it to.
LikeLike
No tear gas? No flash grenade? That is a straight out execution. Of a suspect.
LikeLike
Qítiān Dàshèng Sūn Wùkōng — agreed. Since no one was in direct danger any more, police in many countries would have waited him out.
LikeLike
BTW, reluctant credit … where credit is due … to the GOP-candidate-who-shall-not-be-named for a unexpectedly-human response:
“We must restore law and order,” the Republican presidential candidate said in a statement. “We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street. The senseless, tragic deaths of two motorists in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.”
That’s way off script for the GOP spin masters. In the past, whenever President Obama has condemned police killings of innocent black citizens, the GOP script has been to blame him for inciting subsequent attacks on police simply by mentioning the original murders.
LikeLike
Well that’s just completely fucked up. American police truly out of control. He should be tried in the court system. Once the police start determining guilt and executing civilians they will only have more instances of civilians fighting back. I’m sure there were plenty of other options they could have used to apprehend him alive
LikeLike
It was widely stated that the shooter committed suicide. Who disseminated that info and why?
LikeLike
If the assailant had an:
-assault rifle,
-had quite clearly killed perhaps multiple people (when a situation is live, you do not wait for a judge and jury to determine what is obvious),
-is still using that assault rifle
-has declared that he has planted “IEDs” around the city, meaning he has declared there are bombs and he may be able to trigger them.
-had already had a cop attempt to kill him and that cop failed due to the assailant’s bullet proof vest
-is prepared to kill cops in cold as well as hot blood…
Then I honestly think the actions of the Dallas police were justified. I wouldn’t even bat an eyelid to be completely honest.
And believe me, I’ve been tear gassed (3 times). It is a way wonderful way to clear the sinuses. It’s not effective to incapacitate. Flash grenades are only designed for situations where you enter a room and surprise a potentially dangerous suspect, not outside for someone who is armed to the teeth.
LikeLike
I didn’t think bombs were standard issue police weaponry re lethal force. You learn something everyday I guess. I expect to hear more stories of casual bomb use in future parking infringement cases. When delivered by robot they’re probably safer than using a taser.
LikeLike
Bombs are standard issue with bomb disposal robots. The following is from last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DahpWXkH_v0
LikeLike
Andrew Kidoo it’s the same police chief! Dallas is moving far down my bucket list of travel destinations.
You are right about bombs being “standard issue”. In order to safely detonate a charge, police bombs are often required. This is because any other means would potentially fail to fully detonate an explosive device when attempting a “controlled explosion” of said device.
LikeLike
I think this is a pretty new way to detonate human beings however.
LikeLike
John Hardy not a Turnbull fan it is scary. I’ll grant you that.
They could’ve just as easily flown a drone with a bomb on it (which to me seems scarier). This century will certainly at least match the last in finding all sorts of new horrific ways to commit acts of violence.
But in terms of ethics, I don’t think the Dallas PD were morally obliged to risk one of their officers in order to ‘incapacitate’ an armed assailant.
I do hope though that newer technologies will make the use of lethal force less necessary. But as we’ve seen with stun guns and capsicum spray, that can also give greater power to law enforcement official to abuse that power.
LikeLike
They are definitely morally obliged to try to incapacitate an armed assailant. The fact that in 2016 they don’t have any viable way to do so speaks volumes about the trillions wasted on pointless wars. It seems that US police are so entrenched in killing that developing non-lethal alternatives isn’t priority. We should instead expect citizens will be trying out their own non-lethal DIY tech as vigilante for public like the Marvel movies usually portray, but which country will have the first such masked heros is anyone’s guess atm.
LikeLike
Andrew Kidoo wrote “They are definitely morally obliged to incapacitate an armed assailant.”
IMO, they’re obliged to protect the public and — secondarily — themselves, but if there is an armed person holed up who has no hostages and is completely surrounded, I don’t agree with the urgency (unless s/he comes out shooting, of course).
Granted, I don’t know the situation — perhaps the shooter had a clear view of public areas that couldn’t be cleared, and the police were worried about more sniper activity.
LikeLike
You’re quoting me, but i wasn’t talking about the officers on the spot. I’m talking about policy and purpose and the use of technology and techniques, none of which seem to be aimed at capturing or disarming people.. (and this is the important part) ..so they used a technique first invented by the Nazi’s during World War 2. (ie. roughly 75 years ago)
LikeLike
I disagreed with your opening premise, but I partly agree with the need for more non-lethal options.
One problem, however, is that when police do have non-lethal options (e.g. tear gas, tasers), they tend to abuse them, and extend their use to less-dangerous situations (e.g. crowd control, subduing agitated mentally-ill people), so, counter-intuitively, the death toll can actually rise (heart attacks from being tased, respiratory failure during tear gassing).
LikeLike