Bomb-carrying robot used to kill the Dallas police shooter raises new ethical questions

Why is this allowed...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_tracked_mine
youtube.com/watch?v=z1csDqNO8FY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What exactly is the ethical question raised?

It was fucking unethical though

Drone are in use and legal to kill in war. That means this is ok.

Did they blow up the robot in the process?
If so, what did that robot ever do to deserve that.

Probably something along the lines of robots shouldn't be capable of killing humans

#JusticeForR2Dindu

Have news organizations really been writing this shit?

It's not some new super advanced AI. You can do the exact same thing with a fucking remote controlled car from Wal-Mart.

>guns don't kill people, people kill people
>people with robots don't kill people, ROBOTS KILL PEOPLE

seriously nigga?

>shooting police is ethical
>blowing up a terrorist is unethical

Fuck off Mohammed

They did kinda kill the shit out of him while he was holed up.

It's a domestic law enforcement situation, not a war, so...

Pretty sure the only thing that's illegal is making them automated. As long as a human is controlling it, it's fine

How i this unethical? Should more policeman have died trying to kill sniper?

Why has it only been used once in this task?

kek, there's literally no actual ethical reason that it raises. Only dumb journos who want to write another >muh Terminator muh Elon Musk muh Stephen Hawking article think there is.

It's basically the land/street equivalent of drone strikes.

Anyone who kills cops is getting fucked up. If this was a normal case and they used a robot to blast someone that would be one thing. Cop killers are always dealt with more harshly than regular perps, just now with better technology

This guy was sniping people and swore he wanted to kill as many cops as he could. He was not going to cooperate. Killing him was an only option after trying to talk him down failed.

Might as well kill him without risking any more officers.

What's the ethical difference between using a robot instead of just burning the house down?

I honestly don't know.

Why not just wait him out? It's not like American law enforcement basically LIVE for standoffs that involve piling as much squad cars as possible into the area and just chilling with some Starbucks 'n Dunkin..

The robot was carrying a 1lb block of C4, so yea I assume it trashed the robot too.

>claymore bomb and landmine kills people
>.........
>robot kills people
>THIS IS WRONG!

Pretty sure he met the definition of dangerous felon that was a threat to the safety of the public

Doesn't matter if they shot him, blew him up or chainsawed him. Lethal force is lethal force, and the police have a duty to protect the public and themselves.

Hence, it was a good explosion.

...

>What's the ethical difference between using a robot instead of just burning the house down?

Neither are very ethical though..

#RobotLivesMatter

Yeah, wasting an expensive robot like that. Ah, well. What must be, must be.

The robot did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to die. Next time it should be equipped with a grenade launcher. #robotlivesmatter

It's not ethics, it's the presedan of the popo juts BTFOing someone with a killbot instead of going for an arrest.

He was surrounded, they could've waited him out.

it's probably the most amusing way to kill someone ever though

and the criticisms boil down to WAHHH THAT WASN'T PLAYING FAIR

The next step would have been SWAT going in to kill him, this is no different.

Wait him out to do what?, to come out eventually after a couple hours begging for food?.

"How can we get dumb, anti-government rednecks to support our militarized, robot police force?"
"What if we kill a nigger with one?"

They didn't know if he was the only threat at that time.

If he walked out with arms up they would have arrested him (heh, probably not).

My point is more that this isn't a new question. It's simply an extension of an existing question of whether or not law enforcement should attempt to make an arrest if the risk of causalities is high.

>Sup Forums will defend this

Can't wait for you retards to cry foul when this comes marching down your street.

*BEEP BOOP BEEP*
Good evening citizen!
*WHIRRRRR*
I see you have a tail light out, sir! Are you aware this is a violation of Stature 8 Subsection 6?
*RUNS DIAGNOSTIC*
License and registration, please!
*SCANNING*
Well everything seems to be...
*EXPLODES*

As a black man this terrifies me. What kind of weapons are they hiding from us? We all know every government has super advanced secret weapons they keep just in case of emergeny like WWIII. Do they have advanced AI robots programmed to only gun down black men? Probably

>presedan
Precedent? Is this some Serb thing?

>He was surrounded, they could've waited him out.
Or he could have killed more people. I honestly don't see this as any different than just burning the fucking place down which happens more than anyone likes to admit.

The police chief of Dallas is a black man. So there's no issue.

Every city in america should find sane well-adjusted blacks for law enforcement, school boards, city council, etc. It solves a hell of a lot of problems.

MSNBC just mentioned that the suggestion to strap C4 to a robot came from SWAT commanders on the scene. I better not read any more shitposts about "hurr why didn't they use SWAT instead of a killer Terminator robot why do we even have SWAT if this is okay?"

This guy gets it.

>he's got a rifle and body armor
>narrow avenue of approach
>wait him out so he passes out from not eating/dehydration or shoots himself

Nah, nigger. Easier to just blow him up. He's going to die anyway, and no need to let him speak BLM shit on the air.

Let's frame it this way. What's the difference between a SWAT sniper taking out a subject and a piloted drone taking out a subject?

Should he have been armed with a spoon, then scooped the guy to death?

ED209 FER PRESIDENT!

So nothing of value lost? I'm game.

Because we don't want to risk human lives confronting these turbo niggers.

to be fair it's just probably a variant of the bomb defusal/ detonation robot except it did the opposite

not the newest thing ever

>RC "car"
>some HE
>super advanced scary shit

Come now, nigger. This is basic shit that you can make.

Spin the image around. It's triggering me that this is continuously posted upsidedown.

Suicide, surrender or perhaps more hostility.. Rolling in a robot and blowing him up while he wasn't directly threatening anyone at the time seems a bit harsh. Did they even give him the option to surrender when they put the bomb in place?

Of course it isn't a new question, which is why we already know the answer: It's not ethical.. Just like Waco or the Dorner situation were not ethical.
>muh risk of casualties
Inherent in the job.

Apes owning weapons should raise more questions.

This occurred to me for a second then I remembered this guy. Nothing you cunts do surprises me anymore.

The piloted drone approach eliminates risk for the officers.

Where's my prize?

One day, both human and Omnic will become one with the Iris. R2Dindu deserves justice.

No one tell faggot OP about ww2 and submarines.

His snatch might start bleeding.

>nigger shoots a good dozen people
>is it ethical to blow him the fuck up with our fancy rc car?

This is retarded.

What's unethical is what the dallas police shooter did.. Also it's not some AI robot, it's a remote controlled unit, there's nothing new about that..It didn't make the decision the guy controlling it remotely did.. just an extension of his gun with the upside that he wasn't taken out..

"ethical question" yeah these morons would have no qualms with more police officers being shot trying to nail that fucker.. but apparently a remote controlled unit.. OH THE SKY IS FALLING MUH ETHICAL QUESTIONS RAISED!

Why are white people so violent?

He also told the police trying to negotiate with him he was surrounded by bombs he would use to kill anyone that came for him. So it's completely justified. This discussion is just to distract people from corrupt Hillary.

something something 2nd amendment

I don't disagree that killing the shit out of him war both right and expedient, but the issue is about how the police will handle similar situations.

They gonna send a killbot on the next holed up armed CITIZEN? Think about it in the context of gun right and being forced into giving them up.

They negotiated with him for almost four hours. He had no intention of surrendering - he got what he deserved.

That would have put more lives in jeopardy.
The police didn't know if he had explosives and such or not, and it was clear he wasn't going to give up peacefully. So in this case I don't have a problem with what they did.

There probably does need to be some laws put in place around this sort of thing though. When it is or isn't acceptable, and to prevent lawsuits.

It's just a case of technology/ingenuity outpacing legislation, which happens all the time.

>Do they have advanced AI robots programmed to only gun down black men?

>Implying I won't be riding the thing with a cowboy hat on

this annoys the shit out of me

>religion about an iris
>omnic eyes don't have an iris

Nah m80, my criticism is we went from King Nigger saying he wouldn't use drones on American citizens in America period, to the Dallas PD playing Cawadooty and droning a citizen. So we have to deal with this now, either what Dallas did was illegal or we set a legal precedent of when the cops can use a drone to kill a suspect

Coming from a black man, that is hilarious.

Niqqa I don't fucking know I'm just guessing, do you think I can read these left wing minds, not to mention the logic you just used is beyond their comprehension
None to me, I'm just throwing spaghetti against the wall here. They just have to be able to find something to complain about. White mans fault kinda thing famalam

Witnessed

This tech was used in WWII

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_tracked_mine

Yes, but we already knew this. They'd probably just gas the poor bastard if that wouldn't look extremely bad internationally.

But I don't see your argument, really. All this really did was save police casualties.

>non-human kills non-human

i don't see any ethical issue here

Why do black people riot loot and rape like animals?

Yeah sure, let's wait out the armed nigger that just killed 5 officers and that is still armed. I'm sure he won't try to kill anyone while we sit here and wait. You're fucking retarded.

ROBOT RIGHTS WHEN

ROBOTS HAS FEELINGS TOO

THINK OF THE ROBOT CHILDREN

youtube.com/watch?v=z1csDqNO8FY

Since he met the definition of domestic terrorist,
I'm not sure how the laws would apply.
I'm sure that justification of robotics to kill a terrorist would be justified,
but I do wonder how they will justify the police having claymore landmines.

>claymore
>bomb

>Suicide, surrender or perhaps more hostility.. Rolling in a robot and blowing him up while he wasn't directly threatening anyone

As far as I know they talked to him for a while before they gave up. You're misunderstanding this guy. He wasn't a typical dude that went nuts. This guy could have possibly had more shit planned. Giving him opportunity and more time was risky to everyone. He needed to be terminated, especially since they weren't clear on who else was involved and whether he had companions also shooting the place up. They need to get this guy out of the picture in case there were any more to focus on.

If someone breaks into your house and as far as you know hasn't made it up to your floor then you can't assume he's no threat. If you're a target then you're in danger.

Cops were in danger here, this was their jurisdiction, they needed to feel safe. Their job isn't do die in the line of fire. Their job is to stay alive while neutralizing threats.

Sorry family I wasn't directly responding to you, more the logic you posted.

>nignog shooting cops in cold blood doesn't raise ethical questions
>a robot putting a rabid murdering animal down does

Priorities.

This is how the AI revolution starts. We will begin by justifying our use of simplistic remote control robots to carry our traditionally human law enforcement and military operations under the rationale that it will spare human lives (and eventually a cost-efficiency argument will be used against detractors, once widespread use is established and redundant personnel are cleaved from the workforce) and then the human operators will eventually be phased out by AI. This too will be justified, because it's the same thing, they will tell us, except now a program written by people will be doing the same thing human operators were doing, except more efficiently.

Your great great grandchildren will be policed by frightening, unbeatable AI robots in their own streets.

And if it turns out that AI can become self-aware after all, it will be over.

You sounds like you should work for the UN

>you can only kill people by ways I approve of

Look at the comment i samefagged below. #JusticeForR2Dindu

people that pay attention :)

Maybe if they managed to tie him down. Sounds pretty fun ;)

Deadly force is authorized, the means of which it is carried out simply don't matter.

It's a fucking EOD bot, they didn't drop a Hellfire on him. Jeez, calm the hell down.

He wasn't surrendering and had no intention of doing so, do you honestly believe he was coming out of this alive after killing a bunch of LEOs?

This guy is right it's pretty easy.

In fact let me show you guys some educational pics, strictly for academic purposes

Do robots have rights?

>American ethics

Kek... Don't get me wrong, I don't think the world lost much, and I sort of understand why they'd go this route. But it's clearly far from ethical.

if robots had any kind of sentience and autonomy they'd wipe out nogs themselves desu

...

ill bite.
Advanced AI programmed to only fire at blacks? Holy fuck best idea ever!

...

This is exactly why no new issue is raised. You could say the same thing about the use of snipers to neutralize a hostile suspect, or pistols for that matter.

Let's take a trip through time:
>It's unethical to use a robot to kill a dangerous criminal posing an immediate threat to the public. A human should be directly involved in taking the shot.
>It's unethical to use a sniper rifle to kill a dangerous criminal posing an immediate threat to the public. There needs to be some level of direct human confrontation when taking the shot.
>It's unethical to use a handgun to kill a dangerous criminal posing an immediate threat to the public. Handguns make killing too easy when it should be a matter of man to man combat.
>It's unethical to use a bow and arrow to kill a dangerous criminal posing an immediate threat to the public. Arrows can pierce plate mail at a distance, which takes the human element out of the struggle between opponents.
>It's unethical to use a sword to kill a dangerous criminal posing an immediate threat to the public. Melee weapons give an unfair advantage in a hostile situation that should ethically be resolved through bare knuckle fisticuffs.

Agree. Use of the for racist violence should be prohibited on the federal level. BLM.

...

>Since he met the definition of domestic terrorist,

Is it official?

They could've shot tear gas in with him. But the went straight for a killbot.

Like I said, I don't disagree with what he deserved, just the way the *police* executed it.

Black culprit kills 5 police officers, It's lucky that he didn't kill more.. but they manage to nail him.. and your response is:
>why are white people so violent?
why are black people so stupid.

Even when the data shows again and again how blacks have a higher propensity towards violence and crime, and even when discussing an actual case.. you act like you're non violent and everyone else than you are the violent ones..

Just..

...

There were countless cops on the street that day though.. Are you really saying they couldn't wait him out with a squad while having the rest check for further threats?
>Cops job is to stay alive while neutralizing threats

I didn't realise your cops were death squads of sorts.