Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Trebuchet]

Can any of the Americans explain the meaning of the flag in the hallway?

State flag of California.

Which kind of doesn't explain much, as in why they use that flag or why the guy had it in his hallway.

ETA: I'd have been pretty surprised not to have been ninja'd on this.

 

[Bob001]

State flag of California.
.....

I embarrassed that I didn't know that. I had to resort to Wikipedia and speculation. Of course, there is the question of why a U.S. state calls itself a republic. I don't know if any other states do that.

 

[Babbylonian]

I embarrassed that I didn't know that. I had to resort to Wikipedia and speculation. Of course, there is the question of why a U.S. state calls itself a republic. I don't know if any other states do that.

Most states aren't full of dummies who love the idea of seceding from the Union, 150+ years after we've answered the question regarding whether or not that would be allowed.

 

[Trebuchet]

I embarrassed that I didn't know that. I had to resort to Wikipedia and speculation. Of course, there is the question of why a U.S. state calls itself a republic. I don't know if any other states do that.

As in other states, it goes way back* and means nothing now. Louisiana doesn't have "counties", it has "parishes". Same kind of thing.
Back on topic, the guy was having some sort of "episode", firing an assault-style weapon into his own house. But would the police have been all "droptheweaponbangbangbang" if he'd been white? Maybe, maybe not.

*"way back" in terms of American history, not European!

 

[bruto]

As in other states, it goes way back* and means nothing now. Louisiana doesn't have "counties", it has "parishes". Same kind of thing.
Back on topic, the guy was having some sort of "episode", firing an assault-style weapon into his own house. But would the police have been all "droptheweaponbangbangbang" if he'd been white? Maybe, maybe not.

*"way back" in terms of American history, not European!

I hope some more coherent account comes out here, as the bit I've seen so far suggests that there were shots fired that were not attributed either to the victim or the police, so it remains a bit of a mystery what actually was happening.

 

[Armitage72]

San Francisco has given its police department permission to deploy robots armed with explosives to kill criminals in "extreme circumstances". The ability to use lethal force was added by the police.
What could possibly go wrong?

After a heated debate, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to pass a policy that 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.” The measure must pass a second vote at a meeting next week and ultimately be approved by the mayor before becoming city law.
The policy, which was first proposed in September, was amended to include the provision allowing lethal force at the request of the San Francisco Police Department. An earlier draft set out that “robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person,” but the SFPD struck out the line and replaced it.

 

[Darat]

Robocop - The Documentary!

 

[Darat]

I hope some more coherent account comes out here, as the bit I've seen so far suggests that there were shots fired that were not attributed either to the victim or the police, so it remains a bit of a mystery what actually was happening.

This one doesn't seem as clear as some of the other incidents. If the police saw someone outside a house shooting into the house that is of course going to raise alarm bells and I'd say being prepared to use lethal force in such a situation is understandable. It does seem the shot was pre-emptive but I'd like to see a clearer timeline of what happened to better understand the police officer's actions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

San Francisco has given its police department permission to deploy robots armed with explosives to kill criminals in "extreme circumstances". The ability to use lethal force was added by the police.
What could possibly go wrong?

What disturbs me most is that "Stop Killer Robots" is the name of a real campaign group.

Dave

 

[Trebuchet]

San Francisco has given its police department permission to deploy robots armed with explosives to kill criminals in "extreme circumstances". The ability to use lethal force was added by the police.
What could possibly go wrong?

Clearly a violation of the First Law.

 

[gnome]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, as if the robots can decide on their own to use lethal force. From what I can tell, they're not even autonomous. More like drones that are always directly operated by a person. So using the drone to kill is not a significantly different act, from the standpoint of accountability, as the drone operator using a firearm to kill.

 

[Babbylonian]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, as if the robots can decide on their own to use lethal force. From what I can tell, they're not even autonomous. More like drones that are always directly operated by a person. So using the drone to kill is not a significantly different act, from the standpoint of accountability, as the drone operator using a firearm to kill.

Are you suggesting we should conduct drone strikes on our own citizens? Because that is absolutely the next step. It's not even a slippery slope since the only difference between an armed, remote-controlled, rolling robot and an armed, remote-controlled, flying robot is altitude.

 

[bruto]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, as if the robots can decide on their own to use lethal force. From what I can tell, they're not even autonomous. More like drones that are always directly operated by a person. So using the drone to kill is not a significantly different act, from the standpoint of accountability, as the drone operator using a firearm to kill.

While that may be, in some philosophical sense, true, I think that from the practical standpoint, signal purity, sensory quality, and the ability to make, and take responsibility for, instantaneous judgment might make a substantive difference.

I suspect that even in more abstract ways, the lack of immediacy and the insulation from the event are likely to influence the quality of judgment. One might hope that the relative immunity of a drone to lethal consequences would make the operator less likely to exercise excessive lethal force, but human nature being what it is, I would not bet my life, or anyone else's, on that.

 

[mgidm86]

Cops aren't brave enough to run into schools where children are being slaughtered. "3PO, call R2!"

 

[gnome]

I think we absolutely should question when (or whether) police should be using remote-kill devices. The point I was making is that this isn't a roving bot operating on pre-programmed directives that might make a "whoops" kill or decide to enslave humanity. This is a tool directly operated by a person.

I'd be inclined to require top police leadership in that jurisdiction to personally sign off on its use, and to have rigid statutory definitions of when it is suitable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And even fewer good ones.

Hey we have systems to get rid of them.

 

[trustbutverify]

Are you suggesting we should conduct drone strikes on our own citizens? Because that is absolutely the next step. It's not even a slippery slope since the only difference between an armed, remote-controlled, rolling robot and an armed, remote-controlled, flying robot is altitude.

Every police force on Earth is going to transition to significantly robotic law enforcement, no matter how progressive and empathetic they are, no matter how expert their mental health response teams are. It's just a question of time.

 

[mgidm86]

I think we absolutely should question when (or whether) police should be using remote-kill devices. The point I was making is that this isn't a roving bot operating on pre-programmed directives that might make a "whoops" kill or decide to enslave humanity. This is a tool directly operated by a person.

I'd be inclined to require top police leadership in that jurisdiction to personally sign off on its use, and to have rigid statutory definitions of when it is suitable.

I'd trust the robot over the cops these days. I say give 'em a gun and a chance!

 

[lobosrul5]

Every police force on Earth is going to transition to significantly robotic law enforcement, no matter how progressive and empathetic they are, no matter how expert their mental health response teams are. It's just a question of time.

That'll be a long long time coming.

First off, police have just about the last really powerful union in the USA. Secondly, the more labor intensive jobs that require even less thought than police will come first. And last, its going to be a Gordian knot of moral and legal issues to get through. But, yeah probably by the start of the 22nd century, we'll have real life robocops. By that time there won't really be any blue collar jobs left. Will it be a utopia or a dystopia? I'm gonna guess the latter.

 

[trustbutverify]

That'll be a long long time coming.

First off, police have just about the last really powerful union in the USA. Secondly, the more labor intensive jobs that require even less thought than police will come first. And last, its going to be a Gordian knot of moral and legal issues to get through. But, yeah probably by the start of the 22nd century, we'll have real life robocops. By that time there won't really be any blue collar jobs left. Will it be a utopia or a dystopia? I'm gonna guess the latter.

I'm not talking about "robocop" specifically (although I believe that's coming sooner than most people think). I mean more as autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons and reconnaissance units. Advanced AI police drones absolutely will be used to stun and, when necessary, kill in the near future. And I believe that will happen, as I said, in every police agency on the planet. Human cops will trend down as synthetic units trend up.