The personification of the robot leads me to believe that this will start being framed as "attacking an officer", and justification for arming the robots. Cruisers and other tools don't get names...
The personification of the robot leads me to believe that this will start being framed as "attacking an officer", and justification for arming the robots.
Cruisers and other tools don't get names and injury reports. By framing the narrative this way, the police will seek to grab more power, and make it so that acting against police tools is a crime in itself.
Destruction of property is already a crime. Resisting arrest is already a crime. You're describing a slippery slope, but there's no slope and no slip. We're already there, so there's either plenty...
Destruction of property is already a crime. Resisting arrest is already a crime. You're describing a slippery slope, but there's no slope and no slip. We're already there, so there's either plenty to rage about in the current system or nothing to worry about. So either take action to change what already is, or don't worry about it.
But in the current state of affairs, injuring or killing a police dog carries fairly severe penalties, while police dogs are often used in cruel and inhumane ways. It makes sense to be wary about...
But in the current state of affairs, injuring or killing a police dog carries fairly severe penalties, while police dogs are often used in cruel and inhumane ways. It makes sense to be wary about a new generation of police dogs and how law enforcement/courts will treat them.
You're seriously saying a judge would argue a living, breathing dog is worth the same as a four legged robot? I can't imagine anyone actually seriously thinking that makes any sense. This seems to...
You're seriously saying a judge would argue a living, breathing dog is worth the same as a four legged robot?
I can't imagine anyone actually seriously thinking that makes any sense.
This seems to me no different to damaging a police car, or whatever.
...no? That's a pretty uncharitable reading of my comment. Can you imagine that I'm a reasonable person, and think about what I said again? US courts have made numerous ridiculous decisions to...
You're seriously saying a judge would argue a living, breathing dog is worth the same as a four legged robot?
...no? That's a pretty uncharitable reading of my comment. Can you imagine that I'm a reasonable person, and think about what I said again?
US courts have made numerous ridiculous decisions to protect and absolve the police of responsibility, and that's the backdrop for my comment.
I understand the argument, considering it's new technology, however.. I do not think it's reasonable to compare a 'robot dog', with an actual police dog. I imagine we call it a robot dog cause,...
I understand the argument, considering it's new technology, however..
It makes sense to be wary about a new generation of police dogs
I do not think it's reasonable to compare a 'robot dog', with an actual police dog.
I imagine we call it a robot dog cause, well, it's got four legs.
US courts have made numerous ridiculous decisions
So because courts are apparently unreasonable, it's reasonable to assume and thus you're being reasonable?
Doesn't sound reasonable to me. Unless there's a similar case from which, legally, can be extrapolated from. And I don't believe a robot can be "killed" to begin with.
I really don't find it convincing this could be anything other than property damage.
Giving it a name is a little too cute but the police do public relations sometimes, like any other organization. The fact that the first thing people try to do is figure out how this might be bad...
Giving it a name is a little too cute but the police do public relations sometimes, like any other organization.
The fact that the first thing people try to do is figure out how this might be bad shows how much work they still have to do to repair their reputation.
The Massachusetts State Police are highlighting the use of a “robot dog” that was damaged by multiple gunshots during a situation with an armed, barricaded suspect earlier this month.
…
As the SPOT unit checked the basement, Moreira “suddenly appeared from a bedroom armed with a rifle,” police said.
Moreira knocked the robot dog over and began ascending the stairs up from the basement. SPOT units have a “self-righting” function, police said, which Moreira did not realize. The robot got back on its feet and a trooper directed it up the stairs behind Moreira. When he realized, Moreira knocked the SPOT unit over again, according to police.
Troopers saw him raising a rifle and pointing it in the robot’s direction before they lost communications with the SPOT unit, police said.
They later found that the robot dog had been hit by bullets three times by Moreira, police said.
…
The disabled SPOT unit was left in the basement until officials finished documenting the scene. It was then brought to Boston Dynamics so that the company could remove the bullets and assess the damage.
“The company has expressed an interest in keeping Roscoe for research, and the process of replacing him with a new SPOT platform is underway,” State Police said in a release Wednesday.
This is the most interesting part to me. How militarized are these robot dogs going to get?
“The company has expressed an interest in keeping Roscoe for research, and the process of replacing him with a new SPOT platform is underway,” State Police said in a release Wednesday.
This is the most interesting part to me. How militarized are these robot dogs going to get?
Not to say that they aren't going to make combat dogs, but any engineer who made a machine to handle rough environments would want to have a real life example of a unit that suffered damage in the...
Not to say that they aren't going to make combat dogs, but any engineer who made a machine to handle rough environments would want to have a real life example of a unit that suffered damage in the field. It doesn't have to be specifically about making them more bulletproof. (Though it totally is about making them bulletproof.)
BigDog, which Spot's design is an iteration on, was developed by Boston Dynamic for DARPA expressly for military logistics applications. The project was only scrapped after it was deemed too loud...
BigDog, which Spot's design is an iteration on, was developed by Boston Dynamic for DARPA expressly for military logistics applications. The project was only scrapped after it was deemed too loud for use in combat situations.
And Boston Dynamic got acquired by Hyundai in 2020, who also have a massive Defense division. So, "How militarized are these robot dogs going to get?"... Probably very, eventually. Even if Boston Dynamic isn't the one to do it, someone else inevitably will.
What I’m wondering is whether requiring risk to to your side’s physical well being is an important limiting factor to violence that we have taken for granted. If a police officer has to face...
What I’m wondering is whether requiring risk to to your side’s physical well being is an important limiting factor to violence that we have taken for granted. If a police officer has to face someone with a gun when they draw their own weapon that might limit the circumstances in which they’ll apply lethal force.
Of course we already have used violence at a distance for millennia. The existence of an organized military allows the wealthy to apply violence with limited risk to themselves. And today we have drone strikes. But soon that will extend to everyday law enforcement.
I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying, but I think an officer facing a potentially armed criminal faces risk that complicates their judgement. An officer operating a drone is perfectly...
I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying, but I think an officer facing a potentially armed criminal faces risk that complicates their judgement. An officer operating a drone is perfectly safe, and can make more rational judgements, which include considering the risk of being prosecuted for excessive force. I suspect this is going to overall reduce the number of officer involved shootings.
Right. One could look at the training requirements of police forces (as a measure of their professionalism), the rates of violent crime involving guns in the country (as a measure of the perceived...
Right. One could look at the training requirements of police forces (as a measure of their professionalism), the rates of violent crime involving guns in the country (as a measure of the perceived threat environment) and look at a bunch of countries. My prediction would be, the US isn't alone in having... lax requirements for their police force, and it's a much better explanation that US cops are simply trigger happy because in certain situations, they get really fucking scared. I'm sure some of these situations are amplified by shitty training, but I think it's ultimately down to scared police officers most of the time.
An accountable human operator, likely a full record of the entire police interaction, and the operator doesn't have to fear for their life? I'm not saying nothing bad could ever come of this. But a suspect being in a mexican standoff with your robot is a much better environment for calm, collected decision making and de-escalation than a mexican standoff with you would be.
I would say that this would actually decrease the justification for using deadly force. Shooting someone with a gun because they threatened your robot wouldn’t work in court as well as an officer...
I would say that this would actually decrease the justification for using deadly force. Shooting someone with a gun because they threatened your robot wouldn’t work in court as well as an officer saying their life was in danger.
I don’t think that robots used by police should even have a deadly weapon. Either they should be unarmed or have less than lethal weapons to disarm someone before sending in a real officer.
I think this presupposes a degree of express intent on the part of police to commit atrocities which I don’t really believe is common. Coupled with the inherent increased oversight of always-on...
I think this presupposes a degree of express intent on the part of police to commit atrocities which I don’t really believe is common. Coupled with the inherent increased oversight of always-on video that these devices have, with their multiple cameras and other sensors, I really believe this is going to be a net benefit for everyone.
I don't think most cops start their day hoping to use excessive force. I think most of the time that the police shoot someone, they're making a split second judgement call out of adrenaline and...
I don't think most cops start their day hoping to use excessive force. I think most of the time that the police shoot someone, they're making a split second judgement call out of adrenaline and fear.
I think it's even undersrandable in many cases. If I was in a situation where there's a very good chance I could get shot and die, and a chance I could get out on trial for using excessive force, I think in most cases, in that split second I'd choose to live too.
Not being in harms way might let you think more rationally and take a few extra seconds to determine if a suspect is going into their jacket to grab a wallet versus a gun.
I suspect that they’re going to replace it in part because they want to keep this one for marketing. After they’re done looking at it, maybe put it in a little museum display in the lobby?
I suspect that they’re going to replace it in part because they want to keep this one for marketing. After they’re done looking at it, maybe put it in a little museum display in the lobby?
Yea I am absolutely not stoked on this. The story itself is fine but the broader current of justifying the use of militant robots is something that I would like to avoid as much as possible.
Yea I am absolutely not stoked on this. The story itself is fine but the broader current of justifying the use of militant robots is something that I would like to avoid as much as possible.
They were able to identify the location of a suspect without having to put themselves directly in harm's way. "Militant robot" is a bit extreme when it's not much different to an RC car with a...
They were able to identify the location of a suspect without having to put themselves directly in harm's way.
"Militant robot" is a bit extreme when it's not much different to an RC car with a camera on it...
I don't really see how the robot is militant. It didn't have a weapon or even any protection from bullets. A 7 hour standoff with police where the suspect was firing bullets at them ended with...
I don't really see how the robot is militant. It didn't have a weapon or even any protection from bullets. A 7 hour standoff with police where the suspect was firing bullets at them ended with zero injuries, including to the suspect, in part because of the robot.
Obviously it's impossible to say what would have happened otherwise, but it's not a stretch to think that things could have been considerably more dangerous had armed officers been the first ones in instead of unarmed robots.
If a police officer was to tell me this story directly, I would say "wow, that's great! I'm happy that there was a peaceful solution to keep you out of harm's way." I'm responding to media...
If a police officer was to tell me this story directly, I would say "wow, that's great! I'm happy that there was a peaceful solution to keep you out of harm's way."
I'm responding to media coverage of the event more than the event itself. The robot is not militant but drone warfare is real, and the media choosing to tell a story about a helpful robot dog when the same technologies are being used to kill people does not sit with me well.
The use of drones in warfare is pretty widely covered, though? I don’t see a one-off story like this as being all that much of a distraction, particularly not in a world that’s full of...
The use of drones in warfare is pretty widely covered, though? I don’t see a one-off story like this as being all that much of a distraction, particularly not in a world that’s full of distractions. Seems like we can discuss more than one kind of robot without getting confused?
The personification of the robot leads me to believe that this will start being framed as "attacking an officer", and justification for arming the robots.
Cruisers and other tools don't get names and injury reports. By framing the narrative this way, the police will seek to grab more power, and make it so that acting against police tools is a crime in itself.
Destruction of property is already a crime. Resisting arrest is already a crime. You're describing a slippery slope, but there's no slope and no slip. We're already there, so there's either plenty to rage about in the current system or nothing to worry about. So either take action to change what already is, or don't worry about it.
To be fair aren’t police dogs technically property too? There seems to be different laws involving them.
I think that's a bit over the top, they called it robot dog, not robot officer...
But in the current state of affairs, injuring or killing a police dog carries fairly severe penalties, while police dogs are often used in cruel and inhumane ways. It makes sense to be wary about a new generation of police dogs and how law enforcement/courts will treat them.
You're seriously saying a judge would argue a living, breathing dog is worth the same as a four legged robot?
I can't imagine anyone actually seriously thinking that makes any sense.
This seems to me no different to damaging a police car, or whatever.
...no? That's a pretty uncharitable reading of my comment. Can you imagine that I'm a reasonable person, and think about what I said again?
US courts have made numerous ridiculous decisions to protect and absolve the police of responsibility, and that's the backdrop for my comment.
I understand the argument, considering it's new technology, however..
I do not think it's reasonable to compare a 'robot dog', with an actual police dog.
I imagine we call it a robot dog cause, well, it's got four legs.
So because courts are apparently unreasonable, it's reasonable to assume and thus you're being reasonable?
Doesn't sound reasonable to me. Unless there's a similar case from which, legally, can be extrapolated from. And I don't believe a robot can be "killed" to begin with.
I really don't find it convincing this could be anything other than property damage.
Giving it a name is a little too cute but the police do public relations sometimes, like any other organization.
The fact that the first thing people try to do is figure out how this might be bad shows how much work they still have to do to repair their reputation.
From the article:
…
…
This is the most interesting part to me. How militarized are these robot dogs going to get?
Not to say that they aren't going to make combat dogs, but any engineer who made a machine to handle rough environments would want to have a real life example of a unit that suffered damage in the field. It doesn't have to be specifically about making them more bulletproof. (Though it totally is about making them bulletproof.)
BigDog, which Spot's design is an iteration on, was developed by Boston Dynamic for DARPA expressly for military logistics applications. The project was only scrapped after it was deemed too loud for use in combat situations.
And Boston Dynamic got acquired by Hyundai in 2020, who also have a massive Defense division. So, "How militarized are these robot dogs going to get?"... Probably very, eventually. Even if Boston Dynamic isn't the one to do it, someone else inevitably will.
What I’m wondering is whether requiring risk to to your side’s physical well being is an important limiting factor to violence that we have taken for granted. If a police officer has to face someone with a gun when they draw their own weapon that might limit the circumstances in which they’ll apply lethal force.
Of course we already have used violence at a distance for millennia. The existence of an organized military allows the wealthy to apply violence with limited risk to themselves. And today we have drone strikes. But soon that will extend to everyday law enforcement.
I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying, but I think an officer facing a potentially armed criminal faces risk that complicates their judgement. An officer operating a drone is perfectly safe, and can make more rational judgements, which include considering the risk of being prosecuted for excessive force. I suspect this is going to overall reduce the number of officer involved shootings.
Right. One could look at the training requirements of police forces (as a measure of their professionalism), the rates of violent crime involving guns in the country (as a measure of the perceived threat environment) and look at a bunch of countries. My prediction would be, the US isn't alone in having... lax requirements for their police force, and it's a much better explanation that US cops are simply trigger happy because in certain situations, they get really fucking scared. I'm sure some of these situations are amplified by shitty training, but I think it's ultimately down to scared police officers most of the time.
An accountable human operator, likely a full record of the entire police interaction, and the operator doesn't have to fear for their life? I'm not saying nothing bad could ever come of this. But a suspect being in a mexican standoff with your robot is a much better environment for calm, collected decision making and de-escalation than a mexican standoff with you would be.
What I’m wondering is if the risk of starting trouble and facing personal harm is holding back far worse atrocities.
I would say that this would actually decrease the justification for using deadly force. Shooting someone with a gun because they threatened your robot wouldn’t work in court as well as an officer saying their life was in danger.
I don’t think that robots used by police should even have a deadly weapon. Either they should be unarmed or have less than lethal weapons to disarm someone before sending in a real officer.
I think this presupposes a degree of express intent on the part of police to commit atrocities which I don’t really believe is common. Coupled with the inherent increased oversight of always-on video that these devices have, with their multiple cameras and other sensors, I really believe this is going to be a net benefit for everyone.
I don't think most cops start their day hoping to use excessive force. I think most of the time that the police shoot someone, they're making a split second judgement call out of adrenaline and fear.
I think it's even undersrandable in many cases. If I was in a situation where there's a very good chance I could get shot and die, and a chance I could get out on trial for using excessive force, I think in most cases, in that split second I'd choose to live too.
Not being in harms way might let you think more rationally and take a few extra seconds to determine if a suspect is going into their jacket to grab a wallet versus a gun.
I suspect that they’re going to replace it in part because they want to keep this one for marketing. After they’re done looking at it, maybe put it in a little museum display in the lobby?
Yea I am absolutely not stoked on this. The story itself is fine but the broader current of justifying the use of militant robots is something that I would like to avoid as much as possible.
They were able to identify the location of a suspect without having to put themselves directly in harm's way.
"Militant robot" is a bit extreme when it's not much different to an RC car with a camera on it...
I don't really see how the robot is militant. It didn't have a weapon or even any protection from bullets. A 7 hour standoff with police where the suspect was firing bullets at them ended with zero injuries, including to the suspect, in part because of the robot.
Obviously it's impossible to say what would have happened otherwise, but it's not a stretch to think that things could have been considerably more dangerous had armed officers been the first ones in instead of unarmed robots.
If a police officer was to tell me this story directly, I would say "wow, that's great! I'm happy that there was a peaceful solution to keep you out of harm's way."
I'm responding to media coverage of the event more than the event itself. The robot is not militant but drone warfare is real, and the media choosing to tell a story about a helpful robot dog when the same technologies are being used to kill people does not sit with me well.
The use of drones in warfare is pretty widely covered, though? I don’t see a one-off story like this as being all that much of a distraction, particularly not in a world that’s full of distractions. Seems like we can discuss more than one kind of robot without getting confused?