San Francisco is considering allowing the use of deadly robots by police

The police department said the robots would only use deadly force "in extreme circumstances." Opponents have said the policy could lead to more police violence.

San Francisco police could use robots to deploy lethal force as part of a policy advanced by city supervisors on Tuesday that pushed the city to the forefront of a national debate over the use of armed robots in American cities.

The possibility is not merely hypothetical. In 2016, the Dallas Police Department ended a standoff with a gunman suspected of killing five officers by detonating him with a bomb attached to a robot in what was believed to be the first lethal use of technology by a US law enforcement agency. /p>

Supporters of the policy, advanced by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by an 8-3 vote, said it would allow police to deploy a robot with deadly force under extraordinary circumstances, such as when a mass shooter or terrorist threatens the lives of officers or civilians.

David Lazar, Deputy Chief of Department San Francisco police, cited as an example of the gunman who opened fire from his hotel room in a Las Vegas skyscraper in 2017, killing 60 people in the deadliest mass shooting in history modern American.

'He's shooting, people are stuck, police are stuck,' Chief Lazar told the council during a heated policy debate scam "We would then be like, 'OK, that's an option.'"

To become law, politics must be approved again by the council - which is expected to consider it on December 6 - and be signed by Mayor London Breed, a Democrat who has expressed support for the proposal.

ImageThe scene following the shooting of a sniper in Dallas in 2016.Credit...Laura Buckman/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images< /figure>

“ If the police are called upon to serve in a situation where someone intends to harm or is already harming innocent people, and they technology exists that can help end violence and save lives, we must enable police to use these tools to save lives,” Ms. Breed's office said in a statement.

Paul Scharre, vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security and author of "Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War," said stated that he was unaware of any other US city having approved such a policy.

He stated that the use of robots provide lethal force was "the exact opposite of what we should be using robots for." between the police and a potential threat, giving officers more time to make decisions without putting themselves in harm's way.

"Precisely because a police officer is no longer in danger, you don't need to use lethal force," he said. "You can use non-lethal options such as tear gas or flash shots to incapacitate someone."

He said the fear was that of other cities are following San Francisco's lead, which would eventually lead to the wider use of deadly robots by US law enforcement.

"It is normalizing,” Scharre said. "It becomes a tool that police departments turn to in situations where they really don't have to."

Aaron Peskin, Board Member of San Francisco oversight, said the policy was being worked on...

San Francisco is considering allowing the use of deadly robots by police

The police department said the robots would only use deadly force "in extreme circumstances." Opponents have said the policy could lead to more police violence.

San Francisco police could use robots to deploy lethal force as part of a policy advanced by city supervisors on Tuesday that pushed the city to the forefront of a national debate over the use of armed robots in American cities.

The possibility is not merely hypothetical. In 2016, the Dallas Police Department ended a standoff with a gunman suspected of killing five officers by detonating him with a bomb attached to a robot in what was believed to be the first lethal use of technology by a US law enforcement agency. /p>

Supporters of the policy, advanced by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by an 8-3 vote, said it would allow police to deploy a robot with deadly force under extraordinary circumstances, such as when a mass shooter or terrorist threatens the lives of officers or civilians.

David Lazar, Deputy Chief of Department San Francisco police, cited as an example of the gunman who opened fire from his hotel room in a Las Vegas skyscraper in 2017, killing 60 people in the deadliest mass shooting in history modern American.

'He's shooting, people are stuck, police are stuck,' Chief Lazar told the council during a heated policy debate scam "We would then be like, 'OK, that's an option.'"

To become law, politics must be approved again by the council - which is expected to consider it on December 6 - and be signed by Mayor London Breed, a Democrat who has expressed support for the proposal.

ImageThe scene following the shooting of a sniper in Dallas in 2016.Credit...Laura Buckman/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images< /figure>

“ If the police are called upon to serve in a situation where someone intends to harm or is already harming innocent people, and they technology exists that can help end violence and save lives, we must enable police to use these tools to save lives,” Ms. Breed's office said in a statement.

Paul Scharre, vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security and author of "Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War," said stated that he was unaware of any other US city having approved such a policy.

He stated that the use of robots provide lethal force was "the exact opposite of what we should be using robots for." between the police and a potential threat, giving officers more time to make decisions without putting themselves in harm's way.

"Precisely because a police officer is no longer in danger, you don't need to use lethal force," he said. "You can use non-lethal options such as tear gas or flash shots to incapacitate someone."

He said the fear was that of other cities are following San Francisco's lead, which would eventually lead to the wider use of deadly robots by US law enforcement.

"It is normalizing,” Scharre said. "It becomes a tool that police departments turn to in situations where they really don't have to."

Aaron Peskin, Board Member of San Francisco oversight, said the policy was being worked on...

What's Your Reaction?

like

dislike

love

funny

angry

sad

wow