Ethics - Using robots to kill

[_Simpson_ 250]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/07/08/using-robots-kill-ethics-debated-after-dallas-shooting/86867580/

This headline surprised me. "robots to kill" ??? Its a tool/weapon. I thought the issue should be about using explosives as a mean to take out the bad guy.

[TBoneTX 46,426]

Thread is moved from the Off Topic forum to the Current Events forum, because it's a current event.

[X Factor 1,112]

The article also mentioned unmanned drones in the robotic category so then robots have been used to kill humans regularly

[Jacque67 7,328]

It's the first time law enforcement has used such a tactic (a bomb detonated by police) on US soil. Was this needed to take down someone with an AR-15 rifle? I was lead to believe such a rifle was not of much use for even hunting, on VJ...

[ExPatty 502]

It wasn't autonomous so is no different than using a smart bomb.

I want to see this bot in battle bots.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If it takes out bad guys while reducing the risk towards police I am all for it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Well, since you sound as if you have never used one, allow me to assist you in understanding...

The caliber is .223. That means your bullet is .224 inches in diameter. Not very big around. Pretty much the same size as a .22 LR (long rifle) cartridge that is used in hunting small game such as rabbit and squirrel. However, the shell itself, the part that holds the powder, is MUCH larger, giving the bullet much more power upon impact. Thus making the gun a no-go for hunting rabbits or squirrels. You'd damage more meat than you'd be able to eat, most likely.

The 5.56 or .223 round excels at the mid-size game level. Prairie dogs, coyotes, fox, etc. This, because it has a much longer range than the smaller cousin .22 LR, as well as enough energy to actually bring down the larger animals. So you can shoot a prairie dog out to 300m and feel pretty confident you can kill it with one shot.

But for deer, moose, elk, etc., the .223 or 5.56 round is not very effective. Sure, it has the range with which to reach out and hit that elusive deer, but it won't have enough energy to really drop the animal with a single shot, unless it is a VERY WELL PLACED shot. Which requires luck, patience, and skill. Nay, the 7.62 or .30 caliber bullet is much preferred for this task, as it has even more powder behind the bullet at the time of firing, as well as a larger mass, therefore more energy at long distance to actually kill (rather than wound) the animal one wishes to hunt and eat.

The primary purpose of the 5.56 caliber as used by the military (also the design of BALL ammo) is to wound the enemy. Same goes for the .30 carbine before it. The military wants an accurate weapon designed to send lead down range where it will wound an enemy, not kill them, so that it takes more people out of the fight. If you kill 10 enemy combatants, you have 10 less to fight. If you wound 10, you have (perhaps) 30 less to fight.

Now, this is not an all-encompassing attempt at educating you on the weapon itself, just trying to give you an idea that for certain game, it is an effective hunting rifle. For others, not so much. Pretty much in the same way that a person living in Texas might find a Ford F-350 dally pickup truck to be a great truck, but not so much for the person living in NYC. Different tools for different needs.

And if you really want to split hairs, the 5.56 and .223 are technically different internally, too. There are typically 3 variants of the chambers... 5.56 MilSpec (think heavy duty chamber, thicker sides, and a longer throat), .223 (thinner chamber walls, shorter throat), and a match grade chamber. Point being, one would be well advised NOT to fire military 5.56 rounds thru a .223 AR-15 rifle purchased commercially. Buy commercial ammo unless you build your own and put a MilSpec chamber in it. Keeps you from blowing primers out and possibly cracking a chamber.

It's the first time law enforcement has used such a tactic (a bomb detonated by police) on US soil. Was this needed to take down someone with an AR-15 rifle? I was lead to believe such a rifle was not of much use for even hunting, on VJ...

[Boiler 46,374]

It's the first time law enforcement has used such a tactic (a bomb detonated by police) on US soil. Was this needed to take down someone with an AR-15 rifle? I was lead to believe such a rifle was not of much use for even hunting, on VJ...

Who led you to believe an AR 15 was involved? VJ Lib gun of choice I know.

This was not a robot by any normal definition. Remote controlled demolition device.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Who led you to believe an AR 15 was involved? VJ Lib gun of choice I know.

This was not a robot by any normal definition. Remote controlled demolition device.

Smart on guns, robot technology not so much. It was a robot by very definition.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Not a robot , but a great idea

[Boiler 46,374]

Not a robot , but a great idea

Absolutely, hardly something new, Germans used something similar in WW2.

[yuna628 9,758]

It's the first time law enforcement has used such a tactic (a bomb detonated by police) on US soil. Was this needed to take down someone with an AR-15 rifle? I was lead to believe such a rifle was not of much use for even hunting, on VJ...

Actually, while it is the first robot controlled bomb device used by police on US soil, there was this instance of police using bombs on suspects in 1985. I suspect that after the idiocy of doing something like this in that manner was ruled to be possibly risky, we stopped doing that, until technology caught up. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/osage-avenue-bombing-philadelphia-30-years

Was it needed to take him out? Well, every video I see from the suspect shockingly shows cop after cop bravely running towards him and just as quickly getting mowed down with tactical efficiency. Obvious their handguns were no match for someone of his skill level and endless supply of rounds. I did question why a sniper of some sort wasn't used. There were probably many entrances to the garage, but it's a strategic location to hold up in, with multiple choke-points and good cover fire. He seems to have been wearing full body armor. We don't know if he had anything else, like a gas mask, or helmet. Even more odd was his threat of bombs (and based on evidence he clearly knew how to make them), but none have been actively found.

He wasn't out in the open with good access like the Baltimore-Hedgehog-suit-candy-kid, where the snipers took quite a few pot shots at him before he dropped, and the robot was used to pin him down/remove his clothing.

We simply don't know enough to know why they chose this tactic, or why it's something that has never been used in this way before.

[Jacque67 7,328]

The use of the robot and explosive device comes amid questions about whether police departments, which have bought equipment from the Pentagon that was part of efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, have become too militarized. During the turmoil in Ferguson, Mo., two years ago, local law enforcement quelled protests with military-style equipment, angering many who said they felt intimidated. The Obama administration has declined to stop the Pentagon from selling the equipment, saying that a vast majority of it strengthens local policing.

While Chief Brown offered no additional information about the use of the robot, it appeared that officers had repurposed a remote-controlled bomb disposal vehicle that is normally used to inspect dangerous crime scenes or pick up suspected explosive devices for detonation or dismantling.

The decision to use the robot in this way left many questions unanswered, including whether a sniper could have shot the gunman. Also, it was not clear why the police did not wait him out.

One expert in legal issues and robotics said he thought the use of the robot was justified, and saw little difference between its use and having a sniper shoot from a distance.

No court would find a legal problem here, said Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington law school. When someone is an ongoing lethal danger, there isnt an obligation on the part of officers to put themselves in harms way.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Bomb, bullet, or knife, Micah is dead. Good riddance. Why wait any longer? So he could kill more police officers? Meh, blow him to bits. He had his 5 minutes of fame. What's for dinner?

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html