Thursday ’s
lawful
and peaceful
#blacklivesmatter demonstration in Dallas marked
a technical ‘advance’ in policing of lawful peaceful
demonstrations. After
watching this from my safe perch in the Santa Ana Mountains I
am
not sure we want to continue on this path in the use of violence. I
am bothered by the use of the robot-delivered bomb by DPD to end the
violence. I certainly believe that the shooter certainly did a
terrible deed many times over and
he really have been prosecuted..
I just wonder about the method used to bring him to heel. I am not
dismayed that the guy is dead. I wish he had survived so he could be
tried for the crimes the government would have alleged against him
had he survived. I would not have been upset if he had been killed by
a sniper with what is essentially a hunting rifle. Given what the
shooter was up to i.e.
killing people, pitting sniper against sniper seems a reasonably
tailored use of deadly force to end the ongoing situation.
But
the means of delivery of deadly force was quite unusual. Essentially
the government built an IED an Improvised Explosive Device. They
called Amazon and had it delivered by drone to the intended target.
Well it really wasn’t a drone because it was land based and as far
as I know Amazon wasn’t involved. But that doesn’t change the
fact that they sent the fellow the bomb via a robot. People in Dallas
were terrified and I don’t blame them. I don’t live in Dallas so
I wasn’t terrified per se. To me the massacre was “another one
just like the other one.” The other one having occurred only days
before. There is a pattern emerging, gun violence is happening on a
weekly basis. More people are getting guns and more people are dying.
Is that connection so hard for us to make and understand? Okay let’s
put that issue aside and let me try to explain why and on what levels
the use of the robot bothers me.
Let
me state initially that I am a science fiction buff. So when I heard
that they used a robot to deliver the bomb my ears stood up in coyote
fashion. Robots were the cool thing of science fiction. The genre
deals with weighty issues. One of the early and oft repeated issues
getting the attention of scfi authors was the then infant science of
robotics. Scifi’s fascination with robotics finally culminated in
the perfect android, Lt Cdr Data of the StarTrek franchise. Along the
way scifi authors created a code of
conduct that
bound that nascent
science
and the
robots it created. The problem
the roboticists was
basically how do you prevent something smarter and stronger than you
from taking over the society and even exterminating or enslaving that
society?. The solution
that developed in the literature pretty much said robots had to do
what their human masters told them. This was subject to the
overriding rule that no robot could ever cause harm to a human being
under any circumstances whatsoever. This was the prime directive of
robotics.
The
use of the robot-delivered bomb in Dallas certainly violated that
prime directive that the robot must never harm a human being. When it
did what it was told to do, deliver the bomb it killed the shooter
pretty much by splattering him up against wall. That was certainly a
violent act. I don’t think there can be much serious argument about
that. That’s
what IEDs do. Perhaps
that’s the issue I am dealing with. The technology of robotics has
developed to the point that it is no longer necessary to kill the
malefactor with a rifle or a robot. Just recently I read a note
about a similar robot being used to deliver sleepy time gases to a
fellow barricading himself. He was gassed with the robot, he went
sleepy time and was captured. Well now that seems like a good outcome
to me. We get to put the alleged malefactor on trial to see if we can
punish him. We
could let his guilt be decided by the conscience of the community a
petit jury. Speaking
as a lawyer that is the preferred outcome of these things.
It’s
been reported that the Dallas PD obtained the robot from the US
defense department under a program through which surplus or outmoded
military physical assets are released on favorable terms to local law
enforcement. That program is a major factor in the increased
militarization of local law enforcement agencies. Militarization of
local law enforcement is a big issue in large metropolitan areas such
as Dallas.
Law enforcement in that context acts like an occupying army in
those cities which have had their police departments militarized.
The government assures us the robot was not intended to be an
anti-personnel asset. Somehow that assurance isn’t very comforting
to me or I think to the people of Dallas or any large city.
Now
this morning the malefactor is dead and the area sanitized so that no
one will remember any of this in the coming weeks or months until we
are visited by another malefactor. We have to decide what to do about
all this before it is too late.
There
are those who offer “thoughts and prayers” which of course do
nothing to solve the problem of violence and America’s first choice
to remedy violence. Something else that does nothing except create
more violence are the ridiculously insane calls for more guns. More
guns as we have seen means more death and destruction. It is time to
deal with this nonsense and put it to rest.
I wonder if they believed he was wearing a bomb and that it would detonate if they shot him. I know that he continued to randomly fire his weapon during "negotiations". Use of the robot was surreal.
ReplyDeleteUse of robot? Hey, it's Texas. Opens a lot of doors, doesn't it? I'm glad your blog is back!
ReplyDeleteActually Andrew the robot was not advertised as a single-use delivery system. I suspect it survived to fight another day.
ReplyDelete