Tweet
Then we blew him up with a robot, because that's the terrifying dystopic future we live in. 
-
Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld -
Send in a robot or more human beings, against someone who had time to set up kill zones and possibly IEDs. It doesn't seem "fair", but it really is.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
It's not about fair, it's about normalizing the militarization of the police. If you have some crazy extreme situation where something like this has to be done, call in the special forces like we did with the Iranian embassy siege.Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostComment
-
I think there way he was subdued was brilliant.
Why risk more lives?Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
Did you think the 1985 Philadelphia police bomb action was 'brilliant'? We're in genuine slippery slope territory here.Comment
-
Actually it's much easier psycolocally to kill that way.Originally posted by Lorizael View PostThen we blew him up with a robot, because that's the terrifying dystopic future we live in.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
They are extremely different situations and actions. And there is no slippery slope. It's not even increased militarisation of the police, since police forces have bomb squads (robots/explosives/explosive experts) already and for good reason.Originally posted by kentonio View PostComment
-
Of course its a slippery slope, if the police convince themselves that robots with bombs is a much safer way of eliminating armed suspects than SWAT teams for instance, they'll start using it a lot more. At some point they'll ended up ****ing up and killing a family or group of kids because a bomb does more damage than they expected, or because they didn't realize they were there. If you doubt that, then consider how many times SWAT has ****ed up. The time they threw a flash bang into a kids cot is particularly memorable.Originally posted by Aeson View PostComment
-
Hey, I used aOriginally posted by The Mad Monk View Post. I am totally in favor of terrifying dystopic futures. My thing is this: if sending in a robot with a bomb is that easy, wouldn't it have been just as easy to send in a robot with a flash bang or tear gas or some other non-lethal, but incapacitating device? The answer may be no, but I think it's very much worth it to make the effort.
Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La RochefoucauldComment
-
Why?Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
Because we have a justice system?Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La RochefoucauldComment
-
As you noted, police can make mistakes without the assistance of robots. While you could argue that police may be prone to misuse the power since they aren't in harms way, that presupposes that most police officers are only not killing innocents because they fear for their own safety while doing so. That's clearly absurd. The vast majority of police officers are out there every day risking their lives to help protect their communities. Without the adrenaline rush of being in a life or death situation, police officers are much more likely to maintain their composure and make proper decisions. Using robots can allow police officers to keep themselves out of those situations, where their judgment and intent is more likely to prevail over adrenaline and instincts.Originally posted by kentonio View PostComment
-
SWAT teams do that because they risk getting shot/stabbed/blown up themselves; using robots remove that risk making it less, not more likely that an adrenaline-pumped human will make that kind of mistake, assuming they have time to plan, which brings us to...Originally posted by kentonio View Post
A valid point, but I think we should consider that this is new to the police too, and they were improvising. I would expect non-lethal methods to be used in the future.Originally posted by Lorizael View PostHey, I used a. I am totally in favor of terrifying dystopic futures. My thing is this: if sending in a robot with a bomb is that easy, wouldn't it have been just as easy to send in a robot with a flash bang or tear gas or some other non-lethal, but incapacitating device? The answer may be no, but I think it's very much worth it to make the effort.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
IOW, what he said.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
It would only be terrifying if it were a clown robot that teases it's victims.Originally posted by Lorizael View PostHey, I used a. I am totally in favor of terrifying dystopic futures. My thing is this: if sending in a robot with a bomb is that easy, wouldn't it have been just as easy to send in a robot with a flash bang or tear gas or some other non-lethal, but incapacitating device? The answer may be no, but I think it's very much worth it to make the effort.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment