This report was first published on November 27th. New information has been added.
Supervisors voted 8-3 Tuesday to pass a proposal from the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) that allow their robots to subdue suspects with lethal force by detonating explosives strapped onto the droids.
There were, however, some contentions during the hearings, according to the Associated Press, with opponents claiming that this move would ‘lead to the further militarization of a police force already too aggressive with poor and minority communities.’
SFPD spokesperson Allison Maxie said that the force does not have pre-armed robots neither do they plan to load their bots with guns, but will be loaded with explosives “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect,” if the situation calls for it.
Robots equipped in this manner would only be used in extreme circumstances to save or prevent further loss of innocent lives.
Maxie added
We continuously are being asked to do things in the name of increasing weaponry and opportunities for negative interaction between the police department and people of color. This is just one of those things.
Board President Shamann Walton, who voted against the proposal.
According to the draft of the legislation:
Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to SFPD.
Furthermore the bill also seeks to exclude “hundreds of assault rifles from its inventory of military-style weapons and for not include personnel costs in the price of its weapons,” Mission Local reports.
The bill already has plenty of pushback. Supervisor Aaron Peskin initially did not want the robots to be able to use deadly force, adding to the language of the bill: “Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.” But interestingly enough, the police, who originally drafted the early form of the bill, completely struck down Peskin’s proposal and reinserted the ability to use lethal force (see quote above).
Ultimately Peskin, along with Rafael Mandelman and Connie Chan, unanimously allowed initial passage for this bill. Peskin excused this by claiming that “there could be scenarios where deployment of lethal force was the only option.”
The SFPD already has a dozen remote-controlled robots they can deploy, usually for bomb disposals and scene investigations.
In 2016 police in Dallas, Texas, demonstrated that the robots can be used lethally to end escalated crime if need be. In this scenario, police armed a robot with plastic ballistics and killed a sharpshooter via detonation, a person who had already killed 5 officers. The Dallas police used a Remotec F5A at the time, which is one of the robots the SFPD has in their arsenal.
These robots can be outfitted with blank shotgun shells to disrupt a device’s internal components as a means of disarming the bomb. But these shotgun casings can easily be loaded with live roads if need be.
The other part of the bill would allow the police to list their hundreds of assault weapons on file, the cost of them, and if they ever get used, and how they are classified. ‘Their omission would mean that in future annual reports, the police would not need to declare how the guns had been used or who had been injured by them,’ Mission Local added.
The law defines ‘military weapons,’ not the chief of police. San Francisco is not the only department to attempt to redefine ‘military weapons’ so as to justify hiding their use, costs, and upkeep from the public.
If the law defined military weapons as bubble gum, then the police department would have to disclose their use of bubble gum.
I really think it is confusing to the public if we don’t have those assault weapons reported.”
Tifanei Moyer, senior staff attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Well we’re certainly not too far off from Robocop, and then some, seeing how the robots these developers are making are agile enough that can strike someone dead if need be.
Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
Psalm 106:39
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Robocop today the Terminator tomorrow.
Jesus will terminate it all!
Yes He will…with His words the King James Bible and it’ll be far more destructive than any weapon of mass destruction ever invented!
I couldn’t agree more with your choice of verse. Precise and straight to the point.
yikes, the terminator is here!
Anything goes in Pelosi-land.
We would all be much better off without technology.
Remember when robots were just cute toys one’d buy their son or daughter for Christmas? Now we’ve got the Droid Army from Starwars. I tell you, when it comes to mankind, it’s King James Bible or bust, without the Lord’s interference via the Rapture and following Time of Jacob’s Trouble, we’re cooked, and it’d could happen very soon, too. Lord Jesus come quickly I say, before man utterly destroys itself!