Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas
Published on
Friday, July 08, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas
'The fact that the police have a weapon like this...is an example of the
militarization of the police and law enforcement-and goes in the wrong
direction'
by
Nadia Prupis, staff writer
Dallas police officers respond to the ambush attack on July 7, 2016.
(Photo: AP)
As news emerges that police officers in Dallas, Texas used an armed robot to
kill the suspected shooter in Thursday night's ambush, experts are warning
that it represents a sea change in police militarization that only heightens
risks to human and constitutional rights.
Dallas Police Chief David Brown said Friday morning during a press
conference that police "saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and
place a device on its extension for it to detonate" where the suspect had
taken refuge in a parking garage as police tried to negotiate with him,
adding that he was "deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."
The suspect, identified as Micah Xavier Johnson, was killed around 2:30am
Friday morning after an hours-long standoff with police. The shootings
killed five officers and left more than a dozen people injured. Johnson
reportedly confirmed that he had acted alone and was not affiliated with any
group.
Many noted that this appears to be the first time that domestic police have
used a lethal robot to kill a suspect.
According to Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita at the Thomas Jefferson School
of Law and editor and contributor to Drones and Targeted Killings: Legal,
Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, it's a sign that U.S. law enforcement is
continuing to go in "the wrong direction."
"Due process is not just enshrined in our constitution, it's also enshrined
in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
-Marjorie Cohn,
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
"The fact that the police have a weapon like this, and other weapons like
drones and tanks, is an example of the militarization of the police and law
enforcement-and goes in the wrong direction," Cohn told Common Dreams. "We
should see the police using humane techniques, interacting on a more humane
level with the community, and although certainly the police officers did not
deserve to die, this is an indication of something much deeper in the
society, and that's the racism that permeates the police departments across
the country. It's a real tragedy."
Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and assistant professor of law at
the University of South Carolina, told The Atlantic on Friday, "This is sort
of a new horizon for police technology. Robots have been around for a while,
but using them to deliver lethal force raises some new issues."
As security expert and University of Pennsylvania professor Matt Blaze noted
on Twitter on Friday, numerous safety concerns about the robot's
protocols-for example, how easily it might be hacked-remain unaddressed.
"How was the control link to the Dallas bomb robot secured? Stakes go *way*
up when something like this is repurposed as a weapon," he wrote.
As Popular Science tech editor David Gershgorn also explained:
Repurposing a robot that was created to prevent death by explosion clearly
contrasts with the way these machines are normally used. Bomb disposal
robots are routinely used to minimize the potential of harm to officers and
civilians when disarming or clearing potential explosives from an area. They
are often equipped with their own explosive charges and other tools, not to
kill, but detonate other potential bombs in the area.
Questions also arose regarding the necessity of the suspect's killing after
he reportedly told police during negotiations that there were "bombs all
over" downtown Dallas.
As Cohn noted, officers could have determined where those devices were
located, "if in fact there are bombs," had they left the suspect alive.
Moreover, she said, killing him violated his constitutional right to due
process.
"Police cannot use deadly force unless there's an imminent threat of death
or great bodily injury to them or other people. If the suspect was holed up
in a parking garage and there was nobody in immediate danger from him, the
police could have waited him out. They should have arrested him and brought
him to trial," Cohn said. "Due process is not just enshrined in our
constitution, it's also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which the U.S. has ratified, making it part of U.S. law."
Likewise, Stoughton told The Atlantic, "Policing has a different mission
[than the military]: protecting the populace. That core mission, as
difficult as it is to explains sometimes, includes protecting some people
who do some bad things. It includes not using lethal force when it's
possible to not."
Many noted the connection between potentially the first use of an armed
robot in domestic policing and the deployment of such tools in active war
zones. Defense technology expert Peter W. Singer wrote on Twitter, "this is
1st use of robot in this way in policing. Marcbot has been ad hoc used this
way by troops in Iraq."
"The same way that the Obama administration uses unmanned drones in other
countries, we see a similar situation here."
-Marjorie Cohn,
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Cohn said, "The same way that the Obama administration uses unmanned drones
in other countries to kill people instead of arresting them and bringing
them to trial, we see a similar situation here....As the technology
develops, we're going to see the increasing use of military weapons in the
hands of the police, which is going to inflame and exacerbate a very
volatile situation."
"We can see that many of the weapons that are being used by the military are
in the hands of the police," she added. "This is a very volatile situation,
very dangerous situation, and is only going to make the tensions worse and
kill people and violate constitutional rights."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Friday, July 8, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas
Published on
Friday, July 08, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas
'The fact that the police have a weapon like this...is an example of the
militarization of the police and law enforcement-and goes in the wrong
direction'
by
Nadia Prupis, staff writer
. 73 Comments
. Dallas police officers respond to the ambush attack on July 7, 2016.
(Photo: AP)
. As news emerges that police officers in Dallas, Texas used an armed
robot to kill the suspected shooter in Thursday night's ambush, experts are
warning that it represents a sea change in police militarization that only
heightens risks to human and constitutional rights.
. Dallas Police Chief David Brown said Friday morning during a press
conference that police "saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and
place a device on its extension for it to detonate" where the suspect had
taken refuge in a parking garage as police tried to negotiate with him,
adding that he was "deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."
. The suspect, identified as Micah Xavier Johnson, was killed around
2:30am Friday morning after an hours-long standoff with police. The
shootings killed five officers and left more than a dozen people injured.
Johnson reportedly confirmed that he had acted alone and was not affiliated
with any group.
. Many noted that this appears to be the first time that domestic
police have used a lethal robot to kill a suspect.
. According to Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita at the Thomas
Jefferson School of Law and editor and contributor to Drones and Targeted
Killings: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, it's a sign that U.S. law
enforcement is continuing to go in "the wrong direction."
"Due process is not just enshrined in our constitution, it's also enshrined
in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
-Marjorie Cohn,
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
"The fact that the police have a weapon like this, and other weapons like
drones and tanks, is an example of the militarization of the police and law
enforcement-and goes in the wrong direction," Cohn told Common Dreams. "We
should see the police using humane techniques, interacting on a more humane
level with the community, and although certainly the police officers did not
deserve to die, this is an indication of something much deeper in the
society, and that's the racism that permeates the police departments across
the country. It's a real tragedy."
Seth Stoughton, a former police officer and assistant professor of law at
the University of South Carolina, told The Atlantic on Friday, "This is sort
of a new horizon for police technology. Robots have been around for a while,
but using them to deliver lethal force raises some new issues."
As security expert and University of Pennsylvania professor Matt Blaze noted
on Twitter on Friday, numerous safety concerns about the robot's
protocols-for example, how easily it might be hacked-remain unaddressed.
"How was the control link to the Dallas bomb robot secured? Stakes go *way*
up when something like this is repurposed as a weapon," he wrote.
As Popular Science tech editor David Gershgorn also explained:
Repurposing a robot that was created to prevent death by explosion clearly
contrasts with the way these machines are normally used. Bomb disposal
robots are routinely used to minimize the potential of harm to officers and
civilians when disarming or clearing potential explosives from an area. They
are often equipped with their own explosive charges and other tools, not to
kill, but detonate other potential bombs in the area.
Questions also arose regarding the necessity of the suspect's killing after
he reportedly told police during negotiations that there were "bombs all
over" downtown Dallas.
As Cohn noted, officers could have determined where those devices were
located, "if in fact there are bombs," had they left the suspect alive.
Moreover, she said, killing him violated his constitutional right to due
process.
"Police cannot use deadly force unless there's an imminent threat of death
or great bodily injury to them or other people. If the suspect was holed up
in a parking garage and there was nobody in immediate danger from him, the
police could have waited him out. They should have arrested him and brought
him to trial," Cohn said. "Due process is not just enshrined in our
constitution, it's also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which the U.S. has ratified, making it part of U.S. law."
Likewise, Stoughton told The Atlantic, "Policing has a different mission
[than the military]: protecting the populace. That core mission, as
difficult as it is to explains sometimes, includes protecting some people
who do some bad things. It includes not using lethal force when it's
possible to not."
Many noted the connection between potentially the first use of an armed
robot in domestic policing and the deployment of such tools in active war
zones. Defense technology expert Peter W. Singer wrote on Twitter, "this is
1st use of robot in this way in policing. Marcbot has been ad hoc used this
way by troops in Iraq."
"The same way that the Obama administration uses unmanned drones in other
countries, we see a similar situation here."
-Marjorie Cohn,
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Cohn said, "The same way that the Obama administration uses unmanned drones
in other countries to kill people instead of arresting them and bringing
them to trial, we see a similar situation here....As the technology
develops, we're going to see the increasing use of military weapons in the
hands of the police, which is going to inflame and exacerbate a very
volatile situation."
"We can see that many of the weapons that are being used by the military are
in the hands of the police," she added. "This is a very volatile situation,
very dangerous situation, and is only going to make the tensions worse and
kill people and violate constitutional rights."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
