You know Carl I've always looked up to you and your writing. Nice stories
all!! But, the main reason I look up to you is that I now know your are six
feet three inches. I'm five feet and eight inches tall if I lie, which I'm
prone to do on these occasions especially with blind folks on the internet.
Now, that I'm in a farcical and, some would call an outright lying mode, let
me tell you my skinny frame and slight height has never been an obstacle,
including with athletic prowess. In fact this white man could jump....Oops a
lie when checking out fact check.
But, I was quick....
Oh my that was true. Not fast but quick. There is a difference. And
sometimes it saved my life or got me out of harms way. But, then again six
years of football with tunnel vision and night blindness, in grade and high
school, plus one year on the suicide squad of a junior college in its last
year of football and I might just be a little bit daffy from all those head
hits and all over years if I admit the truth.
Anyway as a robust young and radical, yet conventionally, hormonally
challenged youth I was a sort of jock with an attitude if not with ability
or talent.
I was, however, relentless and like the energizer bunny or was that Timex
watches....Yes, Timex....I could take a licking and keep on ticking.
Man, oh man no one wanted to fight this little shrimp and prick after the
first fight. It wasn't because I beat the crap out of a fellow or even a
schoolyard bully. Far from the truth for I lost many more fights than I won.
But, I just wore the bastards out. And never cried uncle.
Besides that I bled all over them and hurt their fists with my face and they
were often afraid of seeing that much blood.
These were always sorts of rights of passages for folks, I guess only male
folks in the mixed up sixties. For I was always a conflicted hippy, commy,
lover and flower power and self anointed "lady killer"....You know a legend
in my own mind in those regards, but not always without merit, let alone
conflicts of the soul.
And I was the both physical, pseudo athletic fighter who channeled his fight
with words and civil rights battles, all of which were loud and proud and in
the master's face, but also growing and becoming non-violent as a means of
action; direct action with purpose and more effect than one little guy could
muster against the machine.
So, I guess this ramble is just to say that I recognize within myself that I
like so many is of a violent nature inherently and historically. But, that
I'm also of the altruistic, which some call "loving" nature in humanity
which fights with words, reason and outreach as a more effective means
towards a better human race in spite of my violent, and angry, and
aggressive nature.
I love your personal stories though I don't comment on them often for things
are busy in my life.
I don't know why I'm compelled to go to this particular post and to respond
in my rambling way, except to say that I'm quite sad and angry and disturbed
at all the hate turned in to so many sord stories nowadays.
And except to say that while I might get mouthy from time to time I draw the
line for years with settling things with fists let alone guns and bullets.
Violence begets nothing.
As Martin Luther King said, "An eye for an eye and soon the world goes
blind."
Sorry for the ramble all.
I really am so.
I'm very sad about what has gone on in this country of late and indeed the
world and all of the slaughter of not only innocents but even the guilty.
We are being washed away as a human race in a river of blood and riding the
tide of hate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 5:31 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use
of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas
Roger,
One reason that Killer Robots make you think of Arnold, is that you
know how to spell,Schwartzeneggar. I thought of the Jetsons, because
Jetson is an easy word to spell.
In fact, the silly cartoon reminded me that when I was a wee lad, I
doted on SciFi, reading every adventure story written, along with my
monthly issue of Galaxy, with "real" science articles by the great
Isaac Asimov.
Back in those prehistoric days, most stories set in the future began
something like, "As Mark Wonderful stepped from the Space Launch, he
was well aware that he was the first Earth man to set foot upon the
planet Eden. From the thick forest came the sound of running feet.
Mark hesitated until he saw the most beautiful Beings he'd ever
thought possible."
And the story would go on to unfold an adventure of peace and love
and cooperation, as we gentle Humans helped these simple people solve
some threatening problems, leaving them well on the road to entering
the ranks of those who were exploring the Universe.
By the time I'd reached my 6 feet 3 inches, as a full grown grownup,
the story line had changed slightly. It went something like this:
"Matt Blunder looked about himself through red rimmed eyes. "Is
anyone alive in here?" he gasped hoarsely into the rubble that had
once been a magnificent mansion. The only answer was a small dust
devil twisting past his feet. "My God", Matt cried out hoarsely,
through cracked lips. "Am I all that is left?" His answer came in
the form of dead silence. Not a bird, not a cricket, no leaves
rustling in the dead grey trees..."
Usually the Matt's of these stories manage to locate at least one fair
damsel...slightly the worse for wear, and like Adam and Eve, they set
out to begin all over again.
Often I wonder just how we moved from that bright future of tomorrow,
where Mankind was the God of All Goodness, and went about doing good,
to the lonely struggles of the last remnants of what passed for human
life, wandering stupidly about, bewildered by how we had managed to
bring down our mighty civilization.
Without the need to say it, I believe we began to believe we were
doomed as a species when we quickly shifted from fighting the Axis, to
fighting the Commies. First in our home towns and then in Korea. We
were run by a government that believed it could keep secrets from the
"Common People", another term for "the simpletons". But we common
folk sensed that we had made a wrong turn on the Road of Life. As our
dreams of Love and Peace were exchanged for a 60 pound pack and a
rifle, along with a couple of grenades dangling from our belts.
In a sense, you might say that we've been determined to be unfit to
continue being caretakers of the Garden of Eden, and we've been turned
out to begin wandering in the wilderness. And we know that there is
no way back.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/9/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Killer robots? Why do I find myself thinking of Arnold Schwartzeneggar
movies?
On 7/9/2016 2:21 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Speaking as a non lawyer, the use of a robot to deliver the coup de
gras to man who we understand had confessed to murder, is a natural
outcome of our current trend toward distancing ourselves from our own
need to murder. We've become pretty good at distancing ourselves from
the Terrorists around the world, picking them off as they attend
funerals or weddings or worship in their temples. Why not carry this
easy to do solution right into our own towns and villages? If Amazon
can set up a process of delivering packages right to our doorstep, why
shouldn't the police have a right to drop a bomb down your chimney?
Besides, think of the savings to the taxpayers...if any are left.
Every job cut from the payroll is money saved for carrying out other
important civic duties, like paying off the city council for actually
getting pot holes filled.
So be careful when you are pulled over and told to step out of your
car. The cop facing you...with weapon drawn, could very likely be a
robot. Do not punch him in the nose. The nose is the release
trigger.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/8/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
