The Ultimate Solution to trigger happy officers and police shootings

The problem with this is the tendency to monolog. And capes, of course.

The evidence adduced at trial (and the dashcam video released after the verdict) shows that Philando Castile did not resist at any time. He was pulled over, told the officer at the point he was asked to produce license and reg. that he had a gun on him, tried to comply with the officer’s request, and was shot dead simply because the officer saw the gun come out and freaked out over the possibilities. We can accept that the office committed no crime, but we cannot say that Mr. Castile ever “resisted”.

The narrative that “don’t start nothing, wouldn’t be nothing” is the answer to all of this is a particularly naive way of looking at things. Quite uninformed, I would venture to say.

OK, so what happens when the “suspect” decides to disrupt/destroy the cop drone? Something they wouldn’t do with a meat cop, but the drone is only a machine so yeah, why not. Then the meat cop gets upset and shoots up the suspect anyway.

Not a solution.

If you are talking about a bipedal walking robot that could do law enforcement autonomously then I’d say you have several fundamental issues concerning AI as well as robotics you’d need to solve first…and the AI parts are going to be the most difficult. And even throwing billions instead of millions isn’t going to automatically solve them. There is, in short, no way you could build something that could do the job of a cop autonomously, unless by ‘build’ you mean ‘take a human and train them to be a cop’.

I could see some limited uses for niche drones to back up officers, but they would be drones controlled by another human and in the case of police officers I wouldn’t arm them at all, not even with non-lethal weapons, merely use them for recon.

This might surprise many people, but 99.99% of all meatbag police officers are actually good people, fine outstanding citizens and credits to the communities they serve … I think one stands a much higher chance of having your computer infected with malware than crossing paths with a bad cop …

Would these Robocops run on the Windoze operating system … hahahahahahahahahaha … this “solution” sounds deadlier than the problem … bad cops are bad cops whether they’re shooting innocent people themselves or having their drones do the shooting … start mixing in math majors here and I see nothing but wholesale slaughter on our streets …

If the suspect decides to destroy the cop drone, then it would be property damage. Damage that is recorded and easily presented as additional charges. What do we do if a suspect decides to destroy an empty cop car?

If the meat cop then shoots the suspect for destroying property, well, then that is just straight up murder on the cop’s part. Cop’s don’t get to shoot people because they are upset, they are only allowed to shoot people when they can show that they were in fear for their lives.

If a cop came up on a person who had just vandalized their cop car, but was making no other hostile actions, do you think the cop would shoot them?

The problems that you raise are not that complicated to find solutions to, in fact, I pointed out those very solutions already.

It certainly does not need a strong AI. It really doesn’t even need more than a navigational computer. It would be useful to be able to tell a drone to go to a specific place or patrol a specific route, but it’s not going to be making any higher level decisions than simple navigation on its own. We have AI that can handle that.

If you are introducing a new concept into the thread of completely autonomous drones that make their own decisions on who and how to apprehend, then you are correct that we are a very long way off from having that sort of capability, but that capability is not what is needed to simply add piece of technology in between an officer and a suspect. But that is not what I believe is being proposed in this thread, either by the OP or myself. There should always be a human in the loop.

ETA: On rereading hte OP, I do see that he was calling for a bit more autonomy, but still relying on humans as to where to go. Who to apprehend, he was not clear.

Of course they would not run windoze, or windows for that matter either. They’d be using proprietary software that is custom designed for the application. Does the fuel injector computer in your car run windoze? Of course not, then what makes you think that this sort of system would either?

If we decide to arm the drones (which is not my recommendation) then bad cops could not shoot people as easily, as we currently give them the benefit of the doubt that they feared for their life. That is not a claim that could be made by a cop running a drone by remote control, no matter the opposition the drone may be facing. The drone would also have recording devices, and everything the cop sees, future investigators would be able to see. There is no discrepancy between the officer’s perception and the official record. If cops start shooting people indiscriminately like that, then they will be prosecuted for murder.

And all that is only in the case where we actually mount weapons on the drones, which is a much more difficult thing to do. A small drone (in the 10 pound range) is not going to be able to carry a very large weapon, the recoil is probably going to deflect it a good ways, requiring re-aiming for every shot, and the stress of firing is probably going to damage the body of the drone after a few shots.

As you feel that only one out of 10,000 cops is not "actually good people, fine outstanding citizens and credits to the communities they serve " then it seems you would want to protect them, by not putting them in the line of fire.

And when people talk about bad cops, they are not necessarily talking about corrupt cops, or evil cops that want to murder people, we are talking about cops that are bad at their job. Cops that get nervous when dealing with criminal suspects are “bad cops” no matter how good a person they are.

[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
It certainly does not need a strong AI. It really doesn’t even need more than a navigational computer. It would be useful to be able to tell a drone to go to a specific place or patrol a specific route, but it’s not going to be making any higher level decisions than simple navigation on its own. We have AI that can handle that.

If you are introducing a new concept into the thread of completely autonomous drones that make their own decisions on who and how to apprehend, then you are correct that we are a very long way off from having that sort of capability, but that capability is not what is needed to simply add piece of technology in between an officer and a suspect. But that is not what I believe is being proposed in this thread, either by the OP or myself. There should always be a human in the loop.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the OP went from talking about Robocop (with picture :p) to drones with a human in the loop…which is why I was asking. Even with a human in the loop, if you are going from simple surveillance to actually apprehension I think that is a leap beyond what is feasible today. There are just so many aspects of that I don’t think a human could be completely in the loop in real time without having a lot of the actions being done by an AI…and I don’t believe AI is up to that any time in the near future. But I agree with you that if we are talking about sending it out on patrol to assist officers, maybe even include some body and face recognition software, that’s feasible.

Exactly.

Most people do not need to be escorted by armed guards to show up for their court appearance. For this reason, I would think most non-violent crimes could be dealt with by simple ticketing drones. They issue you a court summons and/or a ticket.

If you don’t show up, they send you another notice that you are desired to appear before the court. If they really become stubborn about their refusal to show up for court, then you can send officers to use appropriate force to get them to show.

In cases where someone is acting as an immediate threat to public safety like an active shooter, then humans with weapons would be the main method of apprehension or threat elimination, but even in this case, having drones as spotters and lookouts would be invaluable. Remember, the Pulse nightclub shooter was killed by a robot.

The overwhelming vast majority of police interactions do not involve the use of force, and so, unarmed drones should be able to deal with all of those interactions.

People will even be less nervous about the encounter, if they know that they will not be killed for mistakenly doing the wrong thing. I haven’t been pulled over in quite a while, but I have always been a bit nervous that I may do the wrong thing and spook the cop and get myself shot, I didn’t think it was likely, but I was aware it was a possibility.

I see your point here … however, what I got from the OP was a proposal for something that’s not currently available “off-the-shelf” … 10 lbs drone packing a camera are in use by police departments already … I’m just not clear how this replaces the meatbag officer … most of the people who are shot by police are actually shooting at the police to begin with … using a drone saves officer lives but we still have a cop-killer running loose on the streets … at some point we need to send in the meatbags to apprehend the suspect, and just taking away the “trigger happy officer’s” gun isn’t much of a solution …

I find your rosy outlook refreshing.

Right, but if we do not have cops out there every day in the line of fire, as it were, and only have them respond in circumstances where force is warranted, then cases of cops using force when it is not warranted would be decreased substantially.

What you would no longer have is the controversial “I feared for my life” shootings.

Do you really think that many cops would be willing to go to jail for murder over someone vandalising a piece of equipment?

Our recent example in Minnesota started as a routine traffic stop … walk me through how a 10# drone pulls over and issues a ticket to a speeder … how about domestic disturbances … crowd control during political protests … any number of common situations where violence is generally not expected in the presence of a meatbag police officer … does a 10# drone have an equal effect?

From a “Deputy’s Corner” a few years ago in our local shoppers’ news:
Q: If you’re trying to catch speeders in a school zone, why do you park your squad car where everybody can see it?
A: I’m not trying to catch speeders, I’m trying to get drivers to drive the speed limit in the school zone. When people see the squad car and radar gun, they always slow down.

If we’re still in agreement on the “one-in-ten-thousand” assumption, then only 0.01% of officers are even going to pull that trigger … and let’s assume every one of these trigger happy cops gets prosecuted … there’s still communities in the United States (not many, but a few) where a white police officer killing a black vandalist won’t get convicted, maybe not acquitted like in Minnesota, but rather a hung jury and the white officer walks away a free person …

Regardless of skin color … it is not easy to get a jury to convict a police officer for conduct done in the line of duty … replacing beat cops with drones won’t fix that …

Speaker plays sirens and there are flashing lights. If they don’t get the hint, you can even say “Pull over!” over the speaker.

Driver pulls over, drone comes to the window, asks to see ID and other relevant credentials.

If a ticket is to be issued, it could print it there, or it could be emailed, or both.

Driver goes on his way.

Well, first, the drone can get there more quickly. Often, by the time the police arriave at a DV, the arguemnt that got the neighbors to call the police is over, and the knock on the door by the police just increases tensions and reignites the argument.

Second, DV calls are one of the more dangerous calls that cops get. They don’t know what’s going to happen, so these are one of the calls that a drone would save lives on both sides.

By having a drone show up first to see what the situation is, you can more easily dispatch appropriate meat cops to the location if need be. If the drone is cheap enough, you can just leave it either in the house if they are amenable, or right outside, to make sure they don’t start fighting as soon as you leave. Meat cops have more important things to do than play babysitter for hours.

Most of the time I have seen crowds get out of control, it is not until the police show up with riot gear. The police being armed to repel a riot, IMHO, make the riot more likely to happen.

In any case, dozens of drones flying around keep surveillance on everyone from angles that cops cannot see would tell who was instigating any violence or rioting much better than a cop holding a baton and shield can at ground level.

It has a supplementary effect that can in many of those cases act as a complete replacement. Note I did not call for the elimination of meat cops, only that we can send expendable drones into danger ahead of them, or for routine and mundane situations that occasionally turn out dangerous, thereby helping to save the lives of not just the cops, but those they are supposed to protect.

And if everyone who speeds through a school zone has a drone follow them and give them a ticket, that’ll have more of a deterrent than one cop car pulling over one person very 15 minutes or so.

Well, now you are just talking about cops murdering people and getting away with it. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, it could be that they destroyed the drone, or that they walked on the lawn, if a cop is one of the few that is actually looking to murder someone , then they are going to, and whether or not drones exist will not make a difference.

What will make a difference is the fact that the officer could not use the “fear for my life” defense.

I personally think that the self defense excuse is over used, but in the scenario where you can’t even make that claim, you have no cover, you are simply a murderer.

If a jury is instructed to determine whether or not a reasonable person in the officer’s position would fear for their life, they are more likely to have that sympathy for a cop who was actually physically in danger, vs a cop that is pissed off that his equipment was damaged.

Seriously, if someone vandalized a cop car, and the cop shot the vandal with no threat to his own life whatsoever, you think that a jury would really let that get off?

You may be right, I suppose, but I try to be slightly more optimistic than that.

Rather that put billions into an AI that just wont be quite the I part you are looking for, how about just put the human cop inside the armored suit, then a Human is still running the show.

No shootings induced by fear of harm because i am impervious here in my Iron Man suit.
We can play “Drop your weapon” and “Please comply” all day long while i bitch slap you and wait for you to finally put the damned gun down.

Mind you that has no bearing on me ripping your body into small bloody pieces when you decide to try shooting up a daycare center or something. :smiley:

Perhaps an Iron Man suit would be no more reassuring than was Ned Kelly to the law-abiding citizenry of Aussieland.

Better to cool the passions, instead of an anthromorphized bipedal humanoid the ideal policeman might be more like friendly little Lucky Beast from Kemono Friends, a small blueish square robot willing to reason.
In neither case can I imagine how any robot, either autonomous or acting as avatar with latency issues of a controlling human, could shoot exactly.

American cops have extensively heavy training in how to shoot Americans * — no amount of engineering can equal the human eye and brain for decision.

  • In an alarmist article by the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts, who writes a lot about police killing civilians ( he’s agin it ) he mentions: “I have witnessed training exercises at which 30 police officers line up and empty high capacity magazines at the same target. We are talking about 450 shots in a few seconds at one head-sized target. It was this type of training that resulted in 23 cops pouring 377 bullets into two men in Miami, one of whom was totally innocent of any charges.

stop resisting, dont make any movements. if the cop has his gun on you and tells you to take something out of your pocket refuse! Dont move! Make them get it!

I take it you did not click on the link?

Try again.

And your advice will get someone shot for not obeying the officer’s lawful orders.

So you should stop resisting, but also refuse to do what the officer says.

Neat.

Is that something that you believe we have the technology for, or is that something that you will only see in movies?

Robot police officer goes on duty in Dubai.