The tragic events in Dallas, Tex. last week will be remembered for many things. Chief among them: it’s the first time a police department has intentionally used a remote-control device for lethal force.
In a statement July 9, the Dallas Police Department confirmed that a mechanical tactical robot had been used to kill suspected police shooter Micah Xavier Johnson. The decision to detonate an explosive device via robot was “a last resort,” following hours of failed negotiations, the statement said.
The device used was a Remotec Andros F5. Gizmodo has a cool rundown on the product here.
In the meantime, law enforcement experts and civil rights advocates are already debating the ethical significance of the device’s use.
David Klinger, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, said the decision made “perfect sense.”
"It's ridiculous to expect that police would expose themselves to gunfire in order to defeat the suspect with gunfire," Klinger said. "It's awful. We don't want to have to do this. But, it's less awful than to have more police officers killed."
But the ACLU is already expressing trepidation.
“As a legal matter, the choice of weapon in a decision to use lethal force does not change the constitutional calculus, which hinges on whether an individual poses an imminent threat to others, and whether the use of lethal force is reasonable under the circumstances,” said senior ACLU policy analyst Jay Stanley. The use of remote-controlled devices in such a way should only occur “in extraordinary situations,” he added.
Given the rapid advancement of technology, further discussion at the national and local levels seems inevitable.
Read more about the ethical questions surrounding remote-controlled tactical devices here.
Image Credit: Flickr User haslamdigital, https://flic.kr/p/szx2tE via (CC BY 2.0)