One of the least discussed aspect of the killing of cop-killer Micah Xavier Johnson is that it appears to be the first police killing via a robot. Rather than risk officers in a further fire fight, the police used an explosive ordnance disposal robot to carrying a small amount of C4 explosive into the room and detonate the C4 on an extension next to Johnson. The robotic killing raises some interesting questions under Tennessee v. Garner.
The robot appears to be an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) robot and very likely a Northrop Grumman-made Andros F6 model with four wheels, a extendable claw arm and second, rigid arm.
The use of the robot made sense given Johnson’s refusal to surrender and shooting at police. There is however some areas of concern. While a robot is equipped with a camera and can be withdrawn, there may be a concern about the ability of a robot perform that same functions under the standard under Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Lethal force can be used constitutionally when it is “necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.” Sending in a drone or robot may not offer the same contextual perspective or response time to make this decision. Indeed, one can imagine drone being used for greater versatility in delivering such an attack. It is also not clear whether robots or drone could not deliver a non-lethal hit just as well as a C4 charge.
After the successful detonation, the police tweeted “Our EOD robot took a hit from the initial explosion but is still functional and in use.”
Rather than an explosive device, I’d like see a Gatling gun running .458 Socom rounds on the “autonomous or semi-autonomous robotic delivery device” (trying to comply with correct terminology here). It’s got so much more of that second kind of cool.
And it sure beats sending in and abusing another K9.
“a bomb disposal robot is not in any way designed to grab, subdue, and handcuff a violent felon.” (Darren) Right. It was a killing machine when a siege could have done the job. I think it was more revenge for those he had killed. Not a good reason imo. Wonder why he went off like he did? Opps, He’s dead. We’ll never know.
Anon…..the Dallas shooter had shot 12 people, 5 fatally.
According to reports there were extensive “negotiations” with the shooter over a period of hours.
The shooter didn’t seem to advance these negotiations in expressing his desire to kill police.
Bullets can travel a great distance, but I suppose Dallas police could have shut down or evacuated large areas of downtown Dallas indefinately.
I’m not an expert in police tactics, so I may not be as qualified the as the instant armchair experts speaking to this issue.
But based on the reported facts, and with the caveat that I don’t have the expertise of the armchair experts, the use of the robot seems appropriate.
Rompin Robots Need Love Too sticker!
And its up against the wall Red Neck Mothers.
Mothers who have raised their scum so well.
He’s 34 and drinkin in honky tonks.
Blowin up hippies asses and raisin hell!
The U.S. recently released its numbers on civilians killed in drone strikes, as well as the total number if drone strikes over the past 7-8 ? years.
If terrorist are to be targeted, then the “most desirable” method is to kill them while limiting collateral damage.
Another consideration should be the risks involved to our miltary.
Special ops could be used instead of drone strikes….that obviously increases the risks for our soldiers, but protracted firefights may not lower civilian causualties.
Precision bombing is not likely to be that “precise” when it come to avoiding civilian casualties.
It may be that drone strikes are the best option available with respect to the considerations mentioned above.
Is Garner even applicable? Garner is about when deadly force may be used to seize a fleeing felon. This guy was not fleeing.
Com F, what are your views on the use of drones to attack terrorist threat overseas? Of particular interest is the denial of due process for those in the bulls eye. Lack of due process seems to be the concern with Guantanamo but valid for the drone.
Are drone strikes not a rallying point for recruitment?
As a nation, we seem to have misplaced critical thinking skills.
Reminds me of the Mechanical Hound.
“–Mechanical Hound never fails. Never since its first use in tracking quarry has this incredible invention made a mistake. Tonight, this network is proud to have the opportunity to follow the Hound by camera helicopter as it starts on its way to the target.” (Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451)
And so continues the march toward a police state.
This is not the first time tactic is used:
Waco, Texas 1993. David Koresh, leader of Branch Davidian cult.
The subsequent siege by the FBI ended with the burning of the center, where Koresh and 79 others were found dead after the fire.
The 51-day siege of Mount Carmel Center ended on April 19 when U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno approved recommendations of FBI officials to proceed with a final assault in which the Branch Davidians were to be removed from their building by force.
Strange, at the 1:55 mark of video, imprisoned cult member is on phone with CNN and blames President Bill Clinton.
Seriously, listen to these two jack-wagons (Please use correct terms!)
David B. Benson
1, July 12, 2016 at 3:30 am
Unless completely autonomous the device is not a robot.
Please use correct terms.
Paul Schulte
1, July 12, 2016 at 5:01 am
Robots can be completely autonomous or semi-autonomous. Please use correct terms.
They’re not even the worst of the bunch, and my educated guess is that they know zip about robots, AI, or anything even useful. Worse yet, they’re academics believing in progress.
Compound F – your educated guess needs more education.
Ben
…the shooter claimed to have planted explosive devices in the area.
In addition to the other justifications for the use of lethal force, I don’t think the shooter would have honored a truce while the bomb squad cleared the area.
They couldn’t have been expected to expose themselves to further casualties by combing the area under fire.
“stinks on ice,” sans inquiry, said Anon. Must be one stinking, steaming bolus. Then again, these are cops who taser for the sheer will of compliance.
Yeah, the Dallas cops are alleged by media to have been “progressive.” I don;t have an opinion on that. Could be true. My interactions with the boys in blue, as a PhD white guy have been horrible. I honestly cannot imagine the chronic abuse of our African-American brethren. atop the history of slavery.
Robot Lives Matter!
btw, the “tit-for-tat death spiral” is a mathematical certainty under certain assumptions of the game, which usually have the complexion of “too many hawks involved.” Need a roundhouse kick?
> The exigent circumstances likely overruled any retrofitting of the robot to accomplish this.
WHAT WERE THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES?
They had the guy pinned in the garage for four hours. Was he going somewhere? Was he able to rest while the officers weren’t able to call in relief?
They had a robot camera on him, and could have had more.
At one point they said he was threatening to blow up bombs, but they had no cell phone disruptors? And they thought he didn’t have a deadman switch attached to the bombs? And so they blew this guy up, the one guy who knew the locations of the bombs they feared so greatly?
I think killing this guy and having no public inquiry as to why it was necessary stinks on ice.
funny. there was no chance of non-lethal force deliverable. Tear gas, etc. This was an assassination in response to assassinations, pure and simple. Think about that tit-for-tat death spiral, you legal geniuses.
Robots can be completely autonomous or semi-autonomous. Please use correct terms.
Unless completely autonomous the device is not a robot.
Please use correct terms.
The robot is a machine; just as is a pistol, submachine gun, or patrol car. All of the latter are commonplace as machines utilized to deliver deadly force.
Also, a bomb disposal robot is not in any way designed to grab, subdue, and handcuff a violent felon. The exigent circumstances likely overruled any retrofitting of the robot to accomplish this. Even then, the likelihood of failure to subdue the felon is too high to consider.
The robots are designed to lay C-4 down to destroy IEDs and some are equipped with an attached shotgun type device to blow apart the IED. So placing a C-4 charge down is a design of this machine and probably is what was necessary to end the risk. Not having the complete incident description documents before me I cannot say with absolute certainty of if the circumstances at the time of the robot necessitated any deadly force but I suspect given the circumstances the homicide was likely excusable or justifiable.
As for the use of explosives being used. Yes this is novel for contemporary police officers but novelty does not necessarily mean unlawful or unconstitutional. Statutes do not dictate which form or instrument of deadly force is considered permissive. I don’t know what kind of mortal injuries the felon suffered due to being hit by a pressure wave and debris from an explosive device, but if you’ve seen someone’s head hit with a .308 caliber sniper rifle it is gruesome as well. While horrific to witness or experience it nevertheless happens and is not per se considered an unconstitutional act by the state. Terrible it is, yes, but such events are an unfortunate reality of the world we live in.
Enough cops had already died that night–there was no need to sacrifice any more lives on the altar of PC–Chief Brown made his proper command decision to end it then and there based upon the knowledge that he had received from his direct negotiations with the shooter–and furthermore, what would have been the point in spending millions on the shooter’s medical care, legal cases, appeals ad infinitim, and then at long last, his eternal life-long incarceration, all at the taxpayers expense? DMD
Chief Brown has become a righteous star. Jake Tapper asked Brown some pointed and fair questions on this which Brown answered in his straightforward manner. Brown said it was presented to him by his SWAT team and he thought it was righteous. He said under similar circumstances he would do it again to save lives. Sorta like Truman and the atomic bomb on a micro scale.