Dallas Shooting: Rise of the Robot

Introduction

The Dallas shooting of five white police officers stand out as a new level of civil violence escalating past the point of no return as tensions over social issues break with vengeance. There are many aspects to this story-race, the shooters veteran status, etc.-but one element remains unique and strange-the use of a robot to end the conflict and take out the shooter. Use of drones and other technologies during warfare has become more common recently, but this is one of the first times the advanced technology of war is being used on American soil. This choice ushers in a new era of law enforcement, and has begun an ethical debate that may have been better begun before the robot rolled out to kill.

On the Robot Offensive

After tensions broke over escalating police violence around the nation in Minnesota and Louisiana with African Americans receiving the brunt of the aggression, veteran Micah Xavier Johnson took out his frustrations through a well-chosen sniper position. His spot chosen, “The ambush started with gunshots that killed five officers and sent screaming crowds scrambling for cover. It ended when a Dallas police bomb squad robot killed a gunman after negotiations failed’ (Karami). This is the first time a robot was used in this manner, and has created precedent for a new style of police work. 

The choice to use a robot was done to preserve human life, as the sniper position was too well defended to risk the lives of officers. This choice was made after a 45 minute gun battle and two hours of failed negotiations with the infuriated sniper (Karami). Johnson was fully committed, as “He was basically lying to us, laughing at us, singing and asking, ‘How many did he get?’ and saying that he wanted to kill more” (Karami). Police Chief David Brown made the call, asking his team to come up with a creative approach which would not put his officers at risk. Brown told the press, “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was…Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger” (Graham). The robot idea was hatched in 20 minutes of brainstorming.

The robot was a Remotec Androx Mark V A-1, which the department had purchased in 2008 for $151,000. Designed specifically for such a purpose, the robot has a long arm which can deposit the explosives, and during this incursion the Remotec sustained only minor damage while the blast took out the sniper entirely (Karami). The choice to use the robot was largely due to the fact that Johnson was U.S. military trained, and having gone off the deep end was more than the police could handle. 

The pound of C-4 which was used costs only $20 when bought in bulk. After analyzing the likeliest place Johnson was hiding, explosives were brought by the robot, and “Eventually the robot was maneuvered behind a ‘brick wall’ with the suspect on the other side, the chief says” (Karami). The explosives were effective, but some have said it was irresponsible to use such high-grade weaponry in a civil environment, as the blast from one pound of C-4 can be felt as far away as a football field. However, in response to such criticism, Chief Brown admits, “This wasn’t an ethical dilemma, for me. I’d do it again to save our officers” (Karami). This is a difficult question, as all ethical questions are, and the cost of the choice may be felt much more in the future after the precedent has been well established. 

Surrounding the violence which led to this instance, as well as the choice of robot force is the stinging context of race relations. The Dallas shooting was one of the first times a black civilian actively targeted white policemen, and the question arises if the tables of race were turned, and a white man was targeting black policeman if the robot would have been used. No one can answer this question, but it is the question that is underneath policy discussions, as the means to interpret and implement policy are very flexible. 

Up until the Minnesota shooting of Philando Castile, most leaders have been rather vague on the race issue in police violence, but the correlations are now too striking to be ignored. The brave have begun to voice the obvious in the desire to force a discussion of race relations under the wave of silence of the “New Jim Crow” which insists that racism is a dead issue. After the Castile shooting, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton commented, “Would this have happened if the driver or passenger had been white? I don't think it would have” (Provenzano). This is a brave statement of simplicity that many other leaders refuse to touch with a ten foot pole no matter their race, but it is one of the underlying issues which continues to ferment the chaos which is bloodying the streets of America with greater frequency and urgency. Too great, in fact, to ignore. 

New Issues Discussed

Seth Stoughton, assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina, is a former police officer and expert in methodology. He commented, I’m not aware of officers using a remote-controlled device as a delivery mechanism for lethal force…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. (Graham)

Discussing these new issues from a legal perspective hinges on the legal definition and context of “lethal force”, which is bitterly ironic as it is the very issue which sparked the violence in the first place. This is yet another strong example of the fact that violence only leads to cycles of violence.

One of the reasons police on civilian violence has recently escalated is due to the accumulation of military equipment via the 1033 program. As such, the robot, “tactic illustrates what police see as the new opportunities for self-defense presented by advancing technologies and the transfer of second-hand military equipment to local police departments” (Hennigan and Bennett). While for some this releases terror fits due to the illustration of total robotic police in the recent film, Elysium, policy analysts are quick to say such fears are unjustified. As Ryan Calo, assistant law professor at the University of Washington Seattle and expert on robotics and law comments, “This is not the beginning of killer robotics, domestically, but it is hard to distinguish this and a drone strike” (Hennigan and Bennett). Things may feel that way now, but once technology is in play circumstances can change all too quickly to be analyzed away, especially when the ethics of drone warfare is still not being seriously considered despite their widespread use. 

Commenting on this, senior policy analyst at the ACLU, Jay Stanley, emphasizes the legal context. He clarifies, 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. (King)

The legal definition and precedent of “lethal force” is a hotly debated issue, as it affects the life, freedom, and recourse for all Americans. Jay Stanley points out that the relative safety of robot force could lead to their abuse, and “Remote uses of force raise policy issues that should be carefully considered…and should remain confined to extraordinary situations” (King). While it is pretty clear that the Dallas shooting was an extraordinary situation, it could be likely that the term “extraordinary situation” may be subject to the same changes as “lethal force” if not closely guarded. However, it is difficult to monitor these changes as they largely occur through the changing currents of national and international culture. As rates of international and homegrown terrorism increase, so do the instances of extraordinary situations and the need for lethal force. Overlaying all of this is the need to address the core reasons for this escalation of violence, which are largely ignored by the media, and many policy makers in favor of the sensationalism which the incidents create. 

Those who have read Stanley’s commented are somewhat surprised. The ACLU (America Civil Liberties Union) used to be hardcore in defense of civil liberties, but this reflects the general weakening of all regulatory bodies in the U.S. under the wave of corpocracy which has skewed all American values, redefining terms and rewriting laws to suit those in power. Andrew King asks,

What the heck has happened to the ACLU? They have no real objections to law enforcement successfully using a robot to deliver and detonate C-4, thereby killing the gunman. It only elicits a response declaring the ‘constitutional calculus’ is unchanged and ‘policy issues should be carefully considered?’ (King)

The constitutional calculus is the new methodology of updating the constitutional interpretation through legal precedent, which was never intended, but has become a matter of course as the actual process of amending the constitution is long and tedious. This is much more dangerous ground than many like to admit. 

Those people who are participating in the debate emphasize that drones are not acting independently, but are simply agents of human willpower. As Arthur Holland Michael, co-director of the Center for the Study of the Drone emphasizes, “These robots are not autonomous. They do not make decisions on their own. They are sophisticated remote-control systems” (Hennigan and Bennett). One would question if the sophistication of the technology has surpassed the sophistication of the culture utilizing it. Ultimately, racism is at the core of this and many other such violent instances. 

Racism is an antiquated delusion which unfortunately reflects the relatively low level of human evolution on the planet today. Racism is used as a catch all for much deeper psychological issues bubbling up from an overburdened collective unconscious; fear of the unlimited nature of human consciousness, fear of “the other”, and the desire to not take personal responsibility for the effects of one’s choices. Human evolution cannot be forced or rushed, but it appears that technological advancement can. The fact that humanity possesses technologies which could result in its total extermination is alarming in the context of the evolutionary maturity of the species.

Conclusion

The use of the robot to end the conflict of the Dallas shooting was very effective at protecting police, but raises many ethical questions about the use of technology against civilians. This issue is being discussed, but perhaps not with the seriousness it may require.

Works Cited

Graham, David. A. “The Dallas Shooting and the Advent of Killer Police Robots.” The Atlantic, 8 Jul 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dallas-police-robot/490478/

Hennigan, W.J., and Brian Bennett. “Dallas police used a robot to kill a gunman, a new tactic that raises ethical questions.” The Los Angeles Times, 16 July 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-robot-20160708-snap-story.html

Karami, Faith. “Dallas sniper attack: 5 officers killed, suspect identified.” CNN, 9 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/

King, Andrew. “The Dallas Shooting and the rise of killer robots.” Mimesis Law, 15 July 2016. Retrieved from: http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/the-dallas-shooting-and-the-rise-of-killer-robots/11348

Provenzano, Brianna. “Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton Says Philando Castile Wouldn’t Have Been Shot if He Were White.” News.Mic, 7 July 2016. Retrieved from: https://mic.com/articles/148121/minnesota-gov-mark-dayton-says-philando-castile-wouldn-t-have-been-shot-if-he-was-white#.F9N4r8be0

Sidner, Sara, and Mallory Simon. “How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper in unprecedented way.” CNN, 12 Jul. 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4-explosives/index.html