[vdqtp3]

I'm pro law and order in general (although not necessarily pro law enforcement, to split hairs), but I want it to be dangerous for law enforcement to take a life. I want it to be something they have to carefully consider. I don't want it to be easy and safe. This is akin to adding more and more padding to football players...they tackle harder and harder and injuries pile up.

The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.

[s1artibartfast]

>The easier and safer we make it for law enforcement to use lethal force, the more lethal force they will use.

I think the parent post made a compelling counterclaim. The biggest driver of lethal force is to increase office safety.

If someone pulls a gun or looks like they are, the safest solution for the officer is to shoot. Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force.

The more officers are at risk, the more they will use lethal force.

[vdqtp3]

> Remove the officer risk and there is no reason to use lethal force.

By that argument, there's no reason for the robot to have lethal options

[s1artibartfast]

fair point, I should have said "Remove the officer risk and there is less reason to use lethal force.

There are obviously times where lethal force is appropriate even when excluding officer risk. It just constitutes a minority of the uses.

[hacoo]

Exactly - using a robot may allow officers to avoid a kill or be killed situation.