For what experts are calling the first time in history, US police have used a robot in a show of lethal force. Early Friday morning, Dallas police used a bomb-disposal robot with an explosive device on its manipulator arm to kill a suspect after five police officers were murdered and seven others wounded. “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,” Dallas police chief David Brown told reporters.
On the other hand, left-wing law professor at the University of California at Davis disagrees with the manner in which police officers “chose” to eliminate the threat. “I refuse to believe that blowing the poor man up was the only available course of action,” she argued. “Surely there must have been other options that could have been utilized, especially since today’s technology is so advanced that preserving the life of a suspect is likely possible regardless of the circumstances in which the threat needs to be eliminated.”
“Now, a distinction needs to be made here in that I’m not saying that the shooter should have been allowed to continue killing police officers. It goes without saying that the safety of the public outweighs the safety of a suspected criminal. On the other hand, the men responsible for making the decision to use a robot fitted with explosives, as well as the officers who were in charge of the actual realization of the idea need to be punished. They need to suffer legal consequences of their actions because this type of idea is the last thing we need, as it can easily be replicated by other members of law enforcement,” the professor argued in an interview with The Guardian.
“And that is where the real risk of such an idea lies,” she added. “What is going to happen the next time we have a situation in which officers’ lives are in danger? Are we going to turn a blind eye to the use of such tactics once again, or are we going to make sure it is never again abused? I think the latter is the way to go, especially since the relationship between the police departments throughout the country and the general public are at an all-time low.”
Joh then went on to define the punishment she believes is fitting considering the severity of the officers’ “crime.” “They need to be arrested and then put on trial for failing to uphold the number one principle taught at the police academy that is to be honored in all dangerous situations, and that’s the utmost regard for life, both that of the victims and the suspects. The officers failed to do that in this situation, even though it should be said that the line they crossed was very fine. However, that does not justify the fact that they crossed it nonetheless.”
“I can only hope that after the trial, law enforcement officers throughout the country will think twice before choosing to employ a similar solution in identical situations. They need to be aware of the possible consequences, both legal and moral ones alike. Only then will we truly be able to claim that we are indeed better than the ones who resort to such coward-like means as hurting the innocent to prove a point,” Joh concluded.