San Francisco Legislators Approve Use of Lethal Police Robots

(Photo: Max Fleischmann/Unsplash) The San Francisco Police Department, one of the country’s largest municipal law enforcement agencies, recently revised its equipment use policy to include its surprisingly diverse robot stockpile. Though most of its robots disarm bombs or conduct reconnaissance in dubious conditions, some ground-based robots can be used to carry active explosives. Inevitably, this led policy writers to wonder: Should law enforcement be allowed to engage its robots in lethal force? According to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, the answer is yes.

The city’s legislative body has voted to approve SFPD’s use of deadly robots, according to a report by the Washington Post. Tuesday’s Board meeting contained a “heated debate” centering on officers’ right to deploy robots with explicitly fatal intent. While some argued this capability would be helpful in active shooter scenarios, others painted the use of lethal police robots as “militaristic.” In the end, the Board voted 8 to 3 in favor of allowing lethal robot deployment in “extraordinary” circumstances.

“Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD,” the policy reads. The policy requires a second Board vote and the mayor’s approval before becoming city law.

Though not included in the policy above, the Post reports the Board made a final amendment Tuesday night to require that a supervisor approve the robots’ lethal use prior to deployment. This is standard across most other equipment listed on the policy, like SFPD’s semi-automatic rifles, robotic loudspeakers, and some SWAT tools. But for many, this is of little comfort.

The QinetiQ TALON, one of the SFPD’s many robots, has a long arm that the agency might use to carry explosives. (Photo: QinetiQ)

“We are living in a dystopian future, where we debate whether the police may use robots to execute citizens without a trial, jury, or judge,” civil rights and police misconduct attorney Tifanei Moyer told San Francisco’s Mission Local before the policy was voted through. “This is not normal. No legal professional or ordinary resident should carry on as if it is normal.”

San Francisco residents, legislators, police oversight groups, and even robotics scientists took to Twitter Wednesday morning calling for increased scrutiny over the policy. According to the Post article and other sources, SFPD has so far responded by assuring the public that it never planned to give its robots firearms—just bombs.

Though the policy does contain mentions of imminent danger and a lack of other force options, such verbiage has historically been flimsy at best. According to the organization Mapping Police Violence (which gets its data from government agencies, publicly-accessible media, and other sources), US police have shot and killed nearly 100 people confirmed to have been unarmed in 2022. Another 45 people have lost their lives despite a lack of knowledge regarding their ability to engage in lethal force. The police regularly make headlines for shooting people carrying water guns, airsoft guns, a hairbrush, or candy in a display of what officers themselves describe as an inability to distinguish threats from safety. Given the opportunity to share responsibility for lethal force with a robot, it’s difficult to say whether this ability will improve.

Now Read:

• Interpol Launches ‘Police Metaverse’ to Train Officers on Virtual Crime Fighting
• Amazon Gave Ring Footage to Police Without a Warrant or Owner Consent
• Police Are Using DNA to Generate Suspect Images, Sight Unseen