[celtain]

I don't see how this is a relevant argument. Police can already use deadly force when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others. Using deadly force via a remote controlled robot when a suspect poses an immediate threat to others isn't an expansion of that use of force policy.

Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a robot was involved.

[trompetenaccoun]

This already happened, a US citizen was killed by drone strike in Yemen ordered by the US president (Obama at the time). So yes, it is very relevant.

Who guarantees you they wouldn't do it at home if they're now given the same capability on US soil? A terrorist on the run - they could take them out by robot instead of having to go through the arduous process of an arrest and court of law. Maybe he didn't comply with orders given by the robot and ran. You see?

[yywwbbn]

> This already happened

Well it’s illegal for starters.

Same reason they shipped terrorism suspects to Cubs and tortured them there. It would be illegal to do that in the US. Obviously it’s a bit weird that government officials/military can do all sorts of things overseas that would be illegal back home. It’s not something new though, US has been doing this since it first started intervening in other countries back in the 19th century.