San Francisco Killer Robot Cops Are on Hold for Now
Report and pictures by Phil Pasquini

 

San Francisco: Feeling pressure from a massive public outcry over the use of remote-controlled lethally armed police robots, the Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 December 6 not to move forward at this time in approving a proposal for their deployment. The Board instead voted to send the proposal back to the rules committee for further study, meaning that conceivably they could approve the proposal once they have adopted a policy outlining how, when, and by whom such a lethal device could be utilized.

 

The Board’s delay in a final vote on the Robo Cops issue came in the aftermath of a massive campaign by activists to pressure Board members in turning down the proposal followed by a large demonstration on the steps of the City Hall. The issue of “Killer Robots” carrying explosives when being deployed in San Francisco is of such abundant concern that activists and citizens alike from across the Bay Area demonstrated against that very prospect becoming a reality. Police have indicated that such a device would only be used in “extreme circumstances” but, alas, no one is fooled by the possibility of the technology straying away from its intended use.

Supervisor Dean Preston, speaking at the demonstration on December 5 ahead of the vote, posited that he was urging the Board to vote send the ordinance back to committee and that “…hopefully it will die there.” He went on to promise that if the ordinance is ever passed, “The people of San Francisco ultimately have decision-making power over these kinds of issues if it comes to that. We should not have to go to a ballot and spend the time and resources to reject killer robots in San Francisco. I can’t even believe I have to say it. But certainly, if this Board of Supervisors adopts a policy that gives the green light to the San Francisco Police Department to use robots to kill people, I would certainly hope that there will be a very active conversation with my office and advocates about the possibility of overturning that kind of decision at the ballot. But let’s hope we don’t get to that.”

Calling the deployment of killer police robots “unacceptable,” Preston iterated that the policy was both “dangerous and reckless.” He further noted that “We know that deadly force by the police department is disproportionately used against Black and Brown communities in San Francisco and this kind of technology is no exception.” He promised that if the policy passed, he would fight to see that it becomes a ballot measure so that the people of San Francisco could have the final say in the matter.

President of the Board of Supervisors Shamann Walton reminded everyone that “when you give police departments more weapons to be used in communities, we know disproportionally that those weapons will be used against people of color.” He called into question how these machines could be hacked or taken over by people to do harm to communities and that the policy has no place in San Francisco or in any local law enforcement agency. Walton closed by promising to fight the ordinance to see that it is never implemented and impactfully stated that “These types of machines were really designed to fight wars.”

Warning of the possible dangers that spillover from the normalization of killer robot deployment could inflict, Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), noted historically that “It took teargas only about a decade from being a universally condemned weapon of war to being used as a means to break up protests here in the United States.”

The issue of the right to due process under the Sixth Amendment being violated by remote Robo Cop killings was addressed by Geoffrea Morris from SF Black Wall Street who observed that “When you arm lethal robots to kill, you are doing capital punishment without due process.”

Arab Resource Organizing Center (AROC) Lead Organizer Sharif Zakout noted that “Arab Americans have been historically targeted by SFPD surveillance and policing policies. San Francisco has made the reckless decision of setting a dangerous precedent for the Bay Area and the rest of the country. This follows the dangerous pattern of using militarization as a solution of everyday problems.” He added that as citizens, “We are not enemy combatants to be made war upon.”

As a point of reference, a similar proposal in the City of Oakland, California was withdrawn by police in the aftermath of two Civilian Police Commission meetings where it was learned that the department already had a shotgun armed remote-controlled robot in its arsenal. That device utilized a removable single barrel shotgun arm or “percussion actuated nonelectric disrupter” (PAN) that could be attached rendering it as a lethal weapon. While it had never been lethally deployed, the public outcry at the thought of it being used was enough to condemn the proposal.

No matter what San Francisco decides on the issue, there will be more challenges ahead as similar kinds of military hardware are incorporated into the arsenals of police agencies across the country with each new technology presenting a slippery slope towards normalization. The challenge remains regarding what kind of world we want to live in and how we can best meet our expectations. As yesterday’s demonstration clarified, people need to be active and concerned by holding their representatives accountable and letting them know where they stand on issues.

While San Francisco is in the throes of deciding whether it will allow such a lethal device for use by police, the Dallas Police Department has the distinction of being the first police agency in US history to kill a suspect with a lethal bomb-carrying remote-controlled robot. On July 8, 2016, Micha Xavier Johnson, a 25-year-old US Afghan war veteran, was killed when a robot delivered an explosive device during his sniper attack against peaceful protesters resulting in his killing of five police officers while wounding seven other officers and two civilians.

(Phil Pasquini is a freelance journalist and photographer. His reports and photographs appear in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs  and Nuze.ink. He is the author of Domes, Arches and Minarets: A History of Islamic-Inspired Buildings in America.)