Chapter 1: The Dangers of Militarized Policing

The primary role of a responsible government is to safeguard the rights and lives of its citizens. Regrettably, we seem to be veering further from this principle, making it difficult to envision a return to our foundational ideals. Each day brings new concerns.

For example, despite significant protests from civil rights advocates and citizens, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8–3 on November 29, 2022, to permit police to equip robots with lethal weaponry for emergency situations. This marks the beginning of a perilous trend.

The San Francisco Police Department's draft policy states that "robots will only be utilized as a deadly force option when the imminent risk to the public or officers exceeds any other available force option." Yet, as investigative journalist Sam Biddle points out, this is a common refrain from security agencies seeking public trust in their increasingly alarming powers: "We will only use it in emergencies — but we decide what constitutes an emergency."

A last-minute amendment to the SFPD policy restricts the authority to deploy robots as deadly force to high-ranking officers, and only after exploring alternative force or de-escalation tactics, or determining that those methods would not be effective. Essentially, this gives police the capability to kill with impunity via remote-controlled robots.

These robots, often obtained through federal grants and military surplus programs, represent a significant shift from community-oriented policing to a technology-driven model dominated by artificial intelligence, surveillance, and militarization. It’s only a matter of time before these lethal robots become as commonplace as SWAT teams.

Justified as essential tools to counter terrorism and manage rare but highly dangerous situations, SWAT teams have evolved significantly since their inception in California during the 1960s. Federal support and the Pentagon’s surplus recycling program have facilitated their integration into local law enforcement.

To illustrate, in 1980, there were approximately 3,000 SWAT-style operations in the United States. By 2014, that figure skyrocketed to over 80,000 annually. With the current trajectory, estimates suggest these raids now exceed 120,000 each year, leaving few communities without a SWAT presence.

Originally designed for critical situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly deployed for routine matters, with some units responding multiple times a day. In Maryland, for instance, 92 percent of the 8,200 SWAT missions were executed to serve search or arrest warrants.

The first video, "The Era of Killer Robots Is Here," discusses the implications of this trend and the potential for such technologies to be used against citizens.

Examples abound of SWAT teams being utilized for trivial matters, from breaking up poker games to raiding bars for underage drinking. One notable incident involved a Minnesota SWAT team mistakenly raiding the wrong home, leading to traumatic consequences for a family.

These instances merely scratch the surface. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address a wide range of nonviolent activities, demonstrating a troubling expansion of police power.

The increase in these raids can be attributed to a "make-work" mentality, where police justify the acquisition of sophisticated military equipment. SWAT teams, initially intended for high-stakes scenarios, are now regularly employed in ordinary police work, introducing unnecessary danger into interactions that once involved standard officers.

Research from Princeton University reveals that militarizing police and employing SWAT teams fails to enhance officer safety or reduce violent crime rates. In fact, Americans are now eight times more likely to die in police encounters than from terrorist acts.

The pressing question remains: How long until armed robots authorized to use lethal force against citizens become as routine as SWAT teams?

Now, consider the risks associated with technology: errors in deployment, hacking, or erroneous data could lead to innocent lives being lost. Who will be accountable for such tragedies? Given the government's history of evading responsibility, it is likely that those responsible would escape repercussions.

In the absence of federal regulations to protect citizens from potentially autonomous robotic forces, we are left vulnerable. The scenario resembles the dystopia depicted in "Terminator," where autonomous killers may soon become the first response in police engagements.

Warnings against weaponizing general-purpose robots have emerged from within the robotics field, but time may be running out. As Sam Biddle notes, "the allure of advanced technology often outweighs the safeguards in place."

With thousands of police robots currently in operation across the nation, converting these machines into lethal instruments is an alarming possibility.

The first known instance of police employing a robot as a lethal weapon occurred in 2016, when one was used to eliminate a sniper responsible for killing five officers. This justification has become a recurring argument for expanding police arsenals to include killer robots.

Yet, as Paul Scharre observes, framing the situation as a choice between lethal robots or endangering officers ignores the potential for non-lethal alternatives.

Biddle concludes that once a technology is deemed feasible and accepted, it tends to remain. Historical precedents illustrate that technologies designed for warfare have been repurposed for domestic issues, such as suppressing free speech during protests.

This gradual erosion of societal, legal, and political resistance to what was once deemed unimaginable is described by Liz O'Sullivan as a strategy to normalize militarization.

It’s a classic example of the boiling frog analogy, but there’s a deeper philosophical discussion at play regarding the government’s expanding authority to kill its citizens.

Originally established to protect the rights to life, liberty, and happiness, the government appears to be stripping these rights away while promoting hollow distractions.

By claiming the authority to kill through militarized police actions, the government views "we the people" as collateral damage in its quest for control. As outlined in my book, "Battlefield America: The War on the American People," we stand at a crucial juncture where not only our lives are at risk, but our very humanity is in jeopardy.

Chapter 2: The Future of Robotic Warfare in Law Enforcement

The second video, "Stopping killer robots before they get to us first," addresses the urgent need to consider the implications of these technologies before they become commonplace in law enforcement.