Very disappointing that this article, like almost all the ones being written right now, focus on exactly the wrong issue. Yes, robots and police psychology are fun to think about, but the heart of the matter in the Dallas case is whether the suspect posed an imminent threat which could not be addressed any other way besides lethal force. The reason the robot raises worries is not that it's shiny and represents the scary future, it's that robots are slow and unreliable, and it's hard to imagine a situation where lethal force is warranted and the robot is useful. In other words: If you can use the robot, you probably have the gunman contained. If the gunman is posing an imminent risk to the lives of others, the robot is probably useless.

The author doesn't even touch on it until one sentence all the way to the end.

> The ability for police to remotely kill suspects raises due process concerns. If a shooter is holed up and alone, can they be qualified as an imminent threat to life?

There have been lots of quotes by the police about how they "didn't want to risk the life of another officer", but no quotes I've seen about "the gunman was about to escape and go on to hurt others". Why wasn't the suspect containable? Why don't any of the journalists raise this issue, either in their interviews or articles? Hopefully this will eventually all be public as part of the investigation, but the public conversation about this is pretty much useless right now.

The comparisons to the military are not helpful:

> Brown raises an obvious question that the US military has grappled with: If a shooter is holed up in a building, who do you send, a person or a bot?

Unlike the military, the police operate in an environment where simply containing the suspect and waiting him out are very viable options.