At least to me, there's a huge difference between working for a defense contractor and expecting your creations to be used in the national interest, and seeing your creations turned against your fellow citizens for depraved political stunts.
And as for what they maybe should have been able to see coming? I'm not going to put them down for their realizations coming a bit late. Doing that is much better than simply doubling down in denial, as if this result had been their intent all along.
(And yeah yeah, forever war. I've personally never worked for a defense contractor, quite deliberately. But I can still understand the perspective of someone who does)
As I said - personally as an engineer who easily could have, I've deliberately never worked for a weapons manufacturer. Mainly because I've seen the tools being used for continual aggression onto other countries (eg "GWOT"), but these days equipment transfer to domestic "law enforcement" would certainly be part of it too.
But I do respect that there is a core of people who differ from my perspective, still believing in institutions like national defense, either not aware of or not concerned about the things I am. If they are just now becoming concerned with misuse of their creations - even if just in a narrow way against US citizens - why should I not view this as common ground we can share? Why would I want to emphasize where we differ and rub it in their face? The only thing I would see that doing is alienating them from the things we do agree on.
But I agree we shouldn't be using robot dogs for this. They should be reserved for tracking down and destroying banned books.
When an organization distances itself from criminals and facilitates justice being served, it can credibly claim to be an institution of civil society. But when an organization not only gives a pass to, but deliberately goes out of its way to protect first and second degree murderers, that's called a criminal conspiracy.