Democrats wanted SMART-GUNS.... How smart is too smart?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Dec 3, 2022, 12:48:26 PM12/3/22
to
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/make-way-killer-robots-government-expanding-its-power-kill
-------------------------------------


I see a problem that makes this illegal.... Murder is illegal and only
in SELF DEFENSE can someone kill another person. According to DUE PROCESS.


And the ROBOT has ZERO RIGHTS to self defense since it can't be
protecting it's own life and is never in danger of being killed so it
can't claim self defense. And that makes it the Manufacturer and the
user who are guilty of the murder of a human being.

To argue it saved some person's life being as that person has a RIGHT to
life and due process is NOT even the same one person deciding to save
another, the machine can't be punished under due process because it has
no RIGHTS and thus no RIGHT to protect its self or others with LETHAL
FORCE.

I see many law suits and a great deal of criminal prosecutions of the
people that arm a robot and designate it's task as killing or
"pacifying" humans.

Someone will have to go to prison for the manslaughter just as they do
for DRUNK DRIVING killers who set that car in motion. The gun
manufacturer isn't the one because they sell the guns for human use, if
they make it for a robot to us then they accept the criminal and
financial liability when the ROBOT uses it.

I'm going to predict the idea of armed robots will be deems the same as
booby-traps used to kill or injure people in private residences and by
civilian authorities, but like land mines and anti-ship mines they may
prove legal for military use.

Unless they are the new military/militia troops then Civilians could
also own them as "arms" like semiautomatic and full automatic firearms
called *SMART ARMS* that the 2nd Amendment would then protect as the
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR SMART-ARMS, just as it now protects
the RIGHT to keep and bear fire-arms as arms.

Democrats wanted SMART-GUNS.... How smart is too smart?

Walking and talking and killing is NOT really all that smart for a
person or a gun. Will the "ARMS" be limited to Muzzle Loaders that
could reload in less than a second or only 6 rounds in an semi-auto
magazine robot that can change to a new magazine in less than two
seconds and carry thousands of rounds in hundreds of 6 cartridge
magazines...?

What ever the military uses as "arms" for a soldier's common use, will
be "arms" protected for use by WE THE PEOPLE, even an AI automated semi
auto gun that is self propelled and used by soldiers like personal
defense drones in their back pack that are weaponized... they become
"arms" as they are common use for personal protection and survival arms
for the soldiers and police and used for security for politicians
personal protection.


--
-Reality Matters-

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Dec 3, 2022, 1:06:12 PM12/3/22
to
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/make-way-killer-robots-government-expanding-its-power-kill
-------------------------------------


I see a problem that makes this illegal.... Murder is illegal and only
in SELF DEFENSE can someone kill another person. According to DUE PROCESS.


And the ROBOT has ZERO RIGHTS to self defense since it can't be
protecting it's own life and is never in danger of being killed so it
can't claim self defense. And that makes it the Manufacturer and the
user who are guilty of the murder of a human being.

To argue it saved some person's life being as that person has a RIGHT to
life and due process is NOT even the same one as a person deciding to
save another, the machine can't be punished under due process because it
has no RIGHTS and thus no RIGHT to protect its self or others with
LETHAL FORCE.

I see many law suits and a great deal of criminal prosecutions of the
people that arm a robot and designate it's task as killing or
"pacifying" humans.

Someone will have to go to prison for the manslaughter just as they do
for DRUNK DRIVING killers who set that car in motion. The gun
manufacturer isn't the one because they sell the guns for human use, if
they make it for a robot to us then they accept the criminal and
financial liability when the ROBOT uses it.

I'm going to predict the idea of armed robots will be deemed the same as
booby-traps used to kill or injure people in private residences and by
civilian authorities, but like land mines and anti-ship mines they may
prove legal for military use.

Unless they are the new military/militia troops "arms" then Civilians
could also own them as "arms" like semiautomatic and full automatic
*firearms* that will be called *SMART ARMS* that the 2nd Amendment would
then protect as the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR SMART-ARMS,
just as it now protects the RIGHT to keep and bear fire-arms as arms.

Democrats wanted SMART-GUNS.... How smart is too smart?

Walking and talking and killing is NOT really all that smart for a
person or a gun. Will the "ARMS" be limited to Muzzle Loaders that
could reload in less than a second or only 6 rounds in a semi-auto
magazine carrying robot that can change to a new magazine in less than

BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Dec 4, 2022, 8:53:55 AM12/4/22
to
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/make-way-killer-robots-government-expanding-its-power-kill

https://sfstandard.com/politics/cops-can-deploy-killer-robots-in-sf-but-
only-in-extreme-cases/


-------------------------------------


I see a problem that makes this illegal.... Murder is illegal and only
in SELF DEFENSE can someone kill another person who was NOT duly
Convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. According to DUE PROCESS.

*Amendment V*
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property* ,
*without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.

And the ROBOT has ZERO RIGHTS to self defense since it can't be
protecting it's own life and is never in danger of being killed so it
can't claim self defense. And that makes it the Manufacturer and the
user who are guilty of the murder of a human being. Be it labeled
manslaughter or anything else it's NEVER self defense, which makes it
the same as when the Minneapolis police put a knee on the neck of George
Floyd (also in a city run by Democrats). No one wanted to murder George
Floyd but it happened and the police involved were indicted for murder
and related crimes. A robot with a gun is going to raise those same
questions, as in why would the suspect be killed if they weren't
directly threatening a human life and does a robot have the rights to
self defense which is not a viable defense when a robot is used to kill
a human. Every robot that kills a human would require an indictment
since there's no way to spin the fact that a robot isn't alive and has
no RIGHT to self defense making all use of robots to subdue or pacify a
human with physical violence a violation of the 5th Amendment's *DUE
PROCESS* *CLAUSE* . And the gun is NOT guilty of the crime nor the
Robot so it will be the manufacturer that made the robot for the purpose
of killing a human. It means the humans making deploying and operating
or placing them in service will have to be held criminally liable for
murder since it's NOT self Defense.

To argue it saved some person's life being as that person has a RIGHT to
life and due process is NOT even the same one as a person deciding to
save another, the machine can't be punished under due process because it
has no RIGHTS and thus no RIGHT to protect its self or others with
LETHAL FORCE.

I see many law suits and a great deal of criminal prosecutions of the
people that arm a robot and designate it's task as killing or
"pacifying" humans.

Someone will have to go to prison for the manslaughter indictment just
as they do for DRUNK DRIVING killers who set that car in motion. The
gun manufacturer isn't the one because they sell the guns for human use
just like the cars do unless it's a self driving car which makes it the
Manufacturers and the politicians who put that self driving car on the
road that are the criminals, if they make it for a robot to us then they
accept the criminal and financial liability when the ROBOT driver
controls the self driving car or the weapon made for humans to use.

I'm going to predict the idea of armed robots will be deemed the same as
booby-traps used to kill or injure people in private residences and by
civilian authorities, but like land mines and anti-ship mines they may
prove legal for military use.

Unless they are the new military/militia troops "arms", then Civilians
could also own them as "arms" like semi-automatic and full-automatic or
firearms they called *SMART ARMS* that the 2nd Amendment would then
protect as the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR SMART-ARMS, just as
it now protects the RIGHT to keep and bear fire-arms as arms.

Democrats wanted SMART-GUNS.... How smart is too smart? And they would
sill be a choice by the owner and can't be forced on THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE by government.

Walking and talking and killing is NOT really all that smart for a
person or a gun. Will the "ARMS" be limited to Muzzle Loaders that
could reload in less than a second or only 6 rounds in a semi-auto
magazine robot that can change to a new magazine in less than two
seconds and carry thousands of rounds in hundreds of 6 cartridge
magazines...?

What ever the military uses as "arms" for a soldier's common use and
civilian law enforcement, will be "arms" protected for use by WE THE
PEOPLE, even an AI automated semi auto gun that is self propelled and
used by soldiers like personal defense drones in their back pack that
are weaponized... they become "arms" as they are common use for personal
protection and survival arms for the soldiers and police and used for
security for politicians personal protection.
==============================================================



https://sfstandard.com/politics/cops-can-deploy-killer-robots-in-sf-but-
only-in-extreme-cases/

Killer robots dominated discussion at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors,
which OK’d some rules to let SFPD use the machines in life-or-death cases.

Supes also passed a resolution on people standing up to human rights
violations in Iran, bolstered anti-discrimination rules for city
contractors regarding gender expression and authorized audits for various
city departments.

Meanwhile, they hinted at a possible accord over the fate of Department of
Elections boss John Arntz.

Rise of the Machines
The most heated discussion involved the police robots, of course.

Supervisors spent two-and-a-half hours deliberating on when and how police
could deploy the remote-controlled machines.

The so-called “killer robot” rules stemmed from a much larger policy on
how SFPD can deploy all its military equipment. But the idea of robocops
policing the city captured national attention, inspired fiery debate and
ultimately passed with an 8-3 vote.

Board President Shamann Walton opposed the idea with supervisors Hillary
Ronen and Dean Preston joining him in dissent.

SFPD has had the robots in its arsenal for a while, but can now use them
when police encounter suspects deemed a fatal threat to officers or the
public.

The remote-controlled robotic vehicles had been allowed for surveillance
or to dismantle bombs. Under the new rules, they can now be used to
deliver deadly force if the chief or two deputy chiefs say there’s no
other option.

The discussion leading up to the vote touched on themes invoked in
episodes of “Black Mirror.”

Ronen—who opposed the item entirely while ironically inspiring an
amendment that allowed it to pass—reiterated concerns over police using
force and raised philosophical arguments against remotely operated
killing.

“SFPD has killed 58 people since 2000,” Ronen said, noting how the
department has yet to enact reforms promised to the U.S. Department of
Justice. “There are so many arguments against this. […] Distance will make
killing easier. We don’t want that.”

Preston chided SFPD Deputy Chief David Lazar for what he called absurd
theoretical examples of where remotely operated force might be justified,
such as when a heavily armed gunman killed 60 and wounded 400 at a 2017
concert in Las Vegas.

“I can’t believe what I’m hearing,” Preston said. “San Francisco is not a
war zone. […] We voted against Tasers. If SFPD can’t be trusted with
Tasers, they sure can’t be trusted with killer robots.”

Preston also condemned the San Francisco Police Officers Association for
using social media to criticize his stand on the issue.


Meanwhile, supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Myrna Melgar and Catherine
Stefani spoke in support of the amended rules, citing emotional arguments
by opponents and the rise of political extremism as justifying the
provisions.

“The hyperbole and over the top language is disappointing,” Melgar said.
“This isn’t taking money away from ambassadors and other measures.”

“I am in such a different place from some of my colleagues in my
understanding of what we’re discussing,” Mandelman said. “We’re thinking
about far-flung and unlikely hypotheticals because Chair Peskin pressed
the police department to already do that in the context of a technology
the department has had for over a decade.”

“What bothers me about this conversation is the false narrative, the
rhetoric surrounding this is disingenuous and lacks context,” Stefani
said. “The militarization of our society has already exploded. […] There
were over 600 mass shootings this year.”

Standing for Human Rights in Iran

Iranian American Supervisor Ahsha Safaí’s resolution in solidarity with
protests in Iran and calling for an end to “human rights abuse on the
demonstrators in Iran and the immediate release of political prisoners in
Iran” passed unanimously.

The resolution condemns the Islamic Republic’s crackdown on protests
across the country as well as the death of activist Mahsa Amini.

While the nonbinding resolution isn’t likely to influence Iran’s action,
the human rights situation in the country has captured the imagination of
Bay Area residents, who have held multiple demonstrations across the city.

Recognizing Gender Expression—Finally
Gender expression is now expressly protected under the city’s laws against
discrimination.

The goal of the revised language is to make “the definitions of gender
identity/sex/orientation to be less binary and more inclusive,” according
to staff from Mandelman’s office, which sponsored the changes.

Existing definitions, according to the legislative digest, were “based on
a limited understanding of the spectrum of identities, which has evolved.”

More Anti-Corruption Measures
Preston lost one on killer robots but prevailed on another of his oft-
mentioned issues: fighting corruption. He suggested, and his colleagues
agreed, to have the Budget and Legislative Analyst conduct two additional
audits.

One involves purchasing and contracting in city agencies, such as the
Department of Public Works, which can approve contracts worth more than
what normally requires board approval. Another audit will examine
conflicts of interest at city agencies.

Preston, who chairs the board’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee,
described the audits as a way to be “more proactive” in tackling
corruption.

Roll Call, and a Possible Elections Department Solution?

Last week, the Elections Commission decided to basically fire longtime and
well-regarded Elections Department director John Arntz. Peskin and other
elected officials have urged the commission to renew Arntz’s contract when
it’s up next April. And he made clear that no one on the board wants to
fund a search for his replacement.

Commissioners said inviting others to compete with Arntz for his job hews
to the city’s Racial Equity Plan by giving a more diverse pool of
candidates a shot. But many speculated that the decision had more to do
with politics around “open source voting,” a system that has yet to be
approved by the California Secretary of State. Supporters of the open-
source scheme showed up Tuesday to back the commission’s stance.

At Roll Call, Peskin hinted at a different sort of resolution. Describing
recent communications between the board and Elections Commission as
productive, he pledged fund a search for a new direction—in five years’
time.

Another Roll Call resolution came from Supervisor Connie Chan calling on
the city to support victims of gun violence by allowing them to sue
weapons manufacturers, which they can now do under a law passed in
Sacramento earlier this year.

And in a follow-up to his hearing on the Baker Places nonprofit double-
dipping scandal, Safaí is sending a letter of inquiry to the Ethics
Commission, Department of Human Resources and Department of Public Health
asking for a closer look at some 22 other DPH employees with arrangements
similar to those of Jail Health Services Director Lisa Pratt.

Pratt resigned from her job at Baker Places after The Standard revealed
her dual employment, which violated rules against working second jobs on
city time.

Mike Ege can be reached at e...@sfstandard.com





--
-Reality Matters-
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages