在7月8日的達拉斯發生慘案中，嫌犯連殺五名警官，引發了關于暴力和正義的新的反思。其中，針對結束這場暴亂采用的非常方式，許多人提出了質疑——達拉斯警方使用了帶炸彈的機器人，殺死了這名罪犯，這在美國執法的歷史上還是頭一遭。

案件的具體細節目前尚未得到確認，目前來看，警方似乎通過五角大樓向美國執法機構出售軍事裝備的項目，在幾年前得到了這種機器人。它并非用于執行殺傷類行動，但達拉斯警方情急之下，臨時在它上面安裝了炸彈去阻止槍擊犯。

Twitter上的人們對這場慘劇的超現實主義結局進行了評論：

使用機器人也讓一些人質疑了在治安場合使用軍事技術是否合理，應當如何恰當地對這種技術進行管理。

另一些人則回想起了艾薩克·阿西莫夫和《機械戰警》（Robocop）中的反烏托邦世界，他們想知道使用武裝機器人殺死嫌疑犯具有何等法律涵義。

This week’s tragedy in Dallas, in which a man murdered five police officers, has prompted new reflections on violence and justice. This has included questions over the unusual manner that the rampage ended: In an apparent first for U.S. law enforcement, the Dallas police dispatched a robot equipped with a bomb to kill him.

The details have yet to be confirmed but, for now, it appears the police obtained the robot several years ago as part of a program in which the Pentagon sells used military equipment to U.S. law enforcement. The robot was not designed to commit lethal acts, but the Dallas police, in a desperate act of improvisation, strapped on a bomb and sent it in to stop the shooter.

People on Twitter remarked on the surreal end to the tragedy:

The use of the robot also led some to ask about the appropriate use of military-style technology in police situations, and the appropriate way to regulate it.

Others have invoked the dystopian worlds of Isaac Asimov and Robocop, and asked about the legal implications of using an armed robot to kill suspects.

然而，考慮到當時的情景，這些法律上的擔憂似乎有些過分。在當時，警察面對的是一名擁有裝備優勢的殘忍罪犯（據報道，罪犯手持AR-15沖鋒槍，可以射穿警察的防彈背心）。他們必須找辦法來阻止罪犯，他們也是這么做的。

華盛頓大學法學教授賴安·卡羅表示，這一案件并未引發任何新的法律問題，令人不安的主要是另一個原因：我們可以接受警察使用致死手段伸張正義，但我們希望他們用一種熟悉的方式——開槍。臨時使用機器人炸彈就像警察對槍擊犯使用刀具或是投擲鐵砧一樣，令人感到不踏實。

當然，如果執法機關試圖在常規情況下使用致死機器人，情況就完全不同了。

法律和機器人專家卡羅表示：“如果警官開始在日常工作中使用無人機和陸行機器人，它們是否存在致死的危險就存在著疑問。這會降低人們的態勢感知能力，很容易讓事態升級。”

他補充道，政府現在正開始通過無人機法案，他們應當考慮在更大的政策背景下針對如何使用機器人進行管制，確保它們的程序不會被黑客修改。

最后，達拉斯機器人案引發的最后一個問題十分有趣：嫌疑犯如果襲擊或回擊執法機器人，會怎么樣？是否應當按照襲警的罪名起訴他們？

卡羅引用了幾年前的一個案例，當時警方派了一名機器人來對付嫌疑人，后者用霰彈槍轟擊了機器人。這名嫌疑人的行為最后受到了指控，罪名不是襲警，而是拒捕。卡羅補充道，根據國家法律的規定，那些襲擊機器人的嫌疑犯還可能受到故意毀壞公物或破壞財產的指控。 （財富中文網）

譯者：嚴匡正

Those legal concerns, however, seem overblown given the situation. Recall that the police were facing a murderous individual who had them outgunned (he reportedly had an AR-15 assault rifle that could cut through their bullet proof vests). They had to find any way to stop him, and so they did.

According to University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, the situation doesn’t give rise to any new legal issues, but is unsettling for a different reason: We are okay with cops using lethal force in a justified situation, but we expect them to do so in a familiar way—with firearms. The use of an improvised robot bomb is unsettling in the same way as if the cops had used a knife or dropped an anvil on the shooter.

It would be a different story, of course, if law enforcement tried to use deadly robots in non-exceptional circumstances.

“If officers used drones and land robots in routine stops, it would be problematic if they had lethal force. It would diminish situational awareness and make it easier to escalate things,” said Calo, who is an authority on law and robotics.

He adds that governments, which are beginning to pass drone laws, should be thinking about their use of robots in a larger policy context for regulating how they are used and ensures they cannot be hacked.

Finally, the Dallas robot case raises a final interesting question: What should happen to suspects who assault or retaliate against a law enforcement robot? Should they be charged with an assault on a police officer?

Calo cites a case several years ago in which police sent in a robot to confront a suspect, who then blasted the robot with a shotgun. The suspect was not charged with assault but instead his attack on the robot fell under a charge of resisting arrest. Calo added that, depending on the wording of a state’s law, those who assault robots might also be charged with vandalism or destruction of property.