在7月8日的達(dá)拉斯發(fā)生慘案中，嫌犯連殺五名警官，引發(fā)了關(guān)于暴力和正義的新的反思。其中，針對(duì)結(jié)束這場(chǎng)暴亂采用的非常方式，許多人提出了質(zhì)疑——達(dá)拉斯警方使用了帶炸彈的機(jī)器人，殺死了這名罪犯，這在美國(guó)執(zhí)法的歷史上還是頭一遭。

案件的具體細(xì)節(jié)目前尚未得到確認(rèn)，目前來(lái)看，警方似乎通過(guò)五角大樓向美國(guó)執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)出售軍事裝備的項(xiàng)目，在幾年前得到了這種機(jī)器人。它并非用于執(zhí)行殺傷類(lèi)行動(dòng)，但達(dá)拉斯警方情急之下，臨時(shí)在它上面安裝了炸彈去阻止槍擊犯。

Twitter上的人們對(duì)這場(chǎng)慘劇的超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義結(jié)局進(jìn)行了評(píng)論：

使用機(jī)器人也讓一些人質(zhì)疑了在治安場(chǎng)合使用軍事技術(shù)是否合理，應(yīng)當(dāng)如何恰當(dāng)?shù)貙?duì)這種技術(shù)進(jìn)行管理。

另一些人則回想起了艾薩克·阿西莫夫和《機(jī)械戰(zhàn)警》（Robocop）中的反烏托邦世界，他們想知道使用武裝機(jī)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(dāng)時(shí)的情景，這些法律上的擔(dān)憂(yōu)似乎有些過(guò)分。在當(dāng)時(shí)，警察面對(duì)的是一名擁有裝備優(yōu)勢(shì)的殘忍罪犯（據(jù)報(bào)道，罪犯手持AR-15沖鋒槍?zhuān)梢陨浯┚斓姆缽棻承模?。他們必須找辦法來(lái)阻止罪犯，他們也是這么做的。

華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)教授賴(lài)安·卡羅表示，這一案件并未引發(fā)任何新的法律問(wèn)題，令人不安的主要是另一個(gè)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(kāi)槍。臨時(shí)使用機(jī)器人炸彈就像警察對(duì)槍擊犯使用刀具或是投擲鐵砧一樣，令人感到不踏實(shí)。

當(dāng)然，如果執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)試圖在常規(guī)情況下使用致死機(jī)器人，情況就完全不同了。

法律和機(jī)器人專(zhuān)家卡羅表示：“如果警官開(kāi)始在日常工作中使用無(wú)人機(jī)和陸行機(jī)器人，它們是否存在致死的危險(xiǎn)就存在著疑問(wèn)。這會(huì)降低人們的態(tài)勢(shì)感知能力，很容易讓事態(tài)升級(jí)?！?

他補(bǔ)充道，政府現(xiàn)在正開(kāi)始通過(guò)無(wú)人機(jī)法案，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮在更大的政策背景下針對(duì)如何使用機(jī)器人進(jìn)行管制，確保它們的程序不會(huì)被黑客修改。

最后，達(dá)拉斯機(jī)器人案引發(fā)的最后一個(gè)問(wèn)題十分有趣：嫌疑犯如果襲擊或回?fù)魣?zhí)法機(jī)器人，會(huì)怎么樣？是否應(yīng)當(dāng)按照襲警的罪名起訴他們？

卡羅引用了幾年前的一個(gè)案例，當(dāng)時(shí)警方派了一名機(jī)器人來(lái)對(duì)付嫌疑人，后者用霰彈槍轟擊了機(jī)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?？_補(bǔ)充道，根據(jù)國(guó)家法律的規(guī)定，那些襲擊機(jī)器人的嫌疑犯還可能受到故意毀壞公物或破壞財(cái)產(chǎn)的指控。 （財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)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.