Marcus Impudite Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Let's say some group built them a base with fenced in grounds in what used to be an industrial area far outside the city proper. In eight (8) strategic locations on the base's grounds are sentry turrets that can rotate a full 360 degrees. For each of these turrets there's an operator's station in the security office; i.e., a person sits at a station and controls that particular turret and its armaments remotely. Each turret is armed with a gun that can fire either regular bullets or rubber bullets (controlled by a selector switch on the operator's joystick), and a net launcher with four (4) capture nets. Each turret also has a loudspeaker and a searchlight the operator can use. There are clearly posted warning signs about the turrets on every section of the fence and the gates, in multiple languages. Always assuming these turrets would even be legal to set up on the property in the first place (admittedly it does sound iffy), could there be any significant legal issues with using them against would-be intruders attempting to break into the facility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 "Trespassers will be shot. Repeatedly." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQuestionMan Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasha Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think it depends on the state, but I'll bet that most jurisdictions would prefer actual Human Beings holding and shooting the guns. Esp on a perimeter fence. Inside the building might be different., but probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston GM Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Always assuming these turrets would even be legal to set up on the property in the first place (admittedly it does sound iffy), could there be any significant legal issues with using them against would-be intruders attempting to break into the facility? Does your jurisdiction consider any of the following to be reasons for justifiable homicide: trespassing, criminal trespassing, breaking and entering? If not, using bullets on an intruder would be considered homicide, unless you had reason to believe the intruder was bulletproof. Even if the target is bulletproof, using bullets would probably result in reckless endangerment charges (if not negligent homicide), unless there's some mechanism stopping the bullets from leaving the property. Maybe just a few issues. I would use a paired neural stunner / death ray instead. That way I could use the death ray and claim that the neural stunner malfunctioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Use the disintegration ray. Less to clean up that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soleil Noir Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Provided the turret isn't acting completely autonomously (i.e.; a human operator has to give the order before it can start firing) there shouldn't be any legal issues at all -- provided the operator limits himself to targets who are inside the property line. The Geneva Convention and various international laws prohibit autonomous weapons because, at this time, they lack the capacity to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians... http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/17/issue/4/law-applies-autonomous-weapon-systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weapon Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Ok, as I read what you posted someone is aiming and firing the guns remotely (see last paragraph below if you meant the guns fired autonomously). They would have the same legal issues as someone firing a gun directly. Provided a reasonable person would have concluded that they needed to use the guns to defend themselves, their property or others it's legal to fire them. However you may have to justify using the lethal options when you have the nets and rubber bullets. Did you reasonably believe you could not have defended yourself without the lethal stuff? Bear in mind bullets don't stop at fence lines, so either have something to stop them in mid-flight, stop them from aiming above your bullet-proof exterior boundary walls or prepare for lawsuits. That said if the guns are automatic it's going to be hell getting licenses, even in the good ole USA. IRL if you fire automatic weapons in self-defense and wound or kill someone you go to trial, ALWAYS. Even if the evidence clearly shows your action was justified no DA in the entire USA will let you get off without at least facing a jury (and about $250K in legal expenses). With autonomous weaponry I think legally it's hell. What rational police organisation is going to allow those in it's jurisdiction. Robots with guns? Acting on their own initiative? It's so much easier for the chief to say "1) No and 2) Hell no.". Unless the local politicians think they're the best thing since sliced bread it's not going to be allowed. And if they try to do it anyway there's even greater issues. If they fire the guys who set it up are liable, civilly and criminally, even if they didn't press the button to fire it. It's dangerous, you put it on your property, if it hurts someone, it's your fault (unless it's self defense). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston GM Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Provided the turret isn't acting completely autonomously (i.e.; a human operator has to give the order before it can start firing) there shouldn't be any legal issues at all -- provided the operator limits himself to targets who are inside the property line. The Geneva Convention and various international laws prohibit autonomous weapons because, at this time, they lack the capacity to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians... I live in Texas, which is known for being extremely open-minded about weapons laws and concepts like "self-defense." Even here, the laws are a bit stricter than "follow the Geneva conventions." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I follow the others: It depends on wheter those guns are able to act autonomously or have to be controlled. If they have to be controlled, it is just like any other gun. Except "self defense" is harder to claim, because the turret is controlled from afar (operator not in danger of being attacked). Autonomuos turret (a robot without ability to move): We have functioning Autopilots for Car's: http://www.dump.com/revealsautopilot/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bITJRiXFnUQ The problem that stops widespread use, is the question of legal responsibility. Right now it would stay with the driver or holder (if you let this thing drive fully automatically). So propably who installed/bought the guns/robots would be fully resposible for all accidental missfires. Inlcuding ones like this: http://klipd.com/watch/robocop/meet-ed209-scene (Note that this setting is closer to Shadowrun then your average Superhero setting). And in eitehr case there is the problems of bullets hitting people outside your area/other unintended targets. Note that if the area counts as an embasy, other rules might apply. By definition an embasy is part of the Countries sovereign territory. As such they could place what they want. If a bullet passes past thier "borders", this would propably be counted as an border incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 On the other hand, you probably don't want real laws to apply. Comic book laws are far more entertaining. I'd suggest a powerful corporation be "above the law" by paying off cops and judges so they can get away with rocket-launcher armed robots and things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Notice we already have autonomous deadly-force area denial weapons. They're called "mines." (Or mantraps, to go a little more traditional.) The law is ...not supportive of the use of mines and mantraps for trespassing. Here's the UN on the subject. Not also As has been pointed out, the use of deadly force against trespassers hinges on the personal threat, not the right to prevent trespassing, and thus deadly force is out of the question if the operator of the autonomous weapon is not endangered. Note also McComb vs. Connaghan, which established the rather obvious point that such devices are fire hazards, as firefighters will, understandably, not enter a property protected by active mantraps! Rampaging supervillains is another matter, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 My recollection from law school is that the use of an autonomous weapon (basically a booby-trap) is legal if deadly force would normally be legal in that same situation. In other words, if you would be justified in killing someone anyway. In other words, if I have a shotgun rigged up to shoot whoever opens a door, then it's illegal if my neighbor, who is worried because he hasn't seen me in a few days, comes over and opens the door. It is perfectly legal if Jason Voorhees, serial killer, comes over and opens my door because he is going to try to kill me. The relative rarity of Jason Voorhees attacks means that booby traps are generally a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.