On November 30th, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in favour of a policy that would allow the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to deploy robots that can use deadly force, according to The New York Times. Now, in order for the policy to become law, the board must approve the policy again and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who, per The New York Times, supports the policy, must sign it.

According to The Washington Post, Breed said: “If the police are called to serve in a situation where someone intends to do harm or is already doing harm to innocent people, and there is technology that can help to end the violence and save lives, we need to allow police to use these tools to save lives.” Allison Maxie, the SFPD public information officer, told NPR: “The SFPD does not own or operate robots outfitted with lethal force options and the Department has no plans to outfit robots with any type of firearm.” However, the policy has a number of opponents as well. Paul Scharre, the vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, advocated that the use of robots eliminates the need for deadly force: “Precisely because a police officer is no longer at risk, you don’t have to use lethal force. You can use nonlethal options such as tear gas or flash bangs to incapacitate someone,” according to The New York Times. The issue of responsibility also comes into question, Ryan Calo, a law and information science professor at the University of Washington, told NPR: “It becomes very difficult to disentangle who is responsible. Is it the people using the technology? Is it the people that design the technology?”

In a world where police brutality is an ever-present issue in the public consciousness, allowing the use of robots for deadly force is likely only to worsen the problem. Not only is it unnecessary, with other options available as Scharre describes, but the policy increases the militarization of the police force. Increased distance from the violence will desensitize police officers to the brutality, and may make police officers more comfortable using lethal force in situations where it is not necessary.

The policy comes as a result of a new California law “that requires every municipality in the state to list and define the authorized uses of all military-grade equipment in their local law enforcement agencies,” according to NPR. Initially, the SFPD’s policy draft did not address the use of robots, but NPR reports Aaron Peskin, a member of the Board of Supervisors, added the line: “Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.” According to The Washington Post, the SFPD replaced that line with: “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD.” The policy comes six years after the Dallas Police Department killed a gunman by attaching a bomb to a robot and exploding it near the perpetrator, which, The New York Times reports, raised questions of what is considered excessive force. The issue also recalls the use of drones in warfare, as Rick Nelson, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former counterterrorism official on the National Security Council, mentioned to The New York Times.

Given the severe implications of utilizing deadly force from a distance, police departments in the U.S. should not be using robots to deploy lethal force. While the SFPD does not currently have robots specifically designed for killing, it is not unthinkable that they may acquire or upgrade these robots in the near future. The police department and Board of Supervisors must consider these future possibilities when making broad policies on this matter. We do not want to live in a world where police officers are comfortable killing citizens at a distance, when many have already been comfortable killing them up close.