Property v. Property, Deadly Force
An Exemplar of Our New Legal World in Brief
Do you know what a big deal robots are
in major updates to longstanding Law and legal principles?
Just one example:
The storied case of People v. Barr (“Spring gun” case).
Which young law students like myself had pounded into them in law school
and the bar exam, standing for the legal principle:
“Deadly force may never be used
solely to defend property”
This may have been the most vivid case of all of my law school at the University of San Francisco School of Law 1999-2002. Our professor went into gruesome detail for a pedagogical purpose I am sure (I sure never forgot it) about legs and crotches blown to smithereens.
In my 2002 Bar Exam Prep lectures, one Prof for the Torts section had this gravelly voice and would say over and over and over
“SPRING GUNS! SPRING GUNS! DEADLY FORCE MAY NEVER BE USED SOLELY TO DEFENT PROPERTY!”
(Record scratch)
But, what if it is not a person, but in fact a property that defends against threats to property?
A robot. “For itself” or in defense of other property. Totally non-human. No human there. It will happen.
I’m telling you again about the future.
Robots will harm.
Robots will injure.
Robots will kill.
Rightly. Wrongly. (Neutrally?)
Will we assess their “personalities”? Prior behavior?
Will we look to their base AI model?
Will we inquire about what “user updates” have been made by owner? What adjustments?
Will the behavior of the vandal or thief factor in? Will it be better or worse, more legal or less so, that a robot metes out a thrashing, “purposefully” or “accidentally”?
Do robots hold the human right of self-defense? Should they?
It’s a whole new world scary, very exciting and new.
What happens when the private property defends itself?
