I think I see a problem with this discussion, and because of this problem I don't think we are going to be able to reach any conclusion here.

Everyone is presenting good points but we are almost talking past each other.

The problem is this: The robot thing has only been used to kill this Dallas shooter, and as far as the facts show, it seems that guy had to be taken out.

The theoretical here, is the concern how this robot bomb MIGHT be again used in the future.

But since there is no other case yet, there's nothing to actually point to, and say SEE! This is bad news!

We will be going around and around in circles, because of this missing piece. And actually we should all pray that we never see any example of it used in just the horrible way some of us fear.

For instance, if this robot bomb was used against a family that had holed up, and killed them in just a couple of hours, THEN the problem of its effiency would be more highlighted.

People can say, hey, even the kids were killed, was that really necessary?! Isn't there something ELSE that could have been done with this high tech robot? (No, because the father was well armed, etc. etc.).

So since that situation does not exist and hopefully never will (.....) we will be going around in circles, talking about whether deadly force is justified in situations (yes, of course), and that killing with a robot is no different than with a rock (yes, again, correct).

We can talk about whether or not such a situation is likely to exist, but I think it's not really productive. It's basically just up to how pessimistic one is about the use of such things, and that is to a large extent subjective (can be backed up with examples but we will then just be in a pissing contest giving lists of examples, not necessarily convincing anyone with logic).

I agree with this.

Both side are correct.  In my eyes there was justification in this particular incident, however, I think we need to be vigilant in being careful with the application of this this type of strategy, IMHO.