Grounding Robot Navigation in Self-Defense Law
This academic paper examines how U.S. self-defense law applies to encounters between humans and public ground robots, arguing that current robot navigation methods fail to adequately consider scenarios where a human might perceive a physical threat and act in self-defense. The authors synthesize research in law, human-robot interaction, and robot path planning to show that a human's well-being should be legally prioritized over the preservation of a robot, even resulting in the robot's destruction. Finally, the paper proposes four actionable recommendations for robotics companies, researchers, and standards organizations to mitigate the likelihood of self-defense situations arising.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Roboticists, researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners should read this to understand how robot design and navigation planning intersect with legal self-defense frameworks.
What the document contains
The document addresses the intersection of U.S. self-defense law, human-robot interaction, and robot path planning, analyzing how non-expert humans perceive and react to ground robots in public spaces. It evaluates the limitations of current explainability and legibility frameworks in preventing perceived threats and proposes four actionable recommendations for the robotics community.
The document does not provide binding legal statutes, formal regulatory enforcement mechanisms, or an exhaustive empirical dataset on actual robot-human physical conflicts.
- Current ground robot navigation methods can cause non-expert humans to perceive a physical threat, potentially justifying self-defense actions under U.S. law.
- Because robots are property and lack intrinsic rights to self-preservation, destroying a threatening robot can be a legally proportional response.
- Robotics companies should publicly advertise that a human's physical well-being is always valued more than that of a robot during physical conflicts.
- Researchers need to study human-robot norms and catalog attitudinal differences across diverse groups, particularly historically marginalized populations.
- Existing standards, guidelines, and regulations from organizations like IEEE must be updated to address how robots should safely interact with non-expert, non-users in public spaces.
· I. Introduction · II. U.S. Self-Defense Law · III. Reasonable Perspectives Toward Robots · IV. Human-Aware Planning · V. Justified Human Self-Defense Against Robots · VI. Discussion and Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
2/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
To combat this inequity, [24] suggests involving marginalized community members in the technology design process.
III-B
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
3/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
While explainability focuses on the producing reasons for why a robot behaved a certain way, legibility characterizes how a robot communicates what it is doing or intends to do.
IV-B
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23