The city supervisors in San Francisco are backtracking on their initial vote to let police robots deploy brutal force during San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) operations due to massive backlash.

Following discontent from the communities and activist organizations, the Board of Supervisors, who voted 8-3 for the policy, now prohibits the police from using robots to kill people.

Criticisms Force The Board To Temporarily Ban The Use Of Blunt Robot Force

According to The Verge, the board initially approved letting the SFPD use remote-controlled robots as a deadly force option when a member of the public or of the police force is in imminent danger.

These robots will be able to disarm potential bombs and can be equipped with explosives in extreme circumstances, which triggered alarm bells in the public.

With that, the policy drew a surge of criticisms from civil rights groups, who believe that the government is using the robots to militarize the US law enforcement.

Gizmodo writes that a mob gathered to protest the policy at the City Hall, the same day 44 local organizations sent a letter of dissent to Mayor London Breen and the Board of Supervisors.

The letter expresses the critics' concern about how the policy will unnecessarily endanger lives and how the public is naturally uncomfortable with the idea of using armed robots in general.

"Using robots that are designed to disarm bombs to instead deliver them is a perfect example of this pattern of escalation, and of the militarization of the police force that concerns so many across the city," the letter notes.

The community groups also emphasized in their letter that there is no evidence that the robots will not be used by the police as an excuse for their brutality.

The Verge reports that these arguments have successfully persuaded the Board, which led to the overturn of votes a few short days after the killer robots were given the go signal to operate.

Gordon Mar, one of the supervisors who originally voted for the policy, even changed his mind as he claims that the original vote has made him increasingly uncomfortable.

"I do not think robots with lethal force will make us safer, or prevent or solve crimes," Mar says, noting the more distant and less human approach to state violence is counter-progressive.

Read More: San Francisco Police Petition License For Robots To Use 'Deadly Force'  

The Use of Robots As Lethal Police Reinforcement Has Been Heavily Debated Online

The SFPD's initial proposal to incorporate armed robots that have lethal force in their operation was immediately opposed by the public when it was first announced.

This is because in 2016, the Dallas Police Department was in deep controversy when a standoff with a gunman ended up with the police killing the suspect by setting off its bomb-equipped robot.

However, the SFPD defended the policy by clarifying that they do not plan to arm the robots the same way as Dallas PD did, and instead, the robots will only be used to breach structures with violent or armed subjects.

The police say that this would be their last resort option, but opponents of the policy argue that killing subjects with the robots will deprive them of the due process of law, Gizmodo details.

This is why with the overturn of the amendment, activists and leaders like Board of Supervisors member Dean Preston are grateful to those who actively spoke up against the policy, The New York Times says.

Related Article: Police Robots Are Finally Here To Bust Criminals