Fueled by Caffeine wrote: robot bomb? whoa. I love the fact that it saved lives, but when did our cops become delta force.
I'm on the fence about this one. Part of me is going "Okay it ended the deadly standoff and very likely saved a number of officers lives."
The other part of me is going "Holy E36 M3 they knowingly and intentionally committed an extrajudicial killing then everyone patted them on the back." That's not a precedent that I care to have set.
In reply to The0retical:
I agree.
In reply to SVreX:
Sorry. but performance data is available down to the carrier route level instantly from USPS. we know when stuff goes wrong before the postal supervisors. The blanket " won't happen again" statements don't work. Nor does "retraining" work. These are public servants remember. Their entire work history is available publicly.
The0retical wrote: ..The other part of me is going "Holy E36 M3 they knowingly and intentionally committed an extrajudicial killing then everyone patted them on the back." That's not a precedent that I care to have set.
I am not sure how this any different then putting a huge hole in his head with a sniper rifle. I am pretty sure you don't need a court ruling to kill some who just shot at hundreds of people and killed a number of police and showed no will to surrender. If they did property damage then they should take care of that but otherwise they wanted to kill him (I think reasonably), they did, no one else got hurt, seems pretty clean to me.
In reply to aircooled:
I don't know all the details in the timeline which lead up to the robot with a bomb. It's entirely possible that the police actively engaged in a gunfight when this happened which would justify the sniper or robot situation. From what I've gathered though the police make it sound like they had him cornered and just wanted to get it over with. That would make it a Christopher Dorner type situation where the police simply lit the house on fire and shot at it until he burned to death. That I take issue with.
I don't take issue with the fact that the suspect died, I just would like to know what the process was that lead to utilizing the robot in that manner and who gave authority (or if it was provided) to use it.
Fair enough. I guess the real question is then: Did the situation justify killing him? Much like if they had him in the sites of a sniper and shot him.
There just seems to be this strange obsession with the robot, but that's not the real question at hand.
The0retical wrote:Fueled by Caffeine wrote: robot bomb? whoa. I love the fact that it saved lives, but when did our cops become delta force.I'm on the fence about this one. Part of me is going "Okay it ended the deadly standoff and very likely saved a number of officers lives." The other part of me is going "Holy E36 M3 they knowingly and intentionally committed an extrajudicial killing then everyone patted them on the back." That's not a precedent that I care to have set.
At the press conference afterward, Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown stated that the shooter was given multiple chances to surrender. When it became clear he was not going to surrender, the choices were rush the position exposing more officers to danger or use the robot to place the charge. They made the decision to place the charge. At least that's how it went according to them. As for being Delta Force, many departments use robots in a bomb disposal role although this may be the first time one has been used offensively. How is this an extrajudicial killing? It looks like the decision to use deadly force had been authorized, does it matter if it came from the end of a gun or a remotely triggered device?
In reply to lewbud:
It wholly depends upon the intent which was not stated. There's a fuzzy line here which I feel bears examination as you need to be very careful in these situations as repercussions have a tendency to be felt for a long time.
Example time:
A) The robot entered into a tenuous situation (ie: it's standoff with negotiation or the possibility of negotiation not an active firefight) with a claymore strapped to it. The device is detonated and the suspect was killed.
-In this example the police approached the situation with full intent to kill the suspect and apprehension via negotiation or "starving him out" is understood to be ruled out.
B) The robot went in with a small explosive device used to detonate larger explosives to get rid of what the suspect says was a backpack full of det cord. The resulting explosion kills the suspect.
-The police understood the risks however the larger explosive device posed an immediate threat and required removal for any type of action to be taken to apprehend the suspect. The suspects death was a byproduct of the getting rid of the larger risk in order to apprehend him to face charges.
One is ok to me the other is not.
I wasn't there so I fully recognize that I'm armchair quarterbacking here. My understanding was that there were no hostages and the police had him cornered so waiting it out, while not exactly wonderful for the authorities, may have been a possibility. Of course new facts can always change my viewpoint such as having a view over the railing to continue shooting into the street at bystanders constituting a real and on going threat, but as of right now I don't have all the facts. Which is why I prefaced that I was of two minds.
aircooled wrote: Fair enough. I guess the real question is then: Did the situation justify killing him? Much like if they had him in the sites of a sniper and shot him. There just seems to be this strange obsession with the robot, but that's not the real question at hand.
People have a strange obsession with the whole robot thing. At the end of the day a human is still pulling the trigger and the reasoning, as well as the consequences for doing so, should bear some level of examination. It doesn't matter if its from behind a set of iron sights, a scope, or a camera. Robotics simply allow for it to be done in a more targeted manner and from a safer location.
The0retical, I see where you're coming from, and understand that I'm armchair quarterbacking a well. As I typed my response, I thought about why not wait him out. He is in a barricaded position, cordon off the area and wait him out. However, they may have had information that ruled this out. We may never know. As I type this, DPD has locked down the area around their headquarters in response to a person dressed in a mask and hoodie running through the DPD parking garage, and not being able to find him. There's also a possible threat of a group coming up from Houston to do harm. At least that's what's being reported on the local news.
A robot bomb just doesn't seem like the sort of weapon a cop should have.
Using a bomb strapped robot set precedence for all future events like this.
"Welp . . . Negotiations broke down. No hostages? Send in bomb bot."
Was non-lethal ordinance (gas or flash) considered? The robot could deliver those as well. Do we really want the local police using rolling IEDs? How much closer did this tactic bring us to drone striking?
When you take up a sniper position and start picking people off, cops or civilians, all bets are off.
I'm pretty sure, everyone knows that if you target and kill police, you are not going to make it to a trial for your crimes. Look at guy out in Cali, they tracked him down to a little cabin, surrounded it, filled it full with about eleven billion bullets then just to be sure burnt the berkeleyer to the ground. I'm sure if they had a robot bomb, it would have been used too.
In reply to Nick (picaso) Comstock:
That's kind of my point. You're still subject to due process of law no matter how heinous the crime even if it is against a protected class (or the police.) What you're describing is vigilantism with a badge.
Edit: That Dorner incident out of control pretty quickly. It was obvious from the get go the police had no intention of taking him alive since they shot up two trucks, not even the correct make and model, trying to run him down. I really can't condone that no matter the crime.
And there we have the cause of tension in this debate. This guy was witnessed killing multiple people and likely to immediately kill more if not stopped and we are worried that he didn't get due process. With the people killed in traffic stops we dig up past crimes and claim those justify their deaths. They all deserve due process if at all possible.
In reply to MrJoshua:
I've been trying to adopt a wider view of what's been going on lately with the police and the racial tensions because there seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions from my coworkers as of late, most of which are what you described as victim blaming. I really do think we can thank the 24/7 news cycle for a lot of that attitude mostly because they'll "cover" it to death and dredge up every tidbit on the individual they can find relevant to the situation or not.
Every single citizen of the US is entitled to due process.
There are circumstances where taking a life is necessary to protect others, I fully and completely understand that, but you have to know where that line is, understand it is likely to be caught on camera, and understand it will likely be questioned in full view of the public if you are going to be a public servant. With social media and the 24/7 news being as persistent as they are it needs to be understood that working as a law enforcement officer puts you under a microscope. Understanding both the laws and understanding when it is acceptable to escalate the situation with further use of force is paramount to avoiding situations which will make national news.
The days of independent unquestionable situational decision making are over. The sooner everyone in the public eye understands that the sooner we can start to fix what is wrong.
The0retical wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: I've been trying to adopt a wider view of what's been going on lately with the police and the racial tensions because there seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions from my coworkers as of late, most of which are what you described as victim blaming. I really do think we can thank the 24/7 news cycle for a lot of that attitude mostly because they'll "cover" it to death and dredge up every tidbit on the individual they can find relevant to the situation or not.
Friend of mine, who is very liberal, sent me a link to some very conservative websites that have been trying to tie Philandro Castile to the Crips, a recent armed robbery, and a host of felonies that are simply not true...
And people are eating it up as a way to Justify his killing.
I think that last part is what depresses me. People hear a narrative that agrees with their view of the world and run with it. Now an innocent man, who was wrongly killed, will be tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion posthumously
You can say the same about the officers involved.
There are sh@t citizens in this world, there are sh@t cops in this world. Neither justifies all of that group being treated like dirt, accusing them of murder or justifying shooting them.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: A robot bomb just doesn't seem like the sort of weapon a cop should have.
Anything can be a bomb bot. You just need to get some bombs.
aircooled wrote: You can say the same about the officers involved. There are sh@t citizens in this world, there are sh@t cops in this world. Neither justifies all of that group being treated like dirt, accusing them of murder or justifying shooting them.
Absolutely. That is the trouble with the shootings in Dallas. Not only was it a very peaceful protest to where the cops did not see a need for bodyarmour and riot gear, but they were actually talking to the protestors. Dallas, believe it or not, leads the way in how to deal with the public and race relations.
And then some E36 M3head with a high powered rifle has to ruin it for everyone as he takes out several innocent police officers who were simply doing their job and white
Some of the comments on this thread border on being ludicrous.
A sniper kills five and wounds more. After two hours he indicates he will continue given the chance. So deadly force seems to be necc. to end the standoff. The police happen to have a way to end it without danger to more officers/people. Why not use it.
Sounds to me like he committed suicide.
Some of those "killed by cop" numbers are skewed because of suicide by cop. It happens. If you point a gun at a cop, even a toy gun with the red ring on the barrel blacked out, there is a good chance you are going to be shot.
You'll need to log in to post.
