I ask because after reading several articles, and more interestingly, the comments, there seems to be a segment of the population (if not a majority) that finds the killing of the sniper immoral, or nothing more than execution style justice for being a cop killer.
I am less interested in the ethics of using a robot as a tool to take someone out, It seems like a trivially easy ethical issue to consider. If you have the opportunity to take out a sniper that intends to continue firing on officers that try to get near without incurring further harm to yourselves, you take it.
But some of the commenters think this act totally unjustified. Not because of the robot, because they think he could have been taken into custody through non lethal means. He could have been incapacitated with some sort of gas, or the officers should have waited him out since at the time there might not have been anyone else nearby that was in immediate danger. To some of them, unless there is imminent danger to others in that moment, lethal force should not be engaged in.
I find this attitude ass backwards. He had already proved he was a murderous cretin, talked on the phone to investigators and said he intended to kill MORE officers and white people, and after all that they are to be expected to risk their lives to make sure his is not in danger? Or worse, they deny that any non lethal means would endanger an officers life, of that such dangers are not worth the execution of someone not posing imminent danger…
I… Am I the insane one here? It’s like people are bending over backwards to preserve the safety and safe passage of someone on has already murdered people, and intends to do more. In my own ethical mind, such behavior reduces my concern for someones safety to near zero. But in a twisted way, it almost seems that to some others it makes him more worthy of special considerations, more worthy of delicate care. It’s almost as nuts as when that sociopath on Dexter discovered what Dexter was hiding in the shack
spoilers
Now no doubt the people championing the position of not engaging in lethal force to take this murderer out will point to their principled position of not resorting to violence unless absolutely necessary (never mind that the standards of such things vary widely and are not so easily agreed upon), but it still strikes me as them displaying greater affinity for the perpetrators than the victims, and just a general aversion to ANY lethal means unless there are literally other people in direct harms way (like a religious nut and madman gunning down gays in a bar). I bet over 90% of these people are philosophically opposed to the death penalty (even AFTER we stipulate 100% certainty of guilt for some individual), they just see death and violence as the greatest evils, and are willing to toss so many other things onto a funeral pyre, even other officers potential safety to preserve their pacifistic attitude.
Similar to Damuri Ajashi’s question: Was there any reasonable way to capture the sniper without putting more officers’ lives at risk? If they could reasonably have captured him without further risk, they should have done so. I’m very comfortable saying that wasn’t the case here, the sniper was a danger and would continue to be one, but that is a concept that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because the sniper is a murderer.
As agents of the government, the police need to be following the rule of law, killing people who are no longer a threat to you is a violation of that principle.
I don’t think instant death is a particularly bad punishment. I’d have prefered to see him captured, tried, incarcerated and made to suffer a bit.
That probably makes me not a very good person, but there it is.
My bigger problem is that we’re already seeing police officers turn themselves into onsite executioners without trial for misdemeanors and less during routine traffic stops. It’s not a slippery slope if it’s already happening. So I fear that allowing drone/robot bombs is just one more way of eliminating the judicial system in times when it’s more convenient to do so. And I’m pretty much against that, yes.
I’m 100% opposed to the death penalty but I don’t have a problem with the police using lethal force when the situation calls for it. From what I know of this situation, lethal force was appropriate.
How many people would object if they had taken him out with a bullet? A robot with explosives isn’t any different except that it avoids putting officers in danger.
That said, I do have concerns that such robots make it easier and safer to kill which in theory could lead to them being used when it’s not appropriate. There need to be well defined protocols regarding the use of such robots. We do absolutely need to avoid allowing the police to play judge and jury.
That said, I don’t have any problem with people questioning if particular tactics or weapons were the best course for a situation. Post-event investigation and analysis will help police choose their actions in the future and civilian oversight is a vital part of keeping honest cops honest.
I do think some people have some unrealistic notions about “non-lethal” force, which is better described as “less-lethal” because all of them carry some risk. We don’t have Magic Hollywood Trank-Darts that produce instant and harmless unconsciousness, as just one example.
Every article I’ve read says something like “The facts needed to determine if lethal force was justified are not available at this time…” It’s easy to say “he deserved it”, but the police have a certain protocol to observe in these types of situations and we just don’t know enough right now to say one way or the other. And, since the narrative is almost certainly going to be written by the police, we may never actually know.
How do you know he was actively murdering people? Is that according to the guys who killed him? The Dallas Police “knew” that guy did it just like they “knew” this guy was involved when they tweeted a picture of him calling him a suspect? Now let me be clear, it certainly seems they got the right guy, but why would anyone be okay with the police acting as judge, jury, and executioner?
Listen, if I thought such a thing were prudent, this case seems like a pretty easy case. The issue is that not every case will be so clear cut, and you will inevitably have lot of collateral damage and innocent people getting killed. The entire US military, one of the most competent and well-funded forces on Earth cannot even conduct drone strikes without hurting innocent people. What makes you think Podunk PD is gonna use bomb robots in a judicious fashion? Doubly so when they cannot even use guns or tasers in such a way.
Even in this case, you had initial reports that there were multiple shooters supposedly due to others in the area having guns. Luckily none of those people were killed or shot, but that easily could have happened if such things become standard procedure.
Those are the concerns people have. Few people give a shit that some murderous scumbag was killed by bomb as opposed to being shot (assuming the circumstances necessitated lethal action). It’s that you are introducing one more way to kill people without consequence to a group who has historically shown questionable judgement in utilizing such tools.
Yes, it is. Because he deserved it. He deliberately created a scenario in which rendering him incapable of continuing to murder innocent people is a far higher priority than preserving his life. Unless he chose unconditional surrender, his death is on his own head.
If only we had a word for when you don’t “know” something, but only suspect it. Wouldn’t that be a useful word for situations like that?
What about a missile? Would it have been OK if the cops sent in a cruise missile to take this guy out?
For myself, I don’t worry about this guy being taken out; I worry about the militarization of our police forces and them sending in what was essentially a drone with explosives to kill somebody. Seems like a bad idea to me.
The guiding principle should always be “it was necessary” never “he deserved it”. If the police have the authority to decide some suspects are obviously guilty and should be executed rather than arrested, they’re acting as a lynch mob.
The use of lethal force is justified if there is reasonable imminent danger of a suspect harming somebody else or escaping and there’s no non-lethal force that can reasonably stop him.
While I shed no tears over its application in this case, I do feel a pang of concern over the precedent it sets, and the mental image of cops across the country saying “wait… we can blow people up?”
