That’s an interesting opinion, I’m sure, but the question is whether the cops adhered to established protocol. If they did not, they can be subject to disciplinary or even legal action. If you know the protocol and know they adhered to it, please inform the rest of us.
It’s definitely a slippery slope, and it’s disturbing to see people so eagerly backing up the cops here when it’s clear we don’t know the whole story. Cops are not there to execute people who “deserve it”.
I expect every person that’s ever criticized Waco to be as vocal in their criticism of this . . .
I also expect to be disappointed.
CMC fnord!
This is a problematic area. It can be justified, but at the same time we have poor laws regarding justification in the use of force already and this is another area open to potential abuse. Using a robot to kill an imminently dangerous criminal is no different in principle than shooting him, the question is the necessity as Nemo stated. We don’t know what the guy was telling the police though, he was talking about explosives, I wouldn’t be surprised if he stated he was going to take out more cops if they came in after him, I don’t know if waiting him out was practical. We may find out eventually, or not. I’m not sad that this guy was killed, but it sets a precedent that be used as an excuse the next time in less clear circumstances.
There really are 2 question here:
From what I’ve read so far, it does seem like they were justified, per my personal beliefs. But I hedge that strongly on not really knowing all the facts, and I’m open to changing my mind if the facts show otherwise. As for the second question, I don’t think any of us knows.
What a poisoned well… No one is shedding tears over the poor little suspect. Our concerns are about giving free reign over one more means of extrajudicial lethal force to the same people who have shown time and time again that they cannot be consistently trusted to use it appropriately. To me this is far more concerning than police shooting people inappropriately; much higher potential for collateral damage, less accountability to the details of the scene (the person who detonates doesn’t have to be within 1,000 miles of the situation), and it conveniently leaves far less evidence available for hindsight analysis.
Is anyone else going to be completely unsurprised when after the police sweep up the last few chunks of these (future) suspects they will somehow always find that they were totally justified in their actions and the suspects all turn out to be totally, super, extra guilty beyond any reasonable doubt plus they hate kittens and are bad tippers who probably got better than they deserved?
Even in Dallas it doesn’t seem like the cops were pinned down in a losing battle and this was a last ditch effort to save their lives (justifiable IMO), rather they were at a stable, but potentially dangerous stalemate and their response seems to have been, “Let’s just blow the asshole up”.
They are not for throwing away on suicidal charges against men with rifles.
The act of tweeting a picture of a guy you know is going to be considered public enemy number 1 given the nature of the crime is an act that requires more than mere suspicion. Clearly, they believed he was almost certainly involved. But nice try though.
And amidst all the higher-level considerations, let’s not forget about the bean counters.
I watched Whiskey Tango Foxtrot a few weeks ago. There’s a scene where an American unit comes under attack by a group of Afghan insurgents. After a brief exchange of gunfire, one of the American pulls out an anti-tank missile and fires it at the insurgents and blows them to pieces. The battle is over and the Americans are high-fiving each other.
But their colonel chews out the Marine who fired the missile: “Jesus, you have got to be shitting me. You just shot a Javelin… at a fucking car. That’s an eighty thousand dollar piece of ordnance. Can any of you geniuses tell me the Kelly Blue Book value of an 1989 Toyota pickup?”
It’s not just a petty concern about the money. You have to face the reality that money is a limited resource in any organization and if you waste it, you’ll fall short somewhere ad won’t be able to do all of the other things you need to do.
If police departments start blowing up robots to kill dangerous suspects, they won’t have those robots around when they need them for some other job like searching for a bomb. So they’ll have to send police officers into a building when there’s a bomb threat. Or they’ll end up spending so much on robots they won’t have money for other important equipment - or they’ll have to start laying off officers.
What are you suggesting? That the police should have sent in K-9 units en masse for the sniper to shoot and kill until one managed to take him down?
The dogs trained for K-9 duty are not disposable assets. The training they and their handlers go through takes at least a couple of years of full time effort to perform specific tasks. The dogs are used for various purposes such as bomb and drug detection, finding corpses, and controlled disabling of suspects, but they aren’t some kind of expendable first line of attack for dealing with barricaded suspects, especially given their vulnerability to attack by firearms. And if police were to use K-9 units for this purpose, they would have the ASPCA up their rectums before they could blink, and frankly rightfully so.
Whether the action of using an explosive device to terminate the subject (presumably intentionally) was justified or not is a legitimate question, and the precident both the use of explosives and robots for this purpose is worrying to say the least. But making an armchair criticism about what officers on the ground should have done based upon some kind of fanciful, action movie-informed understanding of how policing and dealing with barricaded subjects is done is patently ridiculous.
Stranger
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Sacrificing a $100,000 robot instead of a $400,000 police officer saves money.
I worry about the bomb squads and trust that has built up around them being tarnished. Before, there were known as life-savers, and their tools were used(and specifically designed) for saving lives. This time, they deliberately used those skills and tools designed to save lives and they took a life. Now that it is known that will cross that line and kill, and that their remote control devices can be used to deliberately kill, will people look at them and their profession in the same light?
I’m sure it will hurt their standing with the mass murderer demographic, but those guys probably hated the bomb squad anyway for disarming their IEDs.
First of all the OP’s scorn of those people who’d oppose uses of deadly force on principle, shown in the latter part of his post, is still $3 short of a bad coffee. Those people are not going to be swayed by a debate on the issue and much less by someone looking down at them.
Moving on, I’m with what they said:
(emphasis added) Especially the last one.
***If ***and when it can be done safely and effectively to end the threat and apprehend the perpetrator, it should be the expected course of action, even if it takes longer; otherwise priority is to end the threat, and it will be reasonable for those operating onscene to have guidelines, required protocols and training to evaluate the situation and see what choices apply as to how to do so, especially if it becomes a siege situation with the suspect(s) holed up. As has been mentioned we have to avoid falling into the temptation of taking the easy expedient way out because that is not good policing either.
“I thought people like you just used your skills to save the lives of innocents.”
“Well, part of that is stopping murderers before they can strike again.”
“Huh. I’m now seeing you in a new light.”
“You want me to father your children?”
“I want you to father my children.”
“Later this evening?”
“No, now.”
“We(I) want you to send us(me) an unarmed person with the (unnamed item)!”
“I’m sorry, but we can’t take the risk of you taking another hostage, so we’ll send in this remote-control robot so that everyone will feel safe. Will that do?”
“Fuck that! you bomb people with those things-I watch the news!”
“Well, this robot isn’t one of the rigged-to-explode ones. I mean, you have all those hostages in there; if we wanted to kill them along with you, we’d have done that already! Heck, have one of them take the requested item off the dud-robot; the robot stays in one piece, the hostage stays in one piece, you get what you want, and we get what we want; everybody wins! Who wants pie?”
Given that this was a robot designed for handling/dealing with explosives do we in fact know that it was “blown up” or whether it was tough enough to withstand the explosion?
Although in a totally inappropriate (in my opinion) way, the Dallas shooter was protesting that when American police engage with black persons of interest they too often appear to simply execute them.
When the Dallas police engaged him, a black man, they executed him.
TCMF-2L
Somehow, I suspect a white guy with five dead on the ground yelling he was going to kill more cops wouldn’t fare much better.
Look what they did to Bonny and Clyde, two white people who were deliberately executed.
I don’t understand the situation the shooter was in. If he was holed up inside a building, unable to escape, no hostages, why was he a continuing danger to others? Sure he could do a ‘Butch and Sundance’ and I would have no qualms if he went down in a hail of fire. But if he was sequestered why not wait it out?
TCMF-2L