In America there is some common law right to resist unlawful arrests, but it’s been abrogated by statute in most jurisdictions, as I understand it. It also wouldn’t cover a mass murderer in any case.
While Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter the famed “tree of liberty” quote, there is not actually a constitutional right to rebellion. We put in the amendment process as an alternative to that.
Cochrane, I do not believe the Dallas shooter was justified. I am frankly not actually convinced he was genuinely politically motivated - I would have expected him to have some obvious affiliation with an activist political group if he were although such an affiliation could still be revealed.
However, I am British and not American. Because I am British I recall the recent Charles Menezes case.
In 2005 suicide bombers killed many people in London (just checked on Wikipedia - 52 people murdered) and that was followed by a thwarted further attempt.
A week later Anti-Terrorist police identified Charles Menezes as one of the would be suicide bombers and followed him onto the Tube (London Underground Railway) where, believing he was about to trigger a bomb vest, shot him repeatedly in the head.
Sadly the Brazilian Menezes was completely innocent. But he was dead and the mistake was beyond correcting.
In your Dallas case the identity may have been beyond any possible doubt but it still leaves me with concerns.
TCMF-2L
Why can’t the police EVER do ANYTHING right? :rolleyes:
I have this mental image of the robot rolling into the room where the shooter was. A lid on the top of the box flips open, and, instead of exploding, a gigantic life raft (larger than the room) starts inflating.
I’m not sure why, but this image amuses me.
Yeah, those are different scenarios. The deceased in Dallas was actively exchanging gunfire with police prior to being killed, they had been in communication with him (he said he would only speak to a black officer), and he was issuing threats and taunts.
I’d argue that it’s far preferable to send in a dog, even on a suicide charge in the off chance it works than to send in a bomb toting robot.
I’d disagree, I don’t think police dogs should be used to try and take down armed assailants, they aren’t a good tool for that. If I was to question the tactical decision to use the bomb, I’d wonder more why they didn’t try a less lethal option. Like gas, flash bang grenades etc. That might be enough to get him to surrender. But I do think people are being a little stupid about this small bomb detonation, no one would be complaining if a police sniper was used. It appears you guys are just mad cops found a way to kill him without exposing themselves to direct fire, which is weird to me.
Given the particulars of how slow these robots are, and the limited use case where they would even make sense, I think a lot of you are being frankly, absurd.
The use of the bomb robot is only justified if the shooter was an immediate threat to other people or police. Otherwise, wait him out. If he was trapped, and had nobody in his line of sight to shoot, there is no hurry to send in the explosives.
Maybe there was an immediate threat here, although they had been negotiating with him for a while before sending in the bomb so I don’t know what the immediate threat was or what purpose killing him served.
I’m willing to withhold judgment until more facts come out but on the surface, I’m bothered by it.
He did claim to have set multiple bombs around town. A cell phone can be used as a trigger for each one.
Okay, that’s an example of an immediate threat. If he said (or the police had sufficient reason to believe) that he was able to trigger additional explosions from his current location, that justifies their action in taking him out.
As far as using a bomb vs. shooting him - that part doesn’t bother me at all. He’s just as dead and there is no reason to put more police lives at risk unnecessarily, as long as the bomb wasn’t a danger to anyone else.
According to DPD he was actively exchanging gunfire with them periodically, which to me is clearly an imminent threat.
Personally speaking, I think its always right to use the coolest method to kill someone. 
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
:dubious:
I think you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting a number of things here:
The issue that Black Lives Matter is protesting against is the shooting of black men by the police with what appears to be little justification. That does not apply in an active shooter situation where he has already shot a dozen people.
There is not a constitutional right to “fight back against oppression”.
AFAIK, the police are not obligated to use every option at their disposal before using deadly force. They are obligated to use reasonable discretion. In this particular case, the shooter was given every opportunity to surrender, he refused and the police determined it was safer to explode him in place rather than risk more officers lives trying to extract him from his position of cover.
Indeed it is rare, but rareness doesn’t obviate the need to adhere to standards and procedures.
But that’s because drones are typically targeting enemies in a foreign country in a war zone. That could easily change. Just as planes are often used in war, now they are used to issue speeding tickets. We can already use drone to track suspects for days in US cities. I can easily see a drone being used to blow up or disable a car driven by a fleeing suspect. Once you deem weapons of war acceptable for crime prevention based on the idea that it mitigates the risks to LEOs and innocents victims, you are going to see them used more often in a plethora of ways.
Police engage suspects in similar situations all the time. They can use flash grenades, body armor, shields, etc., etc. At no point was a bomb necessary beyond matters of expedience.
Times have changed. Do you realize we have cops literally choking people to death, shooting unarmed men, etc. and we still have many if not most people in the country completely afraid to critique them at all? As soon as the cops portray it as us vs. the suspect, the murmur will die down.
I suspect that was more luck than restraint given the conduct of the PD in this case, and the behavior of other PDs in similar cases. Remember how the cops shot up a few cars that happened to look like the car that CA cops killer was in a while back?
How did they cops know he wasn’t a shape shifter who could escape through the pipes? Or that he wasn’t the leader of a cult whose members were on the way to kill everyone and bust him out? Honestly, do we really need to nurse every “what if” delusion as if they should all impact the decisions made?
Correct. And if a convicted murderer given the death penalty is given a lethal injection rather than shivved by a guard, we would react differently too.
Cell jammer.
I hope and expect that the response to a suggestion that blowing up the sniper was another example of racist aggression against blacks is not “Power to the people!” but “Are you out of your fucking mind?”
He murdered five people in cold blood. That’s something that’s hard to spin any way but the obvious one.
The BLM types need something at least a bit plausible to sell their narrative. They need to be able to claim that ‘he had his hands up when that cracker cop shot him in cold blood’ or ‘he was shot because he was wearing a hoodie’ or ‘the cops should known it was a toy gun’ or something like that. They need it because they need to sell their narrative to the middle class in America, which is mostly white but basically fair. And because they are basically fair, there appears a yawning gap of sympathy between “he was reaching for his wallet in the back seat” and ‘he was holed up in a corner with weapons, was talking about setting off bombs with his cell phone, and he had just finished a bout of mass murder’.
Selling loosies is one thing. Shooting white people, especially white cops, is another. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
How do you know?
If we all here can think of gas, flash bangs, etc. I’d have to say the guy with the military training also thought about that and was in fact expecting it. I don’t think he would have ran out, and if he was barricaded in they might not have been able to get in within a reasonable amount of time.
Also, the overall pay-out for a LEO that was killed in the line of duty is probably more than $400k. There’s the life insurance, anything the county/state might provide, possibly college tuition for kids, funeral services, etc.
I like the robot idea versus charging in with more people and more gunfire. In theory, he could have been waited out but he might have just played it down to lure the police in and then become aggressive. I don’t see a 100% chance of no one getting injured/killed here.
I think a lot of pension systems actually pay out a survivor’s pension for the life of the officer’s survivor as well, so potentially 50+ years of pension payments on top of the life insurance and etc.
The news has reported many police departments have actually trained for just this scenario. You appear to suggest this somehow violated standards and procedures. What is your basis for this belief?
You actually ignore the practical aspect of what I said and then just spouted a bunch of “oh my god what if…” stuff that has no basis in reality. You’ve got no evidence we are on the brink of cops detonated bombs all over the place. My point is that drones as used in war don’t work well in situations that develop rapidly. There’s actually little coordination between ground forces and the flying attack drones for exactly this reason. They’re slow and less responsive than traditional close air support. While I’m sure the technology will get better, we’ve had tanks and field artillery for generations and none of those have ever made their way into law enforcement.
We’ve also been doing speed enforcement with plans for decades–here in Virginia since at least the 1980s. It’s never progressed to cops strafing cars with machine guns mounted on planes or anything like that. You’re positing a slippery slope with not even any anecdotal evidence to support it.
I don’t think you have any proof it wasn’t necessary beyond “matters of expedience.” In fact that statement almost seems stupidly false. Do you have any familiarity with the EOD robots? They’re slow. A few SWAT guys rushing in with guns would be far, far faster than this bomb robot was. If expedience was the concern that’s what they’d have done. I think instead the likelihood is that the bomb robot was used for matters of safety. It’s certainly true it wasn’t necessary, they could’ve sent 5-10 SWAT guys in with guns blazing and there’s almost a 100% chance they’d have killed him. But there’s also a > 0% chance that some of those SWAT guys would be injured or killed. The Chief of Police decided to use an option that removed that possibility.
“Times have changed”, do you actually have evidence to support that? From everything I’ve found there’s actually no comprehensive data on police shootings. The closest we have is the UCR, which is woefully incomplete. The only other good sources we have are ad hoc compiled shooting databases. Most only got started a couple years ago and don’t go back very far. Considering the precipitous fall in murders and other violent crimes since the late 1970s to now, I think there’s probably more reason to assume (since we don’t have the data) that actual incidences of police shootings and violence are probably lower now than in the past. So if anything “times have changed” means times have changed for the better. We just focus more on the bad now, which is in itself probably a sign of positive change. In the 1960s or 70s I think cops killed black people and it didn’t even get written up in the news–no one cared, other than the family members of the dead.
This one wasn’t addressed to me, but you were responding to Voyager’s response concerning your ludicrous assertion that the cops didn’t even really “know” the guy killed was a bad guy. He was firing at them. People who shoot at cops are criminals by definition.