This message was self-deleted by its author

[guillaumeb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Wed Oct 4, 2017, 11:49 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. How many more dead police

would have been acceptable for you in order for him to end up dead from gunfire rather than dead from a bomb?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. You didn't answer my question

How many more police would you be willing to see killed in order for the shooter to be dead by gunfire rather than dead by a bomb?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Of course it's a question

How many more dead?

The fact that you don't want to answer it doesn't mean it's not a question.

[annabanana]

181. yep . . . n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

6. People can't get rid of their rights fast enough

these days.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Actually the shooter gave up his own rights

when he refused to surrender. He could have given himself up, been arrested, and received a trial. He chose to forego those options.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. The police had the option of waiting him out

which is pretty much what they have done in every situation like this in the past.

Again, a explosives are not discriminating, and this sets the standard for future engagements unless ruled illegal. How many times have the policed used a "no knock" warrant to bust into the wrong house and murder the occupants? Now you want them blowing up houses?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. If you listened to the police chief

No, they didn't have the option of waiting him out. He was unstable, and an ongoing danger.

No, I don't want them blowing up houses, but of course, this isn't about blowing up houses, is it?

[Kelvin Mace]

21. How was he a danger?

He was in one spot, surrounded by snipers. Not likely he was going to wander out for a stroll.

And it wasn't about blowing up houses, YET. But, a country that legalizes torture will have no problem taking this to the next level.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. Obviously you didn't listen to the police chief

He wasn't surrounded by snipers - there was no way to get a shot at him without putting police officers in his line of fire. He was saying that he had explosives that he was going to detonate and had he come out shooting, he would have been able to kill more officers before he was taken down.

Once he decided not to surrender, he was going to be killed, either by gunfire or by a bomb. Using the bomb most likely saved additional lives, and I have no issue with that whatsoever.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Using explosives put MORE lives in danger

And to be honest, the police have lots of excuses for why they kill people, and this is just a new one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. No, using the explosives didn't put more lives in danger

You think they just called in an order to Bomb R Us? They knew exactly how much ordinance to use.

I find it telling that you would be more than willing to see more dead cops just to reach the same outcome, a dead shooter.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Any explosives expert will tell you that you can't always predict what explosives will do

Especially when you send a bomb into an area where gun fire is occurring? Also, what if he was sitting on a decent-sized cache of explosives like he claimed? BOOM! Whole building goes up, cops and all.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. Gunfire wasn't occurring when the robot went in

And do you seriously believe the cops stayed in the building when the bomb went off?

How many more dead?

[Kelvin Mace]

53. As many as it takes to do their job legally.

If they can't do it legally then we need to find people who can. Funny how they only have to resort to these extreme tactics when they go up against a dangerous black man.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

63. Thanks for the answers

It's good to see an honest reply, even if it's abhorrent.

He was going to be dead either way, but if he can take out some more cops along the way, all the better, right?

Thankfully Chief Brown was in charge and not you.

[Kelvin Mace]

85. Thankfully

the Chief's decision to dangerously and recklessly escalate the use of force did get innocent people killed. The next time we may not be as lucky.

[TeddyR]

69. Serious question

Do you think it would have been ok for the police to attack the shooter using SWAT and shoot and kill him in the exchange, even though that would have put additional lives at risk? What about if the police sent in an armored car and squished the guy (assuming it would fit in the garage)?

[Kelvin Mace]

81. A sniper and even an armored car is a more

"discriminating" weapon than a bomb. Also, it seems to me that soldiers have to deal with these kinds of situation in urban warfare all the time. They can't just call in an airstrike to deal with every sniper.

[TeddyR]

86. Ok, perhaps

I'll need to do a little more reading on the explosive used - they can be very discriminating today. But these cops aren't soldiers, they are police. And not sure a sniper was even an option here. Anyway, it seems like your problem isn't necessarily with the shooters death but the way it came about. I understand the concern but just disagree with it.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. The point is that this sets a dangerous precedent

Lawyers will tell you that hard cases make bad law. Just because something seems reasonable in a specific instance doesn't make it reasonable in all instances. The trouble with the law is that once something is done, once it is viewed as legal, it sets precedent.

I am old enough to remember when this type of behavior was not cheered.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html?pagewanted=all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

[TeddyR]

93. I actually don't remember the 85 bombings

And understand the bad facts make bad law argument. I'm certainly not arguing this would be reasonable in all instances, but it certainly strikes me as reasonable here.

[Kelvin Mace]

99. And certainly that can be argued

trouble is once we let this slide, we just open the door for it to be used again, and again. Next it will be armed drones. So much safer for the police, less chance of collateral damage.

Until they make a mistake...

[Akicita]

128. Yes. Soldiers use hand grenades in urban warfare, which are bombs.

[Kelvin Mace]

163. A "brick of C-4"

has a hell of a lot more bang than a hand grenade. Also, one of their justifications was their fear he had bombs of his own. So, they sent a bomb into a guy sitting on an unknown quantity of explosive?

Sounds kind of reckless to me.

[Straw Man]

144. A sniper needs a clear line of sight ...

... and ideally some distance for safety. That wasn't the situation here. They would have had to rush him, and very likely more people would have been hurt or killed.

Also, it seems to me that soldiers have to deal with these kinds of situation in urban warfare all the time. They can't just call in an airstrike to deal with every sniper.

Actually, they can and often do call in air support for snipers. Or artillery, RPGs, grenades, etc. Would that have been preferable?

[Kelvin Mace]

162. They call in air support

in certain circumstances. NOT in urban situation when they are going house to house.

[hack89]

166. In urban warfare they use massive fire power to take out snipers

everything from heavy machines, grenade and rocket launchers all the way up to artillery and airstrikes. They don't fuck around - they will level an entire building if they feel they need to.

[guillaumeb]

200. CS gas.

Or a sound cannon could have been used. The police had a new toy and wanted to test it in a live fire situation.

[Straw Man]

215. CS gas?

Yeah, that's controllable ...

[hack89]

164. That robot with a small charge was discriminating.

it had a video feed so it could see exactly who was in the area. It also had no emotions so it couldn't panic and make a fatal mistake.

We are not talking airstrikes. We are talking about small bomb disposal robots.

[Kelvin Mace]

170. The "robot" was not autonomous

it was controlled by a human who had emotions and could certainly panic and make a fatal mistake. Also, a "brick" of C-4 is a VERY significant bomb.

Again, just because it "worked" this time does not mean it wasn't a dangerous response out of proportion to the threat (something the police excel at).

The last time we were down this road, we didn't cheer.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html?pagewanted=all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

[hack89]

172. I am very familiar with C-4 as are the cops

I have no doubt their EOD guys spent a lot of time calculating exactly how large a charge they needed to kill the gunman without causing collateral damage or significant structural damage to the building. It is not like they detonated the bomb in such a manner to endanger any innocent bystanders.

The 1985 disaster shows the need for advanced technology that allows force to be precisely applied. Just like what happened in Dallas.

[Kelvin Mace]

173. Yes, that high tech"precision" ordinance has

eliminated collateral damage and the killing of innocents. Oh, wait...

I am having flashbacks to my arguments about waterboarding and how people told me it wasn't torture and how it would not open the door to worse abuses. It was and it did.

[hack89]

174. Nothing more precise then driving a robot up to a gunman

stop conflating what happened in Dallas to drone attacks from 10,000 feet. It is dishonest - no one is saying that is a reasonable solution to law enforcement in America.

[Kelvin Mace]

175. Again, flashbacks

"Stop saying that waterboarding a high value detainee who had critical intelligence (he didn't) that saved people's lives, is 'torture'. And saying that these enhanced interrogation techniques will lead to far worse abuses, including murder, is dishonest."

[hack89]

176. ok. nt

[Akicita]

177. Unless you think the killing of OBL was a muder.

[Kelvin Mace]

188. I was referring to Abu Ghraib

and the deaths of prisoners during "interrogation" at various "black sites".

But, now that you bring it up, I do consider OBL's death murder, since there was never any intention to bring him in alive. OBL alive would have meant a trial, and the last thing the US government wanted was OBL on the stand talking about his past association with the CIA and all that nice training, weapons and money he got from Reagan and Poppy Bush to wage a terror campaign against the Soviets.

Like Saddam, Marcos, The Shah, Pinochet, Duvalier, Noriega, et al, before he was an "evil monster who murdered his own people" he was one of OUR "evil monsters who murdered his own people".

[guillaumeb]

201. I would modify your response to:

stop conflating what happened in Dallas to drone attacks from 10,000 feet. It is dishonest - no one is saying at this point that is a reasonable solution to law enforcement in America.
But when the police or the military have a new killing toy, the tendency is to use that killing toy and justify the expense of the killing toy by increasing the type of situations where it is justified to use the killimg toy.

[Separation]

211. LOL actually an explosive expert will tell you exactly what its going to do.

Thats why they are called experts. This isnt 100 nitro thats been left in a shed behind bubba's house. This was what I believe they said was 1lb of C4.

[Kelvin Mace]

212. And

demolition experts use it all the time for controlled demolition of facilities they have inspected minutely over a long period of time and then set up carefully. Improvising on spur of the moment is far from ideal or safe.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. Why is it

that you can post everything except an answer?

How many more dead?

[guillaumeb]

51. Since you asked again, and politely, one dead officer is too many.

Now, which of your rights and liberties are you willing to relinquish if the police demand it?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. If one dead officer is too many

And there are already five dead officers, then you should be glad that they used the bomb to prevent more deaths.

And I'm not willing to give up rights and liberties if the police demand it, but this guy was. He chose to give up his liberty when he started firing on police officers and he chose to give up his rights when he refused to surrender.

He made bad choices all along the way, and I have zero problem with the police saving more of their own by taking him out in such a way that he didn't have an opportunity to kill anyone else.

[guillaumeb]

61. But this execution by police is merely one of many such executions.

And the more that the American public accepts this murder as necessary to protect, the more the tactics will escalate.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. None of the other police shootings

have been anything like this at all - if they had been, there wouldn't be such justifiable outrage over them.

That you would equate the death of Micah Johnson with the executions of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile does a great disservice to the memory those two innocent men.

[guillaumeb]

73. Google "Tamir Rice" and explain how the choice to execute Tamir

was substantively different. In each case the police decided not to wait and proceed right to the killing.

It is a mindset, and a common one among people who receive training in how to handle these situations.

Probably just a coincidence that all the victims I mentioned were black.

[Akicita]

129. They didn't merely do anything except take out somebody who needed to be taken out.

He was given his chance to surrender and was still exchanging gunfire after negotiations broke down.

[angstlessk]

160. You just don't get it!

If this sets a precedent, any time the police 'fear for their lives' they can send in a robot to blow you up wherever you are.

Like the police storm in to the wrong address 'machine' guns at the ready, now with this handy dandy robot, they can just send in the robot to blow the smithereens out of a 'suspect', and viola..no dead cops!!

One day being a cop will be the safest job in the universe!

[snot]

227. I listened to the Police Chief; here's what he said:

“We negotiated for about two hours . . . . I was planning a press conference; before I walked out the door, I said I want to plan when I come back from this press conference to end this, and I said use your creativeness to do it; when I got back, they presented to me . . . . ”

The sniper was holed up. They could have waited longer.

At a trial, the sniper might have had an insanity defense.

[TeddyR]

62. Do you have any examples of police

Waiting out someone who had just shot and killed multiple people and who claim to have planted bombs? None come to mind for me.

[Kelvin Mace]

74. Well, recently

http://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/live-latest-on-orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen/291303/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-swat-20160617-snap-story.html

[TeddyR]

82. Omar Mateen

Had hostages, and in any event I'm not sure blowing a hole in the side of the building, ramming it with a BearCat and then shooting Mateen is "waiting him out." Hell, they might have sent in a bomber robot there if they hadn't been worried about his hostages.

[Duckhunter935]

84. And people died while waiting him out

And they ended up going in anyway.

[Duckhunter935]

83. Well the first one, they waited a couple of hours

And wounded civilians died in that time. They then breached and killed the murderer. Not sure if explosives were used in that breach.

[snot]

228. Explosives were used in that breach.

As I understand, the transcripts indicate that most of the deaths occurred at the time the SWAT team went in.

In any case, the sniper in Dallas had no hostages.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

187. wow.

Emma Lazarus wrote a sonnet that became somewhat famous.

It contains, "Give me your tired, your poor, your down-trodden . . ."

What if a mentally ill person, off his/her meds is cornered by tired police? You want the police to kill that person because they were too ill to give themselves up, be arrested, and receive a trial?

That is sick. And dangerous.

[guillaumeb]

203. Wow, indeed.

But in what is arguably the most violent country on earth, is it any wonder that some people from both major parties cheer on the indiscriminate use of force by a hyper-militarized police who more and more look like an occupying army?

Many of the comments here could be made on the Free Republic site, and probably have been made.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

218. no kidding.

we have a constitution precisely to prevent police or authorities doing what they did.

Yes, shooting the police was totally reprehensible. Yes, he should have been caught and charged. If convicted, he should have been punished. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that some here have is really disheartening.

[guillaumeb]

12. When people are frightened it is easy to deprive them of their

rights by any fascist promising security. Getting those rights back is much harder.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. I'll just go off an bang my head on my desk

Because I already see people coming out to defend this.

[OnyxCollie]

108. They're the same people who defend the Holder doctrine.

You know, Democrats.

Big tent, and all.

[Kelvin Mace]

171. I also noticed a lot of the

Pro-HRC crowd support this type of behaviour.

[Igel]

182. Oddly, that sounds like what a lot of

the very extreme anti-gun-control people say.

Back up while making a four left turns and you wind up going all the way around the block and joining the other side, except that you wind up ass-backwards.

The problem with both views is that there are perfectly valid circumstances in which the rights can be limited without having the population deprived of them. It excludes the middle. (Hence calling that view "very extreme," which means "far from the middle.&quot

[malaise]

146. And some of these folks call themselves liberals

This was a new low down a dangerous road.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Once you do this, you open the door for drones to be armed

and all of a sudden Robocop is a documentary. What happens when they do this and innocent people die? Explosives are not very discriminating. Also, what happens when they set off a bomb and miss the gas line underneath?

[Akicita]

131. They did this to keep more innocent people from dying. He was still exchanging gunfire with police

and they couldn't safely get at him without the bomb.

[Mojorabbit]

142. I wonder if one of the sonic noise dohickeys they use at protests

would have been an option. It certainly has worked in crowds. I will hope that police will not become judge, jury, and executioners in the future.

[Akicita]

143. The shooter chose not to go the judicial route. It was offered to him. Instead he chose to die.

Once he made that decision, the police had to find the safest way to take him down without putting themselves or others in any more danger. They chose the bomb. Who knows if there were any other non lethal options that would pose no danger to others. That would be a good question for the chief.

Again the shooter made the choice against the judge and jury route. He wanted to shoot it out. The police decided not to play his game.

[Kelvin Mace]

165. They said they feared he had bombs of his own

They sent a bomb into to a guy with an unknown quantity of explosive.

[Igel]

183. I do believe the claim was that he had planted them.

Not necessarily carried them on his person.

Had he had them with him, the problem still remains: How do you rush a guy sitting on explosives without causing a lot of innocent deaths? You rush him from a distance.

That's what slingshots are good for. You hurl a rock, you don't have to be within arm's reach. Javelins and atl-atls? Arrows? Crossbows? We leverage the delivery of what can kill, find more efficient ways of "payload" delivery. Gun? You pull a switch and off goes that little piece of lead to do your bidding. Rifling makes targeting more accurate. Grenades? MOTS. More of the same.

[Gman]

117. That is a ridiculous question

You totally avoid the issue, you divert attention then force a false choice between police dying snd preservation of civil liberties. Given that choice I take civil liberties every single time. If you want to force a choice then that choice is that the police act on behalf of the government. Government has the power to take away rights as it did in Dallas. I choose civil liberties every time.

[matt819]

157. You're not asking the right question

How many police have to die on the first place before a suspect is extrajudicially killed? One? Three? What if the suspect had killed five civilians? Does killing civilians rise to the level of needing to kill s suspect who was no longer a threat? What if he had killed five rich white civilians? Poor blacks?

This incident might well be the definition of slippery slope.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Sniper rounds or gunfire is OK through.

Good riddance to that murderer.

[guillaumeb]

9. Let us just eliminate the courts and let the police handle it?

Is this your idea of American justice, or the effect of watching too many gun fighter movies?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. How many more dead?

And the shooter gave up his own rights by refusing to surrender.

[guillaumeb]

14. What is your legal basis for this novel theory?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. Why won't you answer the question?

How many more dead police officers would you have been willing to see in order to for the same outcome, i.e., dead shooter?
1? 2? 5? 8? more? What is the number?

[guillaumeb]

44. First, you are theorizing that there would have been more fatalities.

Second, there were options that the police deliberately decided not to use.

This is an example of the police making war using weapons of war against an American citizen.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. How many more dead? n/t

[lastone]

114. You are apparently a one trick pony

The theoretical that more people would die is not the point - the point is and has been that it sets a president and further grants police more power, the fucking problem is that. Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.

Good grief.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

145. It's a pretty simple question that could have been answered quickly

and therefore could have been asked once. But they didn't want to answer because they really didn't want to admit that killing as many cops as possible was a good trade for preserving Constitutional rights that Micah Johnson himself had chosen to forego by not surrendering.

Barring surrender, Micah Johnson was coming out of there dead; the only question was how many more people would die before he did. No one would have batted an eye had a sniper been able to take him out, preventing more loss of life, but because it was a robot, OMG, it's so scary, now they can use drones, blah, blah, blah.

The shooter didn't give a damn about his own rights, so why should anyone else have to die to preserve them for him?

[Duckhunter935]

13. He gave that up when after murdering, he CHOSE

Not to surrender.

[guillaumeb]

15. The police CHOSE to bypass the problem and expense of a trial,

and proceeded to an execution.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. How many more dead? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Gosh, I ask myself that question everytime

I read the police have killed someone else who posed no threat to them. Now this guy certainly did pose a threat, but he was contained. In every situation in the past they simply wait until the guys comes out shooting, or shoot him, or they wait for him to surrender, or they wait for him to end himself.

It's called their job, and if they are to afraid to do it legally they should become mall cops.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. The police murder of unarmed people is atrocious

but that's not the issue we're discussing.

If he comes out shooting, he's going to most likely kill more police officers before dying himself. Not worth the risk.

Dead is dead, by gunfire or bomb, and that death was the choice he made when he refused to surrender and continued to threaten more violence.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Yes, it is the issue we are discussing

because the police make mistakes ALL the time. And this just raises the stakes when they do.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. No, the issue is use of a robot and a bomb

to kill someone who would have otherwise ended up dead from gunfire, after taking out more cops.

How many more dead cops would it be worth to you for the same outcome?

[Kelvin Mace]

48. NO, it is the police using excessive force to accomplish something

that could have been accomplished by simply waiting. If he had been sitting back with his own bombs, just exactly how would they have prevented his ordinance from going off?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. How many more dead? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

54. Asked and answered.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. Sorry, I didn't see it

In which post did you answer how many more dead officers?

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8003252

[randome]

32. '...wait until the guy comes out shooting'? Are you serious?

You think cops should deliberately place themselves as targets in the hope that they will somehow be able to, what, shoot the guns out of his hands?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

33. So, the cops

are just standing around in the open instead of behind hard cover? You know, just chillaxing?

[randome]

37. So you've been in a firefight before and know that bullets never ricochet or go astray, right?

'Behind hard cover'. More late-night western TV nonsense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

45. So you know that explosives

is very precise and their is no chance of secondary explosions from other sources? No chance of a fire getting out of control?

[randome]

52. Of course there is. With every use of deadly force there is a chance that things will go wrong.

But we weren't on the scene. It was the Chief's call. We don't even need to agree or disagree with his call. We weren't there. But there is at the very least an understandable point of view when he decided to take the killer out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

55. But with a bomb the chance of it going wrong increase

and the resulting consequences are greater.

[randome]

67. I would hope that the cops weighed all the factors before going forward.

But, again, we weren't there so we don't know what kind of discussions occurred.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Kelvin Mace]

75. That excuse gets trotted out a lot

"You weren't there, so you can't judge".

By that logic, any crime committed out of site would be legal. You know, like the police and their constant predilection for killing black men.

[randome]

79. No, that is not at all what I'm saying.

I am saying that looking at the available evidence, it is at least understandable that the police decided to take out the killer. That is not the same as agreeing or disagreeing with their actions.

In other recent examples of police shootings, the available evidence points one to the opposite conclusion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[guillaumeb]

65. Google "Cliven Bundy" to see how police handle a white man possessing weapons

and threatening government officials.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Well, to be fair, this guy did kill people

The point is still relevant, but you are not going to get anyone on the other side to admit it.

[guillaumeb]

87. True. Bundy merely threatened government workers.

A felony offense, by the way. (From a retired government worker.)

And in the MOVE case, there was a deliberate police decision to eliminate a perceived threat by bombing them out. Drones will be the next military weapon to be used against American citizens in the "global/domestic war on terror".

[creeksneakers2]

121. The intent with MOVE

was to use a tactical device that was intended to smoke the MOVE members down to lower floors. Instead of doing that, the device started a fire. No fireman would risk going near the shoot out to put the fire out. In a previous MOVE incident a fireman was shot and killed. So the fire consumed the entire building and the rest of the block too.

There was no intent to just bomb them out.

[TeddyR]

91. I'll admit this point is relevant

Because people on this message board were calling for the cops to assault Bundy and the others for occupying federal land, regardless of the consequences. But Bundy and his group hadn't actually killed anyone, and I think the outrage was primarily related to the fact that Bundy is a right wing idiot. But the shooter in Dallas had killed people, and apparently wanted to kill more. Cops aren't obligated to put themselves at risk to prevent the death of a murderer, and if this guy was really innocent all he had to do was surrender and make himself available for a trial. He decided to pass on that option and ended up dead. There are many instances of police killing someone prematurely or killing someone they shouldn't have killed at all, but this just isn't one of those cases.

[FSogol]

24. Too bad you weren't there to go in and read the shooter his rights.

[Akicita]

133. The guy was dangerous and choes not to surrender. The police offered him the chance to surrender and

he chose to die. They just didn't give him an opportunity to take any more with him and apparently you don't think that is fair.

[Igel]

184. There's the same objection every time a suspect points a gun at somebody.

Your choice in that situation, if you're armed, is to shoot or try to disable the guy--that may mean killing him. What do you call the man who stabs a guy with a gun? Dead.

The choice is to shoot the guy or let him kill you. If you shoot him, you take away the right to a trial. You expunge the judiciary from the circumstances. The alternative is that he takes away your right to life.

The problem is that many feel and believe that cops have no rights. They have no families. They have no children. They're tokens to be moved around, and if they die, meh. They're cops. Hire another, just don't let somebody important die without the full panoply of due process. We sort of deny that they're people.

He had the Dylann Roof route. People get upset that Roof was peacefully taken into custody. But the video shows he was peaceful. Johnson could have gone that way, probably being a bit manhandled but quite likely not killed or even maimed. He didn't. Let's not deny him the personhood that allowed him to make that choice.

[840high]

29. ...!100++++

[Travis_0004]

25. Thats generally the plan with an active shooter.

I didn't see any judges lining up outside the parking garage to go read the guy his rights.

[guillaumeb]

35. The law professors quoted in the article disagree with you.

SO you agree that the Justice system should be eliminated in favor of trial by police?

Frightening.

[Travis_0004]

49. No.

I'm fine with the police taking out an active shooter. If he was surrendering, I would be against killing him.

[guillaumeb]

57. Is a person surrounded and trapped in a building an immediate threat?

Were the MOVE members in Philadelphia an active threat?

Were Cliven Bundy and the white militia members an active threat?

The first two cases ended with the death of the black suspect(s).

The third case involved white people.

[Travis_0004]

66. I was unaware that Cliven bundy killed 5 people.

[Egnever]

126. Someone died in the bundy nonsense

Don't forget tarpman. He was a white guy.
Just sayin.

[Akicita]

134. How about Waco? Lots and lots of white people were killed there by law enforcement. More than your

Two examples combined.

[Akicita]

132. Didn't the shooter himself eliminate the courts and force the police to handle it by refusing to

surrender?

[treestar]

167. you're skipping over the fact that he

had not given himself up for arrest. They were unable to arrest him. He was resisting that and continued to be an active threat.

[mythology]

194. At some point people can make it clear to a majority of people

That they don't want to make it out alive. It's easy to sit here now and say there had to be another way, but what you fail to realize is that you lack the tactical knowledge, or the information the police had in that moment, along with their responsibility to make an accurate judgement. You want to claim some ability to make what you consider to be the correct decision, but you aren't even remotely aware of what would go into it.

That's why you have to use hysterical overwrought cries of this being something that will do away with courts. Your argument simply isn't a serious argument. It's basically blaming the cops for not being Batman.

[guillaumeb]

198. A simplistic misrepresentation of my point.

The police chose to kill the suspect. A suspect who was trapped and remote from other people. The police have chosen in many other instances to kill rather than use alternate methods. Generally they appear to make this choice when the suspect is non-white.

Simply because you cannot imagine yourself as suspect or responding officer does not change what happened. And, at least in theory, the police are trained for situations like this. Where was that training? This was, in my view, a police department that was frightened and angry and the decision was made to kill rather than use alternate methods.

[Historic NY]

22. I support the Chief.....

I've heard his explanation the situation on the use of "deadly force". This robot is the same one that would remove a bomb or be called on to go in outfitted with cameras.

Use of force continuum.

Active aggressor – a person who does not follow verbal commands, resists attempts by the officer to take positive physical control over them and attempts to cause harm to the officer or others. This guy wasn't going to come out without taking more officers with him.

[guillaumeb]

64. No need for a trial. Go directly to the execution.

Very sad. Blade Runner is here, as is 1984.

[Historic NY]

123. He did give the DART officer a chance.........

10 officers down & 5 dead..........and you say its Blade Runner.

[Akicita]

135. You don't get it. He was offered a trial. HE chose to die.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Good robot. Polish it, and give it the rest of the week off.

[guillaumeb]

70. You might change your mind if/when the robot knocks at your door.

Or your neighbor's door.

[TheCowsCameHome]

148. Better yet, make it a sergeant.

[randome]

26. 'Robot'? LOL! A gun is just as much of a 'robot': you push a button and someone's dead.

Where is the difference?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[jamese777]

68. Guns don't have independent movement abilities n/t

[randome]

72. Neither did the bomb delivery system. It was remotely controlled.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Akicita]

136. Self propelled artillery does. They are just big guns.

[rollin74]

38. next time let these "legal experts" read the gunman his rights & cuff him

Chief Brown made the right call IMO

[PlanetaryOrbit]

41. Doesn't the suspect have to sleep at some point?

He can't stay awake forever. At some point, the cops could catch him dozing.

[randome]

59. 'Catch him' dozing? You mean like sneak in very quietly, break down the door and tiptoe to his side?

I don't see that as very feasible.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[guillaumeb]

80. No sense waiting.

Proceed right to the execution.

Sad the number of responders at a Democratic site who are willing to freely trade essential liberties for the illusion of security. Can anyone doubt that armed drones will be the next tactic/weapon of choice in the war between the 1% and the other 99% of US citizens?

[elias7]

147. First you play the race card, now the "no good democrat" card

Argue your point, but understand what you're arguing. This had nothing to do with race, and all to do about this particular situation. There is no comparison to Bundy except for a most tenuous thread, and to use these completely different situations to make this a racial issue is a straw grasp at best.

[randr]

77. This issue is at the crux of the whole problem

Police do not have the legal or moral authority to be judge, jurer, and executioner. They have been playing out these roles, especially when black citizens are involved, with impunity. The assumption that police have authority to "take out" a suspect has got to come to an end.

[guillaumeb]

88. A prize winning and very succinct answer.

But so far we are in the minority on this post.

[X_Digger]

105. Police (and you, and me) have every legal and moral authority..

.. to use force, even lethal force, to prevent imminent grave bodily injury or death to ourselves or others.

[randr]

120. Iminent threat is a convenient excuse far too often

The Bundy crowd posed a great iminent threat. Maybe a bomb would have been justified?

[X_Digger]

151. You have a guy who's shot 11 people, killing 5, holed up with a gun, continuing to shoot at you..

.. who says that he has explosives planted around the same area where you have civilians sheltered in place..

He continues to tell you that he's going to shoot more cops, and that he's going to explode his bombs and take out more folks.


If you, on reflection, don't consider that an imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death, then I have to question your sincerity or your thinking.

[randr]

153. My question would have been how long he would have been able to hole up

before he ran out of ammo and water.
Granted this man may have been armed with the threatened bomb and he is the ultimate test of police negotiation technique; it is our willingness not to question police actions of quick trigger responses to go unquestioned time and time again that disturb me.
The acceptance of this procedure opens the door for our officers to assume they can use this whenever they feel a certain level of threat, be it justified or out of their own prejudiced based fears.

[X_Digger]

154. So wait to see if he really does have explosives planted around?

And if another person had been killed in that explosive?

Oh well, now we know he wasn't bluffing.


Again, I have to question your thinking or your sincerity.

[randr]

156. Did law enforcement officers in the Bundy standoff

wait to see if anyone of the many weapons aimed at them would go off?

[X_Digger]

161. Oh, had they actually shot someone? I must've missed that. What was the body count?

Yes, dear, an apple isn't like an orange.

[randr]

169. Ok, so you are saying that once a person commits a crime and before

their due process the police are permitted to execute them?
An imminent threat is a crime yet to be committed. I understand the level of emotion in this situation and it may, must may, justify the actions taken. My beef is that we allow this justification in far too many cases, especially against minority citizens.

[X_Digger]

179. I'm saying that ACTUALLY KILLING FIVE PEOPLE lends itself to 'imminent grave bodily injury'.

When someone who has killed five people and shot eleven, and continues to shoot at people- when that person claims to have planted bombs that they're ready to detonate?

Yes, that's an imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death to themselves or others.

Fucking duh.

If you can't see that, I have to question your ability to reason.

[randr]

216. The situation at the time of blowing up

the shooter had deescalated to the point that they had a negotiation team in place. We will not know the exact circumstances for a while, if ever. The permissive attitude of our culture is the only reason anyone of us consider this behavoir acceptable

[X_Digger]

217. You're misinformed. He was continuing to shoot at the negotiators.

He had not 'deescalated' in the least.

[Akicita]

138. Do you not understand that the shooter chose not to use the legal system even though it was offered

to him. He chose to die instead. He was hoping to take a few more cops with him but the police prevented that by using a bomb.

Again, He chose not to go the judicial route.

[randr]

155. There are people every day who are in a dire health condition

and choose to resist medical attention. What choice do you want your doctor to make if you were to be so deranged?
Medical professionals are trained to treat the living patient first and deal with mental conditions when the healing has begun.
I would choose to live in a society where human life is valued, mental illness is recognized, and our protectors and caregivers have a sense of morality to care for us all equally.

[Akicita]

159. If the person is resisting medical attention with automatic weapons I seriously doubt any medical

professional would try to treat him anyway. Especially if he had just killed 5 other medical professionals. Good luck trying to find a society where that would happen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

190. what a crock. There is no "choice" to use

the criminal legal system. It exists. It is what it is. It is slow, inefficient, ponderous, and frustrating. But it is so because of the inherent protections for one and all, even the guilty. This was murder.

When you have police act as judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner all in one, it sure speeds things up, but it is unconstitutional as hell, and dangerous for all people.

Do police ever make mistakes? If so, you want them armed with robots and drones that will kill you? I mean you personally, because you will be at an increased risk ever since they pulled that move in Dallas.

[randr]

226. Thank you

[Pacifist Patriot]

214. I'm surprised...

at the number of people who don't see this as problematic.

[merrily]

78. Not to worry?

In one speech, the Dallas police chief said his department was not going to militarize.

In another speech, he reported that "news" of the suspect's suicide was incorrect and that a bomb had been attached to a drone and used to kill the suspect.



As an aside, who first reported that the suspect had killed himself and why did he or she report that?

[guillaumeb]

89. Not to worry.

So far these tactics are generally used against non-whites. But that will change.

I do not know the answer to your question. Perhaps a news source eager for a scoop?

[merrily]

96. If a reporter cannot tell the difference between a bomb going off and a gunshot,

that reporter should at least know to STFU or find a new career

Supposedly, people tend to believe and remember the first thing they heard. Ever notice that, when government releases news, then issues a correction, the correction is worse news than the initial release? I have a diner rule: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037667

[guillaumeb]

98. Agreed on the "diner rule". eom

[Igel]

189. Don't see the militarization.

It was a bomb disposal robot. They have manipulator arms. If the attachment can pick up and carry a bomb to a disposal vessel it can pick up and carry a bomb.

If the bomb goes off as the robot's carrying it, aside from it's the same in both this "militarized" and the typical "non-militarized" situation. The only difference was that in this case the bomb didn't go off by accident, on a timer, or because a would-be terrorist triggered it, but because the cops pushed the button.

If a bomb disposal robot is militarization, please, volunteer for the bomb squad at your local police headquarters. These things eliminate unnecessary risk. (But then again, for many when it comes to cops the cops are the unnecessary risk. UvT. Us versus them.)

[Warpy]

92. A lot of people here on DU have been asking the same question

I find the basic question to be whether deadly force was required in this case. Since he'd killed 5 people and was still firing and trying to kill more, deadly force was indicated.

Relying on a police sharpshooter might have resulted in more lives lost during a prolonged standoff..

Police departments have been using drones/robots for a long time, mostly in bomb location and disposal. Using one against a suspect feels like military escalation to me, too, but in this case, it might have saved the lives of both cops and civilians in the area.

[guillaumeb]

97. The key word is "might".

But the police decided that rather than use incapacitating gas it was preferable to simply kill the suspect.

Drones will be the next, inevitable, indiscriminate weapon to be used if the American people accept this further militarization of the police into an occupying force.

[Akicita]

139. The key to me is that the shooter was offered the judicial route. He chose the deadly force route

instead.

[egduj]

94. Drones have been summarily executing people without trial for years now.

But let it happen one time on U.S. soil, and boy does it start puckering some assholes.

[guillaumeb]

100. As Bob Dylan wrote:

bringing the war back home.

Wait until they start using this weapon on white people.

[Akicita]

140. If a white person cowardly ambushes and kills five people I don't think anybody will mind if he is

taken out by a bomb if he refuses the judicial route.

[Kelvin Mace]

101. It will, and this is the first step toward that very situation

[Igel]

191. I suspect it's not the case that it was used on US soil.

I suspect the case is that it was used by police against a certain type of suspect.

One side's always wrong and has no rights, the other side is always right and has only rights.

Arguing against such isn't for the purpose of persuading him but to point out flaws and problems for others to see. It's more a public debating strategy aimed at the audience than an attempt to persuade the other debater.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Using explosives to take out a "dangerous" criminal? What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html?pagewanted=all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

Now, everyone will start telling how these situations are TOTALLY different. Maybe, but this eventually will lead to the other AGAIN, unless we put a stop to it now.

Sadly, people are just happy to do whatever the police tell them. As long it keeps them safe.

[guillaumeb]

102. Yes, as I mentioned in my post, MOVE is the precedent for this.

When you said:

Sadly, people are just happy to do whatever the police tell them. As long it keeps them safe.

it is the illusion of safety. No one is really safe from a shooter. The NRA fantasy of an armed populace responding to a dangerous situation was revealed as the ridiculous lie that it is.

[Kelvin Mace]

104. In the MOVE bombing

people lost their jobs and the city government was sued. This time everyone is cool with it because only a "bad guy" died. Next time, or the time after that we won't be so lucky.

[Akicita]

141. Don't forget Waco.

[Daemonaquila]

103. Thanks for posting.

I'm sorry so many people here feel so casual about constitutional rights when they're inconvenient. The constitution only matters if it applies to people you don't like as well as to those you do.

[struggle4progress]

106. Legal rights apply whenever there is a reasonable presumption

that the issues can be brought before the courts

This presumption might be appropriately set aside for a limited period of time under certain circumstances

It would clearly be inappropriate to employ deadly force against (say) a person suspected only of littering or jaywalking -- although there seems to be good reason to believe deadly force is regularly and inappropriately employed in cases where there is little or no evidence of serious crime or threat

But deadly force might reasonably be employed to secure the capture of a non-cooperative person suspected deadly crimes, such as serial murder, when further mayhem seems a probable result of non-capture

I see no reason to ask police to value their own lives less than I value my own. I expect most are honest civil servants, working under very stressful circumstances. Although a certain fraction of the police seem to suffer from racism, sadism, or similar personality disorders, the proper reaction is to remove those officers from the profession, rather than to stereotype the entire group

[mwrguy]

107. Killer cops kill people

Birds fly, fish swim.

[2naSalit]

109. I would have been okay with

the use of a robot to deliver maybe a strong sedative in a gaseous form, perhaps, to put him to sleep so they could approach him and arrest him and he could wake up in custody. Outright assassination was crossing the line and then some.

That being said, I don't approve of drone warfare nor do I approve of war and I certainly don't approve of the "guns and killing are the only answer" mentality.

[X_Digger]

111. Knockout gases are mostly a hollywood invention. (Especially in an open air place.)

Any gas that would quickly incapacitate someone in an open air space would likely kill or main them- think chlorine or mustard gas.

[63splitwindow]

115. And...

the robots are often used to detonate suspicious packages so it's use here, in the manner done, was probably immediately available. Kind of important when a guy is actively killing people and actually telling them he will be continuing to kill as many as he could.

[63splitwindow]

110. Bullshit...

that law school is in San Diego, CA, and is and was one of those schools you paid to go to if you couldn't get accepted elsewhere. Now she has her website and the gigs it generates.

Take a look at her website: http://marjoriecohn.com/

[pnwmom]

112. Thanks for furthering an important discussion, guillaumeb. n/t

[Lancero]

113. Should police have waited out Omar Manteen when he threatened to strap bomb vests to hostages?

Negotiations were attempted. Neither were receptive to them. Both threatened to blow things up. The police decided to act in a attempt to prevent further casualties. Where was the outrage then?

Armed drone, armed officer... Doesn't matter how the person was killed. They're still dead, and the police refused to wait either out.

So why people outraged over this shooter being neutralized, but not the other?

[fbc]

116. It wasn't a robot

It was more like a bomb on a radio controlled car.

People should be more concerned about the bomb part rather than the robot part in my opinion.

[63splitwindow]

122. The bomb part is commonly used to blow up suspicious packages--- no? nt

[fbc]

168. Yes, and in this case they used it on a human

[Rex]

118. Can't put the Robo-cop back in the bottle.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

[Hugin]

137. Just wait until the 'bad guys' start using drones.

Then, I'll give you two dollars and this whole thread will look totally different. I'll betcha.

This was an especially shocking escalation.

[Igel]

193. Of course.

But it's already different.

The claim is the police should have shot the guy. That would have been okay, I guess.

I suspect that the reaction would be entirely different if the killer had used a gun. If the "bad guys" use the same means as the police, the reaction would be different because, well, we're just all biased towards police. In fact, it's just tit-for-tat, and to be expected. Nothing wrong with it. I mean, same means of violence, so there shouldn't be any difference in reaction, right?

Yeah. It would be an escalation. But bad guys already use bombs against good guys. They just haven't figured out to mount them on something like this yet:

In a sense, it's cops catching up with civilians.

Notice that all over the country there are middle- and high-school robotics clubs. They have to do more complicated tasks--pick up things, go up ramps. sense colors and push buttons, so they use more expensive, more general-use hardware, but that's only a matter of degree. They have two types of trials to put their bots through: (1) in autonomous mode the teens program the bot to go in a certain direction for a certain amount of time or wheel rotations, turn a specific angle, and continue. They have the course map and basically encode the map in the program they run; (2) they control them using a cell phone and a joy stick or on-screen glide-pad. My kid plays with and helps build bots using off-the-shelf tech that makes the police bot look obsolete, and he's in 7th grade this fall.

Most explosives are banned. Some can be made at home and those can't be banned. Then there are things like thermite, using red iron oxide and aluminum powder (with typically a magnesium strip to get the reaction going). If you can't buy the stuff, get a file and make your own red rust powder and aluminum filings. ("We must ban all iron and all aluminum!" Yeah, now let me tell you about the copper-based explosives, if people are so hot for returning to the Chalcolithic.) Thermite can take out tanks, burn through concrete. My friend and I in high school (we liked making explosives) put a fairly deep hole in a sidewalk his father had poured a month before. Guy didn't swear, but when he came home and saw the mini-crater in his sidewalk he made an exception.

Militarized ...

[bluestateguy]

119. The concerns are fair and valid, BUT this was an exceptional scenario

The key is to keep it that way, such that such robots are not used for more routine crimes.

[Binkie The Clown]

125. Next Step: Flying Robots (A.K.A. "Drones") n/t

[romanic]

127. Using the robot was the right decision.

The police had no choice, Micah was a danger to everyone in the immediate area. If a sniper or a Swat barged in who knows how many more cops would die before Micah did.

[Matrosov]

130. What difference does the method make?

Sad the number of responders at a Democratic site who are so evidently willing to freely trade essential liberties for the illusion of security.

What liberties? Not to be killed while trying to kill people? Omar Mateen was shot and killed instead of blown up. Was his right to due process violated as well? If not, why is it alright to shoot and kill active threats but sending a robot after them is not alright?

Mica Johnson told the police he was going to kill more of them and threatened that he had explosive devices all over the city. They were searching his home at the time and found bomb making materials, so they took his threat seriously. He needed to be stopped immediately. They gave him the option to surrender or else. He said he wasn't going to surrender. At that point he essentially gave up his opportunity for his day in court.

[Stinky The Clown]

149. ^^^This^^^

To the OP, the reasons (well) articulated directly above by Matrosov is also what I believe. Like millions, I was watching this on the tv as it unfolded. This was a use of deadly force that made sense, in my view, legally, morally, and tactically.

Just as an example, I've heard we should have waited him out. But think about that. He said he had bombs planted, ready to detonate remotely. He was in a position that commanded the field of sight - he could shoot before attackers could. So should we have waited for his bombs to go off or should we have sent in a phalanx of cops to be shot to death?

This guy was bent on killing and destruction and had already acted on that bent.Stopping him by any means was the short term goal for police.

To the OP again: what would you be discussing if he was shot dead by a sniper instead of the way he died?

[kentuck]

150. Army surplus...

..and the continued militarization of our local police forces.

[riversedge]

152. It was and is a slippery slope to go with its use. Like all new technologes, there is what

is called the 'technological imperative" --if it is invented, it will be use. (a dramatic case would be the nuke bomb--hard to pull back on its use entirely.).

[guillaumeb]

221. More weapons designed for war and given to police

departments all over the country. Like small towns with tanks and armored vehicles. The constant war is coming here.

[Moostache]

158. For those who cling to the idea that the shooter "had his chance to surrender"...

Do you also believe that Rodney King "had his chance to surrender"?
Did it make the actions of the LA PD "no problem" when they beat the teeth out of his head for trying to stand up?

How many dead police would be OK? Zero is "OK", but the correct answer is as many as necessary to protect the rights of the American people and citizens under their jurisdiction. They wear uniforms for a reason. They are granted rights well beyond ordinary citizens for the same reason.

The police are the police, not a death panel or kill squad empowered to kill by any means necessary. They are not the Contras or Khamir Rouge. A holed-up shooter that had no means of escape was executed without trial. That should give anyone pause and there should be tough questions to answer after the grieving in Dallas.

This national excusing of abhorrent police behavior is a disturbing trend, but to see it so deeply ingrained here at DU is heartbreaking. It is NOT a celebration or support of criminality to demand that police follow the law in their duties.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

192. bravo, or brava, as it fits.

You hit the nail on the head . . . without the need for a bomb-toting robot.

[Igel]

195. You're not Johnson.

He's not the "American people and citizens." He was assaulting American people and citizens. He killed, he said he wanted to kill, he said he'd continue killing. He was armed, and during negotiations there was more fire exchanged. He, it turned out, plotted and planned this. He made additional threats. And he was a raving racist that made most KKKers look like good guys.

If that's the typical American citizen, please, I want to go to a civilized, low-violence country like South Sudan or Syria.

[Loki Liesmith]

178. It's barely a robot

It's a remote control toy car with an arm.

I see no qualitative difference between this and a police sniper rifle. Both are simply devices being used to target a bad actor at range.

[LWolf]

180. An alarm should be raised. nt

[Lil Missy]

185. Neutralizing him, even if it meant killing or bombing him, was the right thing to do.

I am behind the Police killing of this jackass 100%

[guillaumeb]

220. Two words. Due process.

There was none. This was killing just as the officers were killed.

[Lil Missy]

230. He was an immediate threat to others. He wasn't entitled to due process.

[guillaumeb]

231. He was isolated and surrounded. eom

[Lil Missy]

235. And threatening to detonate bombs. Time to kill the fucker before he kills someone else.

[NCTraveler]

186. K&R. nt.

[msanthrope]

196. You cannot both flee justice and claim it. The sniper learned that. nt

[guillaumeb]

199. As did Laquan McDonald when he was shot 16 times by police?

Your simplistic quote makes every fleeing suspect immediately subject to the death penalty.

[msanthrope]

208. Um, no. Only a simplistic an unlawerly reading of the law would conflate fleeing

from the cops and fleeing from Justice.

[guillaumeb]

210. A legal question?

But before I ask the question, what are your rates?

The question, assuming you are doing this pro bono, is:

Is fleeing from the police an offense punishable by the death penalty?

And is a trapped, stationary suspect still considered fleeing?

That is actually two questions so I hope that you have a reduced rate for seniors.

[msanthrope]

213. Answer: you aren't asking the right questions.

You are asking hypotheticals when you have an actual case right in front of you.

By the time the bomb was used our sniper had demonstrated a rather honed ability to kill law enforcement at both long and very short range....I assume you've seen the relevant video of his shooting a cop at close quarters. The sniper also claimed to be able to remote detonate bombs.

Given the facts as we know them, and not your hypotheticals, how would you build a case against the Dallas Police for use of excessive force, or other improper conduct?

[guillaumeb]

219. I cannot build a case, but

in every situation there are options. In this case:

1) The alleged sniper was stationary, surrounded, in a structure. There was minimal risk of flight.

2) The police undergo training, sometimes intensive training, in how to deal with extraordinary situations. This was not a group of random, armed,Texas open-carry types. These were/are trained officers.

3) These officers had a range of options from which they could have chosen, including incapacitating gas, LRADs,and other non-lethal methods.

4) Given the range of options, the Dallas PD deliberately chose to use the most lethal.

5) My feeling is that the Dallas PD was so angered by the shootings that it was this anger that triggered a "get even" response.

6) What you, and some other commenters here, have not done is truly acknowledge that there was a range of choices and options.

7) "The bombs" were also a hypothetical.


But I did ask if the very act of fleeing from a police officer is a death penalty offense. Perhaps you forgot?

[msanthrope]

222. Well...you just lost the argument with your first 5 words. Thank you. nt

[guillaumeb]

223. And you avoided a chance to actually engage.

Perhaps you should offer instead to debate the two law professors quoted in the article, or write your own footnoted scholarly article defending this murder by police.

But once again, you avoided my previous question, and the opportunity to enlighten presented by my points.

PS. My first 5 words were a reference to your earlier comment about "Google lawyers".

[msanthrope]

224. You just did my job for me. Part of being a great lawyer is accepting victory and walking away. nt

[guillaumeb]

225. Humble and infallible.

We shall see how, and if, you defend the next police usage of military weapons and tactics against a civilian population. Tactics that represent a complete abdication on the part of the police of any form of due process or respect for rights.

This episode. like My Lai, like the MOVE massacre in Philadelphia, represent a complete breakdown by trained forces charged with preserving order and a descent into revenge killing.

[OregonBlue]

197. I have no problem with the police killing him. The use of a robot was way too far.

They could have surrounded the area he was in and waited him out. No one would need to be in danger.
It is not okay to use military tactics and hardware on civilians. Period.

[HassleCat]

202. Of course it's OK!

You don't do exactly as the police instruct, you deserve to die.

[guillaumeb]

204. So all of these people murdered by the police

deserved to die? That is a frightening comment that replaces the judicial system, or reduces it to an officer with a weapon.

This might win the prize, so far, for the most ridiculous comment.

[HassleCat]

207. The policeman is your friend!

He is there to protect you. If you refuse to cooperate, you will be shot. For your own protection, of course.

[guillaumeb]

209. Sorry. I missed the sarcasm. eom

[On the Road]

205. So the Author is Saying:

1 -- The police could have found those bombs anyway despite the lack of evidence that was possible.

2 -- The shooter should not have been killed despite having killed multiple police officers, refused to surrender, holed himself up, and threatened to kill more.

Those are not particularly good reasons.

[guillaumeb]

206. Did you read both articles that were cited?

If so, what specifically do you disagree with, because your points do not reflect what the author said. Or my editorial comments.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

229. Why is this different from being shot by a sniper?

Yeah, I get the slippery slope thing, but isn't it really the same thing.

In one instance you have a man behind a scope, and in another instance you have a man pushing a button on a remote control device.

[guillaumeb]

232. The technical aspects are different, but the result is the same.

The suspect is deliberately killed by an agency of the Court with no due process.

The decision was made to kill the suspect. There were other options, non-lethal options, options that are used by police departments every day. But the Dallas Police made the decision to be judge, jury, and executioner.

And this is yet another example of the increasing militarization of the police. Are the police already an occupying army whose job is to control the enemy?

[Adrahil]

233. Meh. This dude deserved to be blowed up.

I have a hard time mustering any concern for a murderer in the act of murdering.

[guillaumeb]

234. How about concern for the concept of due process?

And a militarized police force using military weapons against civilians? Any concern about these things?

I remember film of the Russian Army invading Czechoslovakia with tanks.

[The Green Manalishi]

236. IMHO no moral difference between this and a sniper shot

The context needs review *ANYTIME* a life is taken by the state, but no more so than with a sniper or any other police shooting of a citizen.

The author has a good point about precedent, but is wrong that any NEW rights were violated compared to any other way that the police kill someone.

[guillaumeb]

237. Slowly encroaching police state.

Put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out. Put it in warm water and slowly raise the temperature............

And make no mistake, this is a surveillance state that is using more violence to deal with problem citizens.

PS. A sniper shot would equally be a violation of due process.

[The Green Manalishi]

239. Equally, that is my only point

This unit is not really a 'robot' in the sense that it has programming or decision making capability; now *that* would be something new.

[Mc Mike]

238. Could have had flash bang and gas grenades.

[guillaumeb]

240. Or, as I pointed out, LRADs.

There are and were non-lethal methods.

[Mc Mike]

241. You're right. Good o.p. Recommended. nt.