General Discussion

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

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

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 08:10 AM

Jul 2016

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.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

241 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] guillaumeb Jul 2016 OP

How many more dead police SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #2

You didn't answer my question SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #7

Of course it's a question SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Jul 2016 #124

yep . . . n/t annabanana Jul 2016 #181

People can't get rid of their rights fast enough Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #6

Actually the shooter gave up his own rights SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #8

The police had the option of waiting him out Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #17

If you listened to the police chief SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #20

How was he a danger? Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #21

Obviously you didn't listen to the police chief SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #27

Using explosives put MORE lives in danger Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #30

No, using the explosives didn't put more lives in danger SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #34

Any explosives expert will tell you that you can't always predict what explosives will do Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #42

Gunfire wasn't occurring when the robot went in SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #46

As many as it takes to do their job legally. Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #53

Thanks for the answers SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #63

Thankfully Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #85

Serious question TeddyR Jul 2016 #69

A sniper and even an armored car is a more Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #81

Ok, perhaps TeddyR Jul 2016 #86

The point is that this sets a dangerous precedent Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #90

I actually don't remember the 85 bombings TeddyR Jul 2016 #93

And certainly that can be argued Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #99

Yes. Soldiers use hand grenades in urban warfare, which are bombs. Akicita Jul 2016 #128

A "brick of C-4" Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #163

A sniper needs a clear line of sight ... Straw Man Jul 2016 #144

They call in air support Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #162

In urban warfare they use massive fire power to take out snipers hack89 Jul 2016 #166

CS gas. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #200

CS gas? Straw Man Jul 2016 #215

That robot with a small charge was discriminating. hack89 Jul 2016 #164

The "robot" was not autonomous Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #170

I am very familiar with C-4 as are the cops hack89 Jul 2016 #172

Yes, that high tech"precision" ordinance has Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #173

Nothing more precise then driving a robot up to a gunman hack89 Jul 2016 #174

Again, flashbacks Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #175

ok. nt hack89 Jul 2016 #176

Unless you think the killing of OBL was a muder. Akicita Jul 2016 #177

I was referring to Abu Ghraib Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #188

I would modify your response to: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #201

LOL actually an explosive expert will tell you exactly what its going to do. Separation Jul 2016 #211

And Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #212

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #39

Why is it SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #43

Since you asked again, and politely, one dead officer is too many. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #51

If one dead officer is too many SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #56

But this execution by police is merely one of many such executions. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #61

None of the other police shootings SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #71

Google "Tamir Rice" and explain how the choice to execute Tamir guillaumeb Jul 2016 #73

They didn't merely do anything except take out somebody who needed to be taken out. Akicita Jul 2016 #129

You just don't get it! angstlessk Jul 2016 #160

I listened to the Police Chief; here's what he said: snot Jul 2016 #227

Do you have any examples of police TeddyR Jul 2016 #62

Well, recently Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #74

Omar Mateen TeddyR Jul 2016 #82

And people died while waiting him out Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #84

Well the first one, they waited a couple of hours Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #83

Explosives were used in that breach. snot Jul 2016 #228

wow. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #187

Wow, indeed. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #203

no kidding. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #218

When people are frightened it is easy to deprive them of their guillaumeb Jul 2016 #12

I'll just go off an bang my head on my desk Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #19

They're the same people who defend the Holder doctrine. OnyxCollie Jul 2016 #108

I also noticed a lot of the Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #171

Oddly, that sounds like what a lot of Igel Jul 2016 #182

And some of these folks call themselves liberals malaise Jul 2016 #146

Once you do this, you open the door for drones to be armed Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #4

They did this to keep more innocent people from dying. He was still exchanging gunfire with police Akicita Jul 2016 #131

I wonder if one of the sonic noise dohickeys they use at protests Mojorabbit Jul 2016 #142

The shooter chose not to go the judicial route. It was offered to him. Instead he chose to die. Akicita Jul 2016 #143

They said they feared he had bombs of his own Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #165

I do believe the claim was that he had planted them. Igel Jul 2016 #183

That is a ridiculous question Gman Jul 2016 #117

You're not asking the right question matt819 Jul 2016 #157

Sniper rounds or gunfire is OK through. Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #3

Let us just eliminate the courts and let the police handle it? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #9

How many more dead? SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #11

What is your legal basis for this novel theory? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #14

Why won't you answer the question? SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #16

First, you are theorizing that there would have been more fatalities. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #44

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #47

You are apparently a one trick pony lastone Jul 2016 #114

It's a pretty simple question that could have been answered quickly SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #145

He gave that up when after murdering, he CHOSE Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #13

The police CHOSE to bypass the problem and expense of a trial, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #15

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #18

Gosh, I ask myself that question everytime Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #28

The police murder of unarmed people is atrocious SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #31

Yes, it is the issue we are discussing Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #36

No, the issue is use of a robot and a bomb SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #40

NO, it is the police using excessive force to accomplish something Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #48

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #50

Asked and answered. Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #54

Sorry, I didn't see it SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #58

Here Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #60

'...wait until the guy comes out shooting'? Are you serious? randome Jul 2016 #32

So, the cops Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #33

So you've been in a firefight before and know that bullets never ricochet or go astray, right? randome Jul 2016 #37

So you know that explosives Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #45

Of course there is. With every use of deadly force there is a chance that things will go wrong. randome Jul 2016 #52

But with a bomb the chance of it going wrong increase Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #55

I would hope that the cops weighed all the factors before going forward. randome Jul 2016 #67

That excuse gets trotted out a lot Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #75

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. randome Jul 2016 #79

Google "Cliven Bundy" to see how police handle a white man possessing weapons guillaumeb Jul 2016 #65

Well, to be fair, this guy did kill people Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #76

True. Bundy merely threatened government workers. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #87

The intent with MOVE creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #121

I'll admit this point is relevant TeddyR Jul 2016 #91

Too bad you weren't there to go in and read the shooter his rights. FSogol Jul 2016 #24

The guy was dangerous and choes not to surrender. The police offered him the chance to surrender and Akicita Jul 2016 #133

There's the same objection every time a suspect points a gun at somebody. Igel Jul 2016 #184

...!100++++ 840high Jul 2016 #29

Thats generally the plan with an active shooter. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #25

The law professors quoted in the article disagree with you. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #35

No. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #49

Is a person surrounded and trapped in a building an immediate threat? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #57

I was unaware that Cliven bundy killed 5 people. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #66

Someone died in the bundy nonsense Egnever Jul 2016 #126

How about Waco? Lots and lots of white people were killed there by law enforcement. More than your Akicita Jul 2016 #134

Didn't the shooter himself eliminate the courts and force the police to handle it by refusing to Akicita Jul 2016 #132

you're skipping over the fact that he treestar Jul 2016 #167

At some point people can make it clear to a majority of people mythology Jul 2016 #194

A simplistic misrepresentation of my point. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #198

I support the Chief..... Historic NY Jul 2016 #22

No need for a trial. Go directly to the execution. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #64

He did give the DART officer a chance......... Historic NY Jul 2016 #123

You don't get it. He was offered a trial. HE chose to die. Akicita Jul 2016 #135

Good robot. Polish it, and give it the rest of the week off. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #23

You might change your mind if/when the robot knocks at your door. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #70

Better yet, make it a sergeant. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #148

'Robot'? LOL! A gun is just as much of a 'robot': you push a button and someone's dead. randome Jul 2016 #26

Guns don't have independent movement abilities n/t jamese777 Jul 2016 #68

Neither did the bomb delivery system. It was remotely controlled. randome Jul 2016 #72

Self propelled artillery does. They are just big guns. Akicita Jul 2016 #136

next time let these "legal experts" read the gunman his rights & cuff him rollin74 Jul 2016 #38

Doesn't the suspect have to sleep at some point? PlanetaryOrbit Jul 2016 #41

'Catch him' dozing? You mean like sneak in very quietly, break down the door and tiptoe to his side? randome Jul 2016 #59

No sense waiting. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #80

First you play the race card, now the "no good democrat" card elias7 Jul 2016 #147

This issue is at the crux of the whole problem randr Jul 2016 #77

A prize winning and very succinct answer. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #88

Police (and you, and me) have every legal and moral authority.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #105

Iminent threat is a convenient excuse far too often randr Jul 2016 #120

You have a guy who's shot 11 people, killing 5, holed up with a gun, continuing to shoot at you.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #151

My question would have been how long he would have been able to hole up randr Jul 2016 #153

So wait to see if he really does have explosives planted around? X_Digger Jul 2016 #154

Did law enforcement officers in the Bundy standoff randr Jul 2016 #156

Oh, had they actually shot someone? I must've missed that. What was the body count? X_Digger Jul 2016 #161

Ok, so you are saying that once a person commits a crime and before randr Jul 2016 #169

I'm saying that ACTUALLY KILLING FIVE PEOPLE lends itself to 'imminent grave bodily injury'. X_Digger Jul 2016 #179

The situation at the time of blowing up randr Jul 2016 #216

You're misinformed. He was continuing to shoot at the negotiators. X_Digger Jul 2016 #217

Do you not understand that the shooter chose not to use the legal system even though it was offered Akicita Jul 2016 #138

There are people every day who are in a dire health condition randr Jul 2016 #155

If the person is resisting medical attention with automatic weapons I seriously doubt any medical Akicita Jul 2016 #159

what a crock. There is no "choice" to use ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #190

Thank you randr Jul 2016 #226

I'm surprised... Pacifist Patriot Jul 2016 #214

Not to worry? merrily Jul 2016 #78

Not to worry. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #89

If a reporter cannot tell the difference between a bomb going off and a gunshot, merrily Jul 2016 #96

Agreed on the "diner rule". eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #98

Don't see the militarization. Igel Jul 2016 #189

A lot of people here on DU have been asking the same question Warpy Jul 2016 #92

The key word is "might". guillaumeb Jul 2016 #97

The key to me is that the shooter was offered the judicial route. He chose the deadly force route Akicita Jul 2016 #139

Drones have been summarily executing people without trial for years now. egduj Jul 2016 #94

As Bob Dylan wrote: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #100

If a white person cowardly ambushes and kills five people I don't think anybody will mind if he is Akicita Jul 2016 #140

It will, and this is the first step toward that very situation Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #101

I suspect it's not the case that it was used on US soil. Igel Jul 2016 #191

Using explosives to take out a "dangerous" criminal? What could possibly go wrong? Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #95

Yes, as I mentioned in my post, MOVE is the precedent for this. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #102

In the MOVE bombing Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #104

Don't forget Waco. Akicita Jul 2016 #141

Thanks for posting. Daemonaquila Jul 2016 #103

Legal rights apply whenever there is a reasonable presumption struggle4progress Jul 2016 #106

Killer cops kill people mwrguy Jul 2016 #107

I would have been okay with 2naSalit Jul 2016 #109

Knockout gases are mostly a hollywood invention. (Especially in an open air place.) X_Digger Jul 2016 #111

And... 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #115

Bullshit... 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #110

Thanks for furthering an important discussion, guillaumeb. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #112

Should police have waited out Omar Manteen when he threatened to strap bomb vests to hostages? Lancero Jul 2016 #113

It wasn't a robot fbc Jul 2016 #116

The bomb part is commonly used to blow up suspicious packages--- no? nt 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #122

Yes, and in this case they used it on a human fbc Jul 2016 #168

Can't put the Robo-cop back in the bottle. Rex Jul 2016 #118

Just wait until the 'bad guys' start using drones. Hugin Jul 2016 #137

Of course. Igel Jul 2016 #193

The concerns are fair and valid, BUT this was an exceptional scenario bluestateguy Jul 2016 #119

Next Step: Flying Robots (A.K.A. "Drones") n/t Binkie The Clown Jul 2016 #125

Using the robot was the right decision. romanic Jul 2016 #127

What difference does the method make? Matrosov Jul 2016 #130

^^^This^^^ Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #149

Army surplus... kentuck Jul 2016 #150

It was and is a slippery slope to go with its use. Like all new technologes, there is what riversedge Jul 2016 #152

More weapons designed for war and given to police guillaumeb Jul 2016 #221

For those who cling to the idea that the shooter "had his chance to surrender"... Moostache Jul 2016 #158

bravo, or brava, as it fits. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #192

You're not Johnson. Igel Jul 2016 #195

It's barely a robot Loki Liesmith Jul 2016 #178

An alarm should be raised. nt LWolf Jul 2016 #180

Neutralizing him, even if it meant killing or bombing him, was the right thing to do. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #185

Two words. Due process. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #220

He was an immediate threat to others. He wasn't entitled to due process. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #230

He was isolated and surrounded. eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #231

And threatening to detonate bombs. Time to kill the fucker before he kills someone else. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #235

K&R. nt. NCTraveler Jul 2016 #186

You cannot both flee justice and claim it. The sniper learned that. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #196

As did Laquan McDonald when he was shot 16 times by police? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #199

Um, no. Only a simplistic an unlawerly reading of the law would conflate fleeing msanthrope Jul 2016 #208

A legal question? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #210

Answer: you aren't asking the right questions. msanthrope Jul 2016 #213

I cannot build a case, but guillaumeb Jul 2016 #219

Well...you just lost the argument with your first 5 words. Thank you. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #222

And you avoided a chance to actually engage. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #223

You just did my job for me. Part of being a great lawyer is accepting victory and walking away. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #224

Humble and infallible. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #225

I have no problem with the police killing him. The use of a robot was way too far. OregonBlue Jul 2016 #197

Of course it's OK! HassleCat Jul 2016 #202

So all of these people murdered by the police guillaumeb Jul 2016 #204

The policeman is your friend! HassleCat Jul 2016 #207

Sorry. I missed the sarcasm. eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #209

So the Author is Saying: On the Road Jul 2016 #205

Did you read both articles that were cited? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #206

Why is this different from being shot by a sniper? TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2016 #229

The technical aspects are different, but the result is the same. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #232

Meh. This dude deserved to be blowed up. Adrahil Jul 2016 #233

How about concern for the concept of due process? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #234

IMHO no moral difference between this and a sniper shot The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #236

Slowly encroaching police state. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #237

Equally, that is my only point The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #239

Could have had flash bang and gas grenades. Mc Mike Jul 2016 #238

Or, as I pointed out, LRADs. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #240

You're right. Good o.p. Recommended. nt. Mc Mike Jul 2016 #241