Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper [View all]True Dough
(26,807 posts)13. I can see both sides on this one
If they had taken him out by a police sniper's bullet, there would have been much less controversy even though it would also have represented an extra-judicial killing. The guy's taunting of police and his expressions of desire to kill some more made him an extreme danger.
On the other hand, the delivery of death by robot has disturbed a lot of people. The idea of a small wheeled vehicle rolling up and exploding next to a human being doesn't sit well. Oversight should be exercised before it's used in such circumstances again, as well as policies drafted for police forces across the nation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you're shooting people left and right, deadly force is justified for fucks sake
WhisCo
Jul 2016
#49
So if the cops tell you to do something and you don't do it, killing is justified?
Angel Martin
Jul 2016
#68
You equate Brown to a mass murderer armed to the teeth and issuing threats.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2016
#75
By your inaccurate reading, there is nothing anybody could do that would merit
mythology
Jul 2016
#34
No....it is you who claim the killing is "extrajudicial." That is an extrodinary
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#26
It's unfortunate that you seem to think that 200 years of jurisprudence simply don't count.
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#35
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime ..."
Statistical
Jul 2016
#38
Yeah.....no. He wasn't custodial. He was deemed an active threat, and refused to surrender.nt
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#41
He hadn't fired a shot because the Dallas Police declined to present him with human targets.
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#50
Perhaps if you'd been listening to the scanner.. you would have heard officers..
X_Digger
Jul 2016
#65
No reason to believe this one was. Perhaps you could cite a case,or a law you think
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#48
Yeah....You think a Ruby Ridge lawsuit has some bearing on its incident? Um, no. nt
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#85
To be fair, I haven't read past your first paragraph. But, I've enjoyed this subthread, where my
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#90
Execution requires the subject be under control of the authority administering the sentence.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jul 2016
#70
I think in this case the old addage anyone can claim anything on the internet is applicable
stevenleser
Jul 2016
#43
I have no doubt they are a civil rights attorney.....in the same vein that Mr. Greenwald also
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#54
Steve graciously interviewed me on last Election night...I had been working for the Obama
msanthrope
Jul 2016
#56
You've presented nothing to argue with other than claims you are an attorney.
stevenleser
Jul 2016
#57
You keep repeating an assertion that is very dubious: that he no longer poses a threat
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2016
#76
Did he still have the gun? How long had it been since he had last shot someone?
Warren DeMontague
Jul 2016
#66