Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas?

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:54 pm

News Dallas Police Ambush Jul 11 2016, 1:36 pm ET
Dallas Police Chief David Brown on Bombing Attack Suspect:
'I'd Do It Again'
by Elisha Fieldstadt

The Dallas police chief on Monday defended his decision to use a bomb-strapped robot to kill the gunman suspected of fatally shooting five officers, insisting he would "use any tool necessary to save our officers' lives."
"I'd do it again," David Brown said, adding that the move "wasn't an ethical dilemma for me."
He said he only advised those operating the robot after a two-hour standoff with the the gunman, Micah Xavier Johnson, "not to bring the building down. That was the extent of my guidance," Brown said. The plan was devised in about 15 minutes, he said.
"We knew this was the suspect. He was asking us how many did he get," Brown said. "And he was telling us how many more he wanted to get."
At that point, it was unknown how many officers Johnson had injured. Later, Brown learned that five were killed and others were wounded. He said Monday that nine officers were injured in the ambush.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-chief-david-brown-bombing-attack-suspect-i-d-n607261

Shouldn't we give this some serious discussion or does this 'robotic blowing up a human being' ...just become the judge-jury-execution and not even a 2nd glance or a concerned WTF about how this all went down so dam fast? Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 2190311264

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 2190311264

by Original Quill Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:55 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
News Dallas Police Ambush Jul 11 2016, 1:36 pm ET
Dallas Police Chief David Brown on Bombing Attack Suspect:
'I'd Do It Again'
by Elisha Fieldstadt

The Dallas police chief on Monday defended his decision to use a bomb-strapped robot to kill the gunman suspected of fatally shooting five officers, insisting he would "use any tool necessary to save our officers' lives."
"I'd do it again," David Brown said, adding that the move "wasn't an ethical dilemma for me."
He said he only advised those operating the robot after a two-hour standoff with the the gunman, Micah Xavier Johnson, "not to bring the building down. That was the extent of my guidance," Brown said. The plan was devised in about 15 minutes, he said.
"We knew this was the suspect. He was asking us how many did he get," Brown said. "And he was telling us how many more he wanted to get."
At that point, it was unknown how many officers Johnson had injured. Later, Brown learned that five were killed and others were wounded. He said Monday that nine officers were injured in the ambush.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-chief-david-brown-bombing-attack-suspect-i-d-n607261
Shouldn't we just give this some serious consideration or does this 'robotic blowing up a human being' ...just become the judge-jury-execution and not even a 2nd glance or a concerned WTF about how this all went down so dam fast?

We've had the moral equivalent in drones for quite some time.

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:59 pm

True, Quill ...and I'm usually the 'fence sitter' about those uses for military as well; necessary evil and yet it does save lots of boots on the ground for our soldiers.

But this - this while we're discussing the abuse within the people hired to 'serve & protect' that often end up abusing and committing murder while under the guise of 'just doing my job ma'am' ...this has been eating at me for a couple of days, now!

by Original Quill Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:25 pm

4EVER2 wrote:True, Quill ...and I'm usually the 'fence sitter' about those uses for military as well; necessary evil and yet it does save lots of boots on the ground for our soldiers.

But this - this while we're discussing the abuse within the people hired to 'serve & protect' that often end up abusing and committing murder while under the guise of 'just doing my job ma'am' ...this has been eating at me for a couple of days, now!

The line between police and military is beginning to blur. Equipment and training are going back and forth lickedly split, with frightening consequences. Overkill in our cities is the first. You see it in this robot, walking, talking (potential nuclear) weapon.

And no, I don't agree that drones are protecting our military men. Withdrawal is the protection they need. Get them home to their loved ones.

What are the military men doing so far from our borders, anyway? It's called the Department of Defense for a reason. It's not called the Department of Foreign Adventures (or, to test toys for generals and admirals). They are not 'over there' defending America; far from it. They are doing just a little more Republican intermeddling in other people's business.

The turmoil in the middle east is not going to die down until the resolution of the 1,600-old Sunni and Shi'ite split...in, oh say, a thousand years. It's none of our business. Bring the troops and the drones home.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:29 pm

I'm just wondering why the robot couldn't have carried a concussion grenade, a gas bomb, or some other way of taking him alive.

I'm getting sick of these killers either forcing police to kill them, or committing suicide. We need to be talking to these people and trying to figure out what went wrong with them.

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:32 pm

See, this thing with this police shooter; just kind-of creeps me ever so slightly ...that method of instant revenge - shoot first - fill in the blanks later - seems to be the reason that we are having these BLM marches.

And if this dude was wounded, what was the urgency?
When did the 'blow his arse' away with this robotic technology become a 'must do'? Just another 'boy toy' that we have at our disposal so we might as well put it into our routine response arsenal.
So many concerns and questions and this IS NOT A MILITARY SITUATION.

Despite the military grade weapons that the unlawful - sick minded are obtaining...I refuse to just roll over and allow my law enforcement to become military based responders to every 911 call.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:38 pm

Interesting op...

And I agree that the robot should have been used to deploy some sort of knock out gas/dart.

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:42 pm

IMO a perfectly proportionate response

they knew it WAS the guy they wanted
he WAS willing to keep on killing
there was NO issue about either fact (he was the killer), or the presence/absence of "mitigating circumstances"

The "robot" isnt a "robot" it is not autonomous, and requires a human to control it...

to me no different from taking him out with a sniper/swat specialist

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:44 pm

The QUESTION you really are asking is......was a lethal response necessary

the MEANS is largely irrelevant until and unless it involves innocent colateral damage.....

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:53 pm

Lord Foul wrote:IMO a perfectly proportionate response

they knew it WAS the guy they wanted Well, actually ...they weren't sure he was the ONLY one, were they?
he WAS willing to keep on killing OK, how bad were his wounds ...was he stalling for time because he knew he was bleeding out - making up BS stories about bombs placed around the general area - how serious were his wounds - the negioations didn't last very long - IMO
there was NO issue about either fact (he was the killer), or the presence/absence of "mitigating circumstances" INDEED, only from what 'HE' had told them ...

The "robot" isnt a "robot" it is not autonomous, and requires a human to control it...
splitting fine hairs ...when there was a way to utilize this robotic tool to send in a smoke bomb/tear gas canister/flash bomb - something they often use; but to blow the man apart? That's being Judge/Jury/Executioner all in the same step ...not quite what Our American Law Books ascribe too.

to me no different from taking him out with a sniper/swat specialist

Frankly, as I stated - the 'Blue Code of Revenge' seems to have been forefront on the minds of these Dallas police officers and I do think that this needs to be looked at long and hard and this should never become the ROUTINE response for this type of action. There was just #1 shooter against all of those officers, and he was wounded; WTF was he going to go?

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:56 pm

Lord Foul wrote:The QUESTION you really are asking is......was a lethal response necessary

the MEANS is largely irrelevant until and unless it involves innocent colateral damage.....

Not hardly, LF ...our legal system isn't set up for our 'Paid Law Enforcement' to become the instant Judge/Jury/Executioners --- especially when the emotionally charged hysteria from some of their very own officers were the victims for the attack. Evil or Very Mad

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:04 pm

and THAT is the point 4ever......

is there ANY difference between using this remote controlled mobile garbge can to deliver a bomb, in ANY way different to getting a swat specialist to shoot him??

you are getting hung up on the MEANS to the deed as opposed to the NECESSITY of the deed

by Original Quill Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and THAT is the point 4ever......

is there ANY difference between using this remote controlled mobile garbge can to deliver a bomb, in ANY way different to getting a swat specialist to shoot him??

you are getting hung up on the MEANS to the deed as opposed to the NECESSITY of the deed

You're half right, Victor. The question is 'whether a lethal response was necessary?' However, it is not 'was a proportionate response necessary?'

There is the question of what "proportionate" means, but I take it to mean something like equal to the damage done by the shooter.

A proportionate response would be seeking revenge. A necessary response would be that which is necessary to stop him. I think the robot was a bit of overkill.

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and THAT is the point 4ever......

is there ANY difference between using this remote controlled mobile garbge can to deliver a bomb, in ANY way different to getting a swat specialist to shoot him??

you are getting hung up on the MEANS to the deed as opposed to the NECESSITY of the deed

I guess 'my' perimeters of a negotiations is as long as it takes ...and we've had some here in my small region of the USA that have lasted all night long if necessary just to allow the overly stressed former military personnel man time to come down/wear down from his high.

What was the RUSH here? He was already bleeding - they might have been able to get his mother there - might have tried several other what if's - but blowing the DUDE UP Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 2190311264

just seems counter productive to me. He wasn't going any where!

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:04 pm

Lord Foul wrote:and THAT is the point 4ever......
is there ANY difference between using this remote controlled mobile garbge can to deliver a bomb, in ANY way different to getting a swat specialist to shoot him??
you are getting hung up on the MEANS to the deed as opposed to the NECESSITY of the deed

Do you remember our group discussion on Syl's topic regarding the death penalty, when you stated: >

Re: If there was a referendum to bring back the death penalty..
by Lord Foul on Wed May 18, 2016 2:42 pm
Nor you may be assured, does the existance of DNA protect the innocent if "the govt/rich people" want em dead.....
the criminal justice system is NOT incorruptible...
and ...in any case ...I wouldnt want the state taking revenge for me....
if that degree of revenge is needed, i'd sooner make it personal.......

I'm wondering how this doesn't apply to that same standard?

I'm so very much in support of my messed up judicial system ...I do support the death penalty and believe that every legal system needs it ...but there MUST be due process.
The whole reason behind the BLM is the very extreme abuses from the law enforcement personnel ...and when they have the opportunity to make a difference - to take the time to take the worst of the murdering Black man out --- why - WHY BLOW HIM UP? Suspect

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:19 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and THAT is the point 4ever......
is there ANY difference between using this remote controlled mobile garbge can to deliver a bomb, in ANY way different to getting a swat specialist to shoot him??
you are getting hung up on the MEANS to the deed as opposed to the NECESSITY of the deed
Do you remember our group discussion on Syl's topic regarding the death penalty, when you stated >http://www.newsfixboard.com/u231

I'm wondering how this doesn't apply to that same standard?

...there MUST be due process...

I quite agree...

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:
Do you remember our group discussion on Syl's topic regarding the death penalty, when you stated >~~http://www.newsfixboard.com/u231~~
Re: If there was a referendum to bring back the death penalty..
by Lord Foul on Wed May 18, 2016 2:42 pm
Nor you may be assured, does the existance of DNA protect the innocent if "the govt/rich people" want em dead.....
the criminal justice system is NOT incorruptible...
and ...in any case ...I wouldnt want the state taking revenge for me....
if that degree of revenge is needed, i'd sooner make it personal.......
I'm wondering how this doesn't apply to that same standard?

...there MUST be due process...
I quite agree...

I had to edit my error, Tommy ...I had tried to copy that link while using my tablet; failed greatly - so I came over to my PC and corrected my mistake. Sorry. Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:33 pm

I didn't look at your link...

I remember the thread...

LF was against any sort of death penalty.

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:55 pm

yes tommy, but there is a difference between the souless calculating state sponsored execution, with all its potential pitfalls, and the killing of an active shooter....

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:57 pm

In this case it appears to be more the former... than the latter...

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:07 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just wondering why the robot couldn't have carried a concussion grenade, a gas bomb, or some other way of taking him alive.

I'm getting sick of these killers either forcing police to kill them, or committing suicide. We need to be talking to these people and trying to figure out what went wrong with them.

yes the use of explosives seems stupid.

why not conventional firearm or like you said some sort of gas.

gas would be really effective, as the robot could just roll in spewing knockout gas

by veya_victaous Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:09 pm

Lord Foul wrote:IMO a perfectly proportionate response

they knew it WAS the guy they wanted
he WAS willing to keep on killing
there was NO issue about either fact (he was the killer), or the presence/absence of "mitigating circumstances"

The "robot" isnt a "robot" it is not autonomous, and requires a human to control it...

to me no different from taking him out with a sniper/swat specialist

well it's an RC (Remote Controlled) Robot as opposed to an AI (Artificial Intelligence) Robot.
And you are right there is a huge difference, the RC Robot is just an extension of a gun, a human using a tool designed to kill.

by Original Quill Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:10 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just wondering why the robot couldn't have carried a concussion grenade, a gas bomb, or some other way of taking him alive.

I'm getting sick of these killers either forcing police to kill them, or committing suicide. We need to be talking to these people and trying to figure out what went wrong with them.

yes the use of explosives seems stupid.

why not conventional firearm or like you said some sort of gas.

gas would be really effective, as the robot could just roll in spewing knockout gas

It strikes me a particularly unusual because there were no hostages. They had dozens of cops, and the guy was dead meat anyway. I think they just wanted to try out their new toy.

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:14 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yes tommy, but there is a difference between the souless calculating state sponsored execution, with all its potential pitfalls, and the killing of an active shooter....

And after I went back and read more of your posts over there; in your specific responses to Tommykins you'd clarified that 'you weren't against the DP but we needed to suck it up and be prepared to do the deed' ...I did paraphrase but I think I got the jest of your POV.

But my question and opinion remains pretty adamant; we have our judicial system for a reason and since the BLM movement was specifically started just about police profiling/police brutality against BLACK PEOPLE ...this one robotic action seems extremely senseless when more negotiations would have resolved the stand off without more killing.

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:18 pm

the point you are missing is

are you objecting to the fact he was killed

OR

to the WAY he was killed?

if the former you will have to arue for hours about the rights and wrongs

if the latter

why is using the mobile scrap heap any different to shooting him?
would you object to the use of other high tech...like a "bendy gun" or a small drone mounted firearm

and if so...why

it was certainly "efficient"

IF you intend to kill something...there is NO such thing as "overkill" unless and until you cause colateral casualties.......

12 bore on a rat?

dead is well....kinda.....dead..... Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 2190311264

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:19 pm

And if you read further... LF went on to say that he was against the dp... but suggested it was those in favour of it who should be the ones to carry it out in the cases where they were involved and calling for it...

From memory... not got time to crawl through every post on thread... I'm sure LF will correct me if I'm wrong...

by Guest Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:the point you are missing is
are you objecting to the fact he was killed
OR
to the WAY he was killed?
if the former you will have to arue for hours about the rights and wrongs
if the latter
why is using the mobile scrap heap any different to shooting him?
would you object to the use of other high tech...like a "bendy gun" or a small drone mounted firearm
and if so...why
it was certainly "efficient"
IF you intend to kill something...there is NO such thing as "overkill" unless and until you cause colateral casualties.......
12 bore on a rat?
dead is well....kinda.....dead.....

MOTIVATION:
1.) why was there a march/demonstration down town Dallas = BLM
2.) why was there a chain reaction by this 25 yr old Micha = BLM
3.) why would a rational thinking chief of police want to keep PUSHING the issue of = BLM by using the worst form of killing a human and blowing him into smithereens ?
4.) why wouldn't the proper thing to do would be talk him down/allow the negotiations to just continue - wasn't like the perp was going to flee the scene

Now there are just more & more & more violent reactions popping up all over America today ...is it because of this Dallas robot - I can't say but the emotions running deeply within the Black communities are obviously feeling something else that I AM NOT.

I do know that our stats/data are proving ...what we have been doing IS NOT WORKING ...maybe we need to wise the hell up and modify that technique! Suspect

by Victorismyhero Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:45 pm

uhm...why is blowing him up any worse than shooting him?

I'm trying to seperate the objections to the means from the objections to the lack of NEED to do so BY ANY means....

Not of couse that the "means" is entirely irrelevant of course, since many folks will naturally, as you have just ,consider blowing him up to somehow be worse than shooting him (why????)., and as we all know in these circumstances "perceptions matter

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:11 am

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 265384880

I suppose pointing out the obvious ...will be necessary since you don't seem to have acknowledged it - SWEET JESUS, the dude was wounded and bleeding already Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 3068147984

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 3068147984

by Victorismyhero Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:25 am

I cant help it if you are too dumb to understand that there are (at least) two seperate issues at work here

your O/P predicated on the use of that "robot"

I have conveniently for the intellectually challenged, tried (in vain it seems) to seperate the issues into the basic 2....the use of and the NEED to use.....I have already conceeded that the NEED may well be arguable

but on the presumption that someone must have deemed it needful (for whatever reason) that actual fact of the use of THAT PARTICULAR means is no "worse" in and of itself than shooting him.....except perhaps in a PR sense....

but yet once again you prove yourself incapable of reasonable conversation without bringing out your mega sarky snarky downright nasty attitude YET AGAIN......

shove it Violet.....I give up any hope of trying to hold a "sensible" conversation with you.... Rolling Eyes

by veya_victaous Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:33 am

Lord Foul wrote:uhm...why is blowing him up any worse than shooting him?

I'm trying to seperate the objections to the means from the objections to the lack of NEED to do so BY ANY means....

Not of couse that the "means" is entirely irrelevant of course, since many folks will naturally, as you have just ,consider blowing him up to somehow be worse than shooting him (why????)., and as we all know in these circumstances "perceptions matter

it destorys evidence Wink

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:46 am

Lord Foul wrote:
I cant help it if you are too dumb to understand that there are (at least) two seperate issues at work here

your O/P predicated on the use of that "robot"

I have conveniently for the intellectually challenged, tried (in vain it seems) to seperate the issues into the basic 2....the use of and the NEED to use.....I have already conceeded that the NEED may well be arguable

but on the presumption that someone must have deemed it needful (for whatever reason) that actual fact of the use of THAT PARTICULAR means is no "worse" in and of itself than shooting him.....except perhaps in a PR sense....

but yet once again you prove yourself incapable of reasonable conversation without bringing out your mega sarky snarky downright nasty attitude YET AGAIN......

shove it Violet.....I give up any hope of trying to hold a "sensible" conversation with you....

Quite the little boy attitude as usual ...
I've not called you any FOUL names - not once and you can't maintain either your immaturity nor your utter lack of knowledge either so Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 4233679493

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 4233679493

you and Tommykins are quite equal on the scale of moron and baby boy Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 3359862487

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 3359862487

twins I suspect!

by Original Quill Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:16 am

I think you are wrong victor. A bullet can wing a bad guy. The explosion is gonna guarantee the dies.

Now, I ask you, why do you want to guarantee he dies? Revenge?

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:42 am

Original Quill wrote:I think you are wrong victor. A bullet can wing a bad guy. The explosion is gonna guarantee the dies.

Now, I ask you, why do you want to guarantee he dies? Revenge?

And you simply have no conception on how to best neutralise a threat.

If a person is only wounded, you cannot guarantee they can still fire their weapon at people, where the inetnt of the killer was to kill as many people as possible.
This is all based on risks and in your position you are placing lives at risk.
Even wounded, adrenaline kicks in and people can coninue shooting, where this case multiple people had died and been wounded.

This man set out racially to murder white people and had no intention of surrendering, where the Dallad Police went to great lenghs to protect and save the lives of the Public.

To question morals when facing a threat to life is absurd, as you have to netralise that threat.

The SAS are trained and train people world over whether armed conflict or domestically on how to actually neutralize that threat.

Two shots, one to the chest and one to the head.

It saves lives

by Original Quill Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:50 am

Didge's idea of how to neutralize a threat...

Shouldn't We Be Talking About The Robot That Took The Suspect Out, In Dallas? 563411_orig

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:00 am

Original Quill wrote:Didge's idea of how to neutralize a threat...

They are unarmed

The shooter was armed

Poor immature guilt tactics are why you are incredible stupid

A person who has murdered multiple people is a threat and the fact you compared this to unarmed people proves you are an regressive idiot

Now I am off to work and will wait for some people who have intelligence to answer

by nicko Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:48 am

I'M sorry Quill but you have no idea, you cannot sit at home in safety and pontificate about what you should do in an "military" situation. I have spent a lot of years fighting for my country, [never killed a baby] and you are so wrong in your mind set. When you are face to face with someone who wants to kill you, you will find it's a different "kettle of fish", I respect your opinion,but you are so wrong!

by veya_victaous Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:59 am

nicko wrote:I'M sorry Quill but you have no idea, you cannot sit at home in safety and pontificate about what you should do in an "military" situation. I have spent a lot of years fighting for my country, [never killed a baby] and you are so wrong in your mind set. When you are face to face with someone who wants to kill you, you will find it's a different "kettle of fish", I respect your opinion,but you are so wrong!

the problem is Police are not soliders and citizens even if criminals are not enemy combatants

OR if they are then that justifies this guy in declaring police enemy combatants to him.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:I'M sorry Quill but you have no idea, you cannot sit at home in safety and pontificate about what you should do in an "military" situation. I have spent a lot of years fighting for my country, [never killed a baby] and you are so wrong in your mind set. When you are face to face with someone who wants to kill you, you will find it's a different "kettle of fish", I respect your opinion,but you are so wrong!

the problem is Police are not soliders and citizens even if criminals are not enemy combatants

OR if they are then that justifies this guy in declaring police enemy combatants to him.

Thank you. The United States is not a fucking war zone.

Castille was a licensed driver who was pulled over by police 52 times in his 14 years behind the wheel -- and he never committed a single crime in the 32 years he spent on this planet. And there are many more like him.

Anybody who doesn't think the problem is with the police is delusional.

by eddie Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:27 am

Perhaps the police should have a demo of some sort - "not in my badge number and name" etc

Except who would police the police demo? scratch

by 'Wolfie Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:03 am

I'M WITH Victor on this issue...

A bomb-disposal "robot" is not a genuine robot...
There is NO pre-programming or A.I. involved..

THE "robot" didn't kill the shooter..
The machine was simply a tool, an extension of the police action to take him out..

The remote operator of the machine was the one who executed the shooter.
Legally.. A righful kill; on their commander's orders..

There is zero moral angle to this exercise...
Would people even be discussing this, if a police sniper had killed him instead ? scratch

by nicko Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:19 am

good post wolf.

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:15 am

veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:I'M sorry Quill but you have no idea, you cannot sit at home in safety and pontificate about what you should do in an "military" situation. I have spent a lot of years fighting for my country, [never killed a baby] and you are so wrong in your mind set. When you are face to face with someone who wants to kill you, you will find it's a different "kettle of fish", I respect your opinion,but you are so wrong!

the problem is Police are not soliders and citizens even if criminals are not enemy combatants

OR if they are then that justifies this guy in declaring police enemy combatants to him.

The above is a very poor way of looking at this
As it will be based on risk values.
By carrying a firearm to then aim this at people, is a significant risk, as the individual has show intent to possible use this weapon.
The Police are then able to use deadly force through the possibility that there could be a potential for the loss of life or serious injury to someone, not just to the Police but the Public at hand. However the US Police and many world Police issue commands to lower the weapon, which in reality is a dangereous precedent and where in fact trying to save the life of the suspect. As this stills leaves the situation at high risk, that the gunmen will ignore the police and shoot, which can and does then lead to the Officer or civillians being shot and killed. So this is done at great risk by the officers, which many fail to understand and appreciate. The British soldiers had this same policy in Northern Ireland the "yellow card" rules, where their job was basically Policing the streets of Northern Ireland. What this failed to factor in was the fact that an armed civillian was either going to be an IRA operative or one of the Ulster LOyalist Paramilitaries. The IRA hated British soldiers and it was policy for them to kill as many as they could. Asking a British soldier to attempt top negotiate with someone intent on killing you cost British soldiers their lives when they appllied this yellow card rulling. Those who did not apply, use their head and knew that their live was at risk and took out the thread. The famous quote by the SAS is that they would rather be tried by 12 honest people than have 6 people carry them.
Again by having the right to bare arms and access to guns easily on the streets in America, where that weapon can kill from distance, means that where a gun is drawn adn aimed, they face a very significant threat to their lives and its no surprise some will have their emotions and not their training take control of the situation. As you are sending into a life threatening situatiion.

by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:18 am

I will also add further. onto the point of wounding.
If you could completely ensure that by wounding is going to netralize the threat from a gunman that is already shooting people. Then all you need to do is prove that being wounded will always stop any gunman? The reality is nobody can guarantee this and why when somebody is already killing and wounding people then the principle of human lives matter. The necessity to take out this one life is required in order to save many human lives.

by Victorismyhero Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:22 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I'M WITH Victor on this issue...

A bomb-disposal "robot" is not a genuine robot...
There is NO pre-programming or A.I. involved..

THE "robot" didn't kill the shooter..
The machine was simply a tool, an extension of the police action to take him out..

The remote operator of the machine was the one who executed the shooter.
Legally.. A righful kill; on their commander's orders..

There is zero moral angle to this exercise...
Would people even be discussing this, if a police sniper had killed him instead ?

thanks wolfie...that is the entire point I have been trying to make

The issue of whether or not it was NECESSARY to kill him is a different moral argument, and I suspect one which is going to divide sharply between the left and their blind consequence-less protect the perp at all costs view and the right with their "oh goody another dead ni66er" pov....and the realists like you me, nicko and didge whos view is based on expediency and pragmatism....

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:26 am

I always think it's a pity when murderers/terrorists are killed because we might be able to get some insight on why they do what they do. Having said that, will Dylann Roof or Michael Adebolajo be providing any kind of insight, and can anything be learnt from them anyway?

by Victorismyhero Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:33 am

no shooter shoots to wound, such a shot can only be "guaranteed " at close range by a top marksman, and even then is subject to numerous other factors...if you havnt done a fair bit of long range shooting dont even bother to argue, the "experience" of an armchair expert means nothing.

they shoot for the body...its kinda ....big....and given the right calibre is almost certainly lethal. Even the "one in the heart one in the head" is for relatively close range.....

and quill....you dont, with modern weapons "wing" someone

you hit someone with a 5.5mm high velocity holow point round in the arm.....and you rip their arm off.....

and yes.....your cops use dum dum (expanding ammunition) rounds on criminals, ...you cant use em in warfare ...but you can use em against civilian targets if you are a cop

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:38 am

I haven't read the details of how he was killed, but he had already shot and killed several officers, and he was threatening to kill more of them. I don't think anyone can really criticise the police for taking him out, but I'm sure many of you have already done so.

by veya_victaous Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I always think it's a pity when murderers/terrorists are killed because we might be able to get some insight on why they do what they do. Having said that, will Dylann Roof or Michael Adebolajo be providing any kind of insight, and can anything be learnt from them anyway?

In this case i think he could have provided some valuable insight
Particularly in the specific demographic of black ex-solider.

This is probably part of the reason they used the robot with bombs is he seems to have been quite good at combat.
and following the middle east wars how many thousands of other black ex-soldiers are there in the USA Neutral

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:12 pm

Robocop? This is how it started.

Looks like we'll never learn from history.

by Sponsored content