WTF?!? What do you think about police now using bombs to stop criminals?

[fred c. dobbs]

<broken link removed>

 

[campwilde]

I don't like this idea at all.

But I am rattling around this question in my mind - the police are already shooting at these folks, using lethal force to stop them, at what point does one kind of lethal force become worse than the other? We don't seem to question if a cop uses a gun to shoot a bad guy, killing him, but we do question using another lethal means to stop him. My assumption, having no other information available at this time, was that they were unable to approach him perhaps because they didn't have anything to protect themselves. Kind of reminds me of the BOA shootout years ago where the two baddies had full on body armor and automatic weapons. The police were outgunned by a long shot. Again, my question is not meant to justify their use in any way, but just to put out a thought exercise on the difference between one kind of deadly force over another. And don't some LE agencies have rifles up to .50BMG already in their arsenal? Would you need a robot with explosives when you can shoot a .50 cal roufoss round through every wall of a building to take someone out?

They should also consider this - what's to stop bad guys from doing the same thing? Getting some sort of remote control robot/drone that they equip with an explosive and drive right into a group of unsuspecting people? Do we then need to talk about drone/robot control?

The bad guys already do this, they strap bombs to themselves and put them in cars.

 

[fred c. dobbs]

Who are the " BAD GUYS " really. The ones who do the deed, or the ones who cover it up, make it look like some one else did it. They say Bin Lauden did 9 - 11, they say Seal Team 6 took him out, Who sent Team Six to their Demise ? And why so soon after ward. Dead Men Tell No Tales !

 

[Dan Adams]

I suggest those of you who are so upset about police using a bomb to stop an active shooter, join the police force and then see what you think about the situation when you're in the middle of one like it. Due process, indeed! What do you expect the police to do? File a motion and maybe get a judge to act on it sometime in the next 3-4 years? I'm sure the police put much more thought into the decision to use the bomb than any of you adding your two bits to this conversation.

 

[Howard1955]

I haven't read all of these posts, so I may be repeating someone. But here's my two bits:

If my son were one of the police officers trying to stop that murdering dog, I would have zero problem with him using a bomb that turned the entire city block into a smoking crater.

 

[fred c. dobbs]

Absolutely, everything the T.V. and the PO. PO. says is true. You have nothing to worry about, the Government would never lie to you. The IRS, CIA, FBI, BLM, and all the rest. You can sleep knowing that your politicians, ( Vote Hillary ) are looking out for you. Your president, DOJ, Will hold your hand and protect us all from the big bad wolf.

At the same time they are destroying the purchasing strength of your Fiat ( paper ) dollar. any one of you old enough to remember in the 70's they where telling us we where running out of OIL.

While constantly attacking, ( 2A ) and doing their best to destroy your Constitutional Rights, Personal Rights, and property rights. Ba, Ba, all good sheep stay in line now.

Whatever you do, don't think for your self. Ask a Vet how well the V.A. is taking care of him. Look to the south boys and girls, Cali laws are heading north.

Good Luck SHEEPLE !

 

[BillGabby1]

It is crazy, no doubt about that. Funny how so much of this intense hatred between certain groups has amped up so much in just the last 7 1/2 years. Not exactly the kind of 'hope and change' I think most of us expected.

I was just reading an article on this incident and thought the follow excerpt from a law professor and former police officer was interesting:

But while there are likely to be intense ethical debates about when and how police deploy robots in this manner, Stoughton said he doesn't think Dallas's decision is particularly novel from a legal perspective. Because there was an imminent threat to officers, the decision to use lethal force was likely reasonable, while the weapon used was immaterial.

"The circumstances that justify lethal force justify lethal force in essentially every form," he said. "If someone is shooting at the police, the police are, generally speaking, going to be authorized to eliminate that threat by shooting them, or by stabbing them with a knife, or by running them over with a vehicle. Once lethal force is justified and appropriate, the method of delivery—I doubt it's legally relevant." Source: The Advent of Killer Police Robots (http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dallas-police-robot/490478/)

We are entering a new era, one that I do hope will settle down in the near future, once they realize the hate, fueled in part by the hatred from our own POTUS, is getting us no where.

This reminds me of a call I was dispatched on back in my cop days.
Granny called wanting Gramps arrested for drinking his brews and watching a ball game. And he wouldn't comply with her wishes so she called the cops. As per SOP
when I arrived we tried to talk both parties into calming down and perhaps one or the other into staying with relatives or a motel for the night. Usually this worked a charm absence makes the heart, you get the picture!
So when I arrived Granny meets me at the door complaining about her D&D old man and demanding I get him out of there. Did I mention it was his house too?
Since I didn't see this person I asked where he was and she tells me he's in the bedroom, and promptly leads the way yelling Ralph, ( Probably not his real name ) I want you to go with this policeman. Whearapon I hear the action of a rifle being cycled, and she screaming he's got a gun. Keep in mind she's in front of me and damn near run me down getting out of there, I felt discression was the better part of valor and besides it was his beer in his house!
I retreated to my patrol car and got on the radio all the while Grandma demanding what was I going to do about all this.
My Shift Sargeant and the C.O.P. along with the Captain and every other cop on duty or about to come on, arrived in short order and we went into standoff mode.
And finally got the phone number of the daughter who was called to ask Gramps to leave his rifle home and come stay with them till grandma settled down.
My whole point is retreating till there was another option determined to diffuse the situation was determined. Had we had robots at that time would we have resorted to one as they did in Dallas, I doubt it . We had the block cordoned off so Gramps couldn't slip out the back and snipe anyone and since he was the only one in the house he wasn't controlling any hostages, the poor SOB just wanted to watch TV and enjoy a brew!
I do believe the Dallas PD could have come to a better solution given cooler heads and some time. That they didn't tells me they were lacking in the former rather than the latter. Leadership wasn't leading. They had him surrounded and he wasn't getting away, concerns of IED's being used had already been discounted, so less lethal means of neutralizing what threat he was to the public, himself, or those LEO's should have been followed.
Today's LEO's seem to be more concerned with their own skins than back when I was a young COP on a beat. In watching many of the bad cop videos, on the NET I see many with very aggresive attitudes balanced by those who are nearly wetting down their legs when conducting a traffic stop approaching the stopped car with their hands on their weapons if not already drawn. That tells me a lot about their frame of mind,either scared to death or looking for a fight.
We need some old school frame of mind in law enforcement. BTW did you ever wonder about the term, "Law Enforcement"? Break it down, it becomes forcing the law down our necks, and that is what it is becoming.
Gone are the days it seems, of the friendly patrolman tying the little girls shoe laces. Now they are viewed with fear and suspicion.
That being said those living in the innercity slums and such places are good reason for good cops to be nervous and ready to defend themselves. But I still believe they need to keep their heads and think things thru when given plenty of time to do so. It seems to me lethal force is being resorted to more and more and I question if it is always necessary.
I'm curious, how do you all think my call would be responded to today?
Gabby

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have no moral issues with PD Command using a robot carrying a bomb after 12 LEO's have been shot! Absolutely none, send that Muslim to Hell!

 

[I594 Sucks]

Tomorrow, will it be RPGs and hand grenades? Who draws the line on what is excessive, anymore? Sure, in THIS instance, the guy was barricaded. However, we all can rightly assume that the qualifications for such "attacks" will be modified to fit many more situations.

Look at the smartphone hack the Feds wanted. Once they did it, dozens of other agencies were jumping on the bandwagon for crimes ranging from drug dealing to prostitution. Anybody who believed that such a hack would only be used for "terrorist attacks" is smoking the good stuff.

 

[rsmccsman]

There are several ethical issues. The first is the issue of sending people into harms way when a machine could do the job. Our military no longer sends or boys over the top in human waves to be cut down like grass as in World War I for example. I had an uncle in military intelligence in the late 50s and he said they would put people in harms way to gain information that could have been gathered remotely through signal intelligence and he felt that was wrong but recognized the need in other situations where human intelligence was the only option. So from this perspective the police already lost 5 officers why unnecessarily risk any other. It would be immoral to do so. So from that perspective its good choice.

However from another police perspectives use of deadly force is only justified when the threat to the officers is imminent. The black lives matter has objected to police shootings because they felt the shootings weren't justified. In this case a barricaded Suspect behind cover the police are behind cover is now a stand off. You have time the threat has been isolated in the same manner as when a criminal is locked in his cell. No need to rush into a cell right away to extract him unless he is a threat. In a stand off you can wait. Or you can use less lethal options to disable the suspect and take them into custody alive. Or in this case you can blow them up. In Waco they burned them out then bull dozed the crime scene destroying the evidence. Sound familiar?

If every body is safe In a stand offvwhy not wait or at least why not use the robot to deliver non lethal gas to take him into custody alive?

The suspect claimed to have planted explosives and the possibility of remotely detonating them may have justified the police decision.

This was likely a bluff because if you had planted bombs why would you not set them off? Unless he walks out with his hands up it is almost certain he will die and he knew that and was buying time. Still a bomb remained a real possibility kind of like WMD in Iraq, you have to act like it's real. Do they shut down cell phone communication and jam other frequencies not knowing if they might accidently set off a bomb?

To me it is the one detail keeping this from being a summary execution.

So why do we want to take this dirt bag alive? Mainly because you can't question a dead suspect. It's the same question many who criticize drone strikes have in the war on terror. You lose valuable intelligence. You may stop the one terrorist but miss the next one because you never got to find that out.

Would it have been better if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived to tell his story? Or did it bring closure to tie up loose ends and satisfy the people that he acted alone. We will never know. The police originally reported a coordinated attack with multiple gunmen. Hmmm? Say the cover up conspiracy theorists. Irony of it happening in Dallas is thick. If there were bombs planted are they still out there, who knows?

The other obvious issue is do we really want robocop using military hardware to blow people up. Bad precedent and all the more reason why the second amendment is still very relevant. Human nature is such that unchecked post in any ones hands is a bad thing that's why our founders designed or constitution with checks and balances. Armed citizens are the biggest check of all.

 

[etrain16]

This reminds me of a call I was dispatched on back in my cop days.
Granny called wanting Gramps arrested for drinking his brews and watching a ball game. And he wouldn't comply with her wishes so she called the cops. As per SOP
when I arrived we tried to talk both parties into calming down and perhaps one or the other into staying with relatives or a motel for the night. Usually this worked a charm absence makes the heart, you get the picture!
So when I arrived Granny meets me at the door complaining about her D&D old man and demanding I get him out of there. Did I mention it was his house too?
Since I didn't see this person I asked where he was and she tells me he's in the bedroom, and promptly leads the way yelling Ralph, ( Probably not his real name ) I want you to go with this policeman. Whearapon I hear the action of a rifle being cycled, and she screaming he's got a gun. Keep in mind she's in front of me and damn near run me down getting out of there, I felt discression was the better part of valor and besides it was his beer in his house!
I retreated to my patrol car and got on the radio all the while Grandma demanding what was I going to do about all this.
My Shift Sargeant and the C.O.P. along with the Captain and every other cop on duty or about to come on, arrived in short order and we went into standoff mode.
And finally got the phone number of the daughter who was called to ask Gramps to leave his rifle home and come stay with them till grandma settled down.
My whole point is retreating till there was another option determined to diffuse the situation was determined. Had we had robots at that time would we have resorted to one as they did in Dallas, I doubt it . We had the block cordoned off so Gramps couldn't slip out the back and snipe anyone and since he was the only one in the house he wasn't controlling any hostages, the poor SOB just wanted to watch TV and enjoy a brew!
I do believe the Dallas PD could have come to a better solution given cooler heads and some time. That they didn't tells me they were lacking in the former rather than the latter. Leadership wasn't leading. They had him surrounded and he wasn't getting away, concerns of IED's being used had already been discounted, so less lethal means of neutralizing what threat he was to the public, himself, or those LEO's should have been followed.
Today's LEO's seem to be more concerned with their own skins than back when I was a young COP on a beat. In watching many of the bad cop videos, on the NET I see many with very aggresive attitudes balanced by those who are nearly wetting down their legs when conducting a traffic stop approaching the stopped car with their hands on their weapons if not already drawn. That tells me a lot about their frame of mind,either scared to death or looking for a fight.
We need some old school frame of mind in law enforcement. BTW did you ever wonder about the term, "Law Enforcement"? Break it down, it becomes forcing the law down our necks, and that is what it is becoming.
Gone are the days it seems, of the friendly patrolman tying the little girls shoe laces. Now they are viewed with fear and suspicion.
That being said those living in the innercity slums and such places are good reason for good cops to be nervous and ready to defend themselves. But I still believe they need to keep their heads and think things thru when given plenty of time to do so. It seems to me lethal force is being resorted to more and more and I question if it is always necessary.
I'm curious, how do you all think my call would be responded to today?
Gabby

Well, first, would say there was a very clear difference between grandpa and his beer versus a guy hell bent on murdering as many police as he can, so I would expect a much different response. Gramps was probably no real danger to anyone, at least not after he could sober up a bit. But Mr. Terrorist in Dallas was a real threat, to a lot of people, and had already demonstrated, very clearly, his intent to do mass harm.

No doubt things have changed over the years in terms of response. Perhaps it's because society has maybe become less polite than it used to be. Perhaps it's because we're more leery now of the bad guys because we see what they are capable of. Perhaps it's because police know they're more of a target than they used to be. It's probably a combination of everything.

As a wee lad back in the 70's, a neighbor came home drunk one day and fired a gun at his wife, just grazing her head. She was able to run out of the house to a neighbor's house, who called the police. This was a normally friendly and nice guy, the manager of a local grocery store and someone that was kind to the kids in the neighborhood. I was playing at a friend's house on the next block when his mother called us immediately into the house and to get down and stay down. The Oregon City police showed up (probably all 6 of them) along with Gladstone PD, West Linn, Clackamas County and some plain clothes folks in Ford LTD's. They stood off with him for about 2 hours, talked him down and took him away. 2 weeks later he was back home, with his wife and back to work. Other than the large turnout of LE's, it was a pretty quiet operation. Would the same happen today? I honestly don't know.

I think the LE's have to consider each incident based not only on what is happening at that moment, but what happened leading up to that moment, and consider the potential threat to themselves and the community in their response. It would obviously be best if these things simply didn't happen, but unfortunately they are a reality and may even be on an upswing right now. And since I don't have the means to stand off and stop a guy like this, I have to rely on the local LE's to do it for me. I have to at least try to trust their judgment and hope that above all else, their concern is first and foremost for the public, then for themselves, and then, if possible for the bad guy. I would agree, it would be nice to take them alive to at least be able to gather some intel from them.

 

[jyuzamas]

I am ok with any deadly force use against any one that is killing people. He got what he deserved and more people should get the same instead of going through the court system and jail.

 

[Scotch7]

A cop aimed the Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV).

A cop pulled the trigger.

Novel weapon, standard police process.

The ROV was not an autonomous 'bot, it was 100% under human control.

ROVs have had AR-15's bolted onto them for over a decade, but none have been used to stop a perp yet as far as I know. Dallas PD used what they had.

 

[Larrytpdx]

Great idea!

 

[fred c. dobbs]

If i recall correctly from "Terminator" Movie, these are called " HUNTER KILLERS " yea great idea, until they are used on you for no transgender bathroom at your house, or, not mowing your lawn, or not paying your tax's, or some politically correct violation against the state. Or maybe because you won't turn in your guns. Arm it will an RPG, and all of sudden you have re-mote de- population device. Will you considerate such a great idea when they decide to use against YOU !

 

[Skier]

While I understand this:

"
The circumstances that justify lethal force justify lethal force in essentially every form," he said. "If someone is shooting at the police, the police are, generally speaking, going to be authorized to eliminate that threat by shooting them, or by stabbing them with a knife, or by running them over with a vehicle. Once lethal force is justified and appropriate, the method of delivery—I doubt it's legally relevant.
"

And I also understand this:

"
The circumstances that justify lethal force justify lethal force in essentially every form," he said. "If someone is shooting at the police, the police are, generally speaking, going to be authorized to eliminate that threat by shooting them, or by stabbing them with a knife, or by running them over with a vehicle. Once lethal force is justified and appropriate, the method of delivery—I doubt it's legally relevant.
"

I think there is a bit of a difference. Let's say there is a standoff, the bad guy is extremely dangerous, and still have the means to cause great damage... So that's the situation. Here's two scenarios:

Scenario #1: There is no such things as bomb robots (or no one has ever thought to use them, or they're too expensive so not many police forces have them, etc)... So, you've got a very dangerous guy that may harm others, and you've authorized use of deadly force, so, a sniper is the most probable way to neutralize the threat without anyone else getting hurt. Fine, the guy get shot (by whatever caliper bullet the sniper uses; agreed, fairly irrelevant)

Scenario #2: We DO have such things are bomb robots. That give you the capability to get relatively close to the suspect (as it obviously did) without much additional risk to human life. Okay, so, given that you can get close to him now, is blowing up a bomb the only reasonable option at this point, or could something else have been done? Could they have used a flash-bang? Tear gas? Some kind of gas that knocks people out? (or displaces oxygen if the scenario took place in an enclosed space) Maybe even a remote control pepper spray the size of a large fire extinguisher so you could completely douse him in pepper spray, burning from head to toe, crying his eyes out, and coughing up a lung?

It would seem to me that the use of a robot completely changes the dynamics or whether of not deadly force was the only option. Now, people can certainly argue that he already killed multiple people and deserves to die, and I won't argue that. You can further argue that it saved a lot of wasted time and energy going to court, waiting for appeals, paying for his food, medical care, and so forth while in jail, etc. Sure, but from a constitutional point of view, we do have a legal process, and summary execution isn't really part of it unless it's the last available option, and I'd contend that using robots gives you additional options, while summary execution under such conditions (where you have additional options) sets a bad precedent and is potentially dangerous to freedom.

Additionally, consider if this guy were still alive. Perhaps we might have had more opportunities (almost guaranteed by the press) for us to hear more about his motivations, his hate, his anger. Maybe people would notice that THAT is the real problem, and not so much the tool he chose to use to act out that hate.

Speaking of which, I fully expect some legislation soon that will address the growing problem of assault trucks. In the last week, more people were mass murdered by truck (84 dead, 202 injured) than by guns (55 dead, and 60 injured between Orlando and Dallas shootings).

 

[Skier]

P.S. Maybe another option... If we're going to start using robots to to deal with mass murders, maybe they should invest in something more like this:

Okay, maybe that's not quite the right fit ;-), but if we can make machines like that, why not one that can bust through a door, and corner a suspect with big arms that will restrain them, or again, deliver a flashbang or tear gas or pepper spray.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

If there could be a button to vote to end a thread, that would come in handy. The euthanasia button.

 

[308Tom]

Think of a Claymore as a short range, high velocity, wide dispersal shotgun. Seemed to have worked too. I submit that once engaged and having been shot at (and hit) the police have every right (in fact a duty to the public) to respond with with what ever force is necessary to eliminate the threat as quickly as possible. And there was a clear escalation - over a period of two hours.

 

[4Freedom]

The police are a civilian level policing force. If the police have the right to use robots and bombs to defend themselves, so should we civilians. Or, perhaps, we are now considered more as peasants?

I am not against them using whatever means necessary to stop that maniac. However, We The People, should also have those tools at our disposal too.