General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAccording to the Dallas Police Chief, the dead killer was killed by a robot
I must say, this was a good idea and quite a feat.
The killer was in a position where he had command of any route by which cops could approach him. It would have been certain death for the cops to close in on him. So they got a bomb robot and put a bomb in the robot's "hand" and set it out toward the killer. When they got it close enough, they detonated the bomb, killing the killer.
I am not a fan of militarized police forces - no how, no way - but a bomb robot is standard issue for any big city or state police force. This was very good thinking and in this case a very effective alternative to cops with long guns or cops storm the killer's position.
Thumbs up to the DPD people who thought that one up!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)That was the decision made to protect police nearby.
That's what the chief said.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)WhisCo
(15 posts)(This is sarcasm, great work to end the shooter's rampage using technology and giving him no more targets).
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)WhisCo
(15 posts)The guy was an active shooter. There's no need to let him murder more innocent police when we have the technology to kill him safely. What's the difference if a sniper takes him or a remote control robot takes him?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Frankly, given some things I've read rcently, I couldn't assume it was sarcasm. I nearly alerted it.
still_one
(92,527 posts)"smiles" button, then select the ellipses at the end of the emojis, "...", and select the sarcasm emoji:
Welcome to DU, and I am NOT be sarcastic about that
Monk06
(7,675 posts)half a city block
The US is now the middle east where IEDs and robotic assassins are the weapons of choice
Keep excalating America and you can turn into Lebanon circa 1983
840high
(17,196 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)MOAB.
Maybe the police should have sent out a call on social media for some volunteers from the 'all you need is love' brigade who feel violence is never the answer to go in and disarm him with good vibes and positive energy.
Would have been some wicked awesome selfies snap chatted, for sure.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Dude, wow.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)This site is so full of misanthropic nasty miserable individuals. I'm over it goodbye
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Fuck that guy.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)If an armed police force couldn't do it, I guess your premise is, well, bullshit.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yes, a sniper can find positions in which they make it very difficult to take them out with anything but a counter-sniper (or military ordnance civilians won't have, like artillery, air strikes, etc.). How often is that likely to happen? Not very, I'd say.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Point which is invalid anyway:
it's not because the population is armed that there is no need for extra power from the police.
Just like the fact soldiers have guns doesn't cancel the need for warplanes.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)against the armed terrorists. Good luck bub.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can only imagine the mental convenience that two and only two possibilities exist afford an undisciplined or irrational mind. Robot bombs or candy... that's adorable.
It may help you in the long wrong to realize that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)A- take the shooter down
B- ?
C- ?
D- ?
E- bring him candy
jpak
(41,761 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,872 posts)posting that and I chickened out..
jpak
(41,761 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)jmowreader
(50,601 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Since the guy claimed to have explosives on his person and planted around the area.
I don't really see the difference between shooting him and blowing him up, though.
clarice
(5,504 posts)LonePirate
(13,446 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)
Sending a robot/machine on a suicide bomber's mission sets a very dangerous and chilling precedent. So much for protecting property it seems.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)How many more people would have been injured or killed while the police "waited him out"? They did what was necessary to neutralize a murderous mad man and I salute them for it.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Give it some extra oil.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Number 5, is now in 500 pieces.
yuiyoshida
(41,872 posts)vanlassie
(5,695 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Yes to both = imminent danger.
clarice
(5,504 posts)bigtree
(86,021 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I'd rather lose a million robots than 58,000 lives.
Yeah, this reply doesn't really make sense, but emotionally, after all the friends I lost, it's kind of satisfying to say this.
bigtree
(86,021 posts)...thing is, the thing which keeps our American society from devolving into a violent free-for-all is our willingness to set and generally adhere to a standard of behavior which demands a measured use of violent force.
Moreover, in situations like Vietnam, where the deployment of American force wasn't in direct defense of American lives or security, there's a risk of military action becoming a mostly consequence-free choice for our citizenry. That's much of the reason why military engagements like Iraq are allowed to proceed with impunity, even when there's no demonstrated risk to our own lives or security; or the cause mostly unjust, unconstitutional, or illegal.
Like with drones... it's understandable to be satisfied with the decreased risk to American soldiers, but the decisions to deploy this remotely deployed force shouldn't hinge solely on whether American lives are at risk.
I think you understand that, but I'll make the point anyway, because as we saw in Philadelphia, other lives might be in the balance. There are also issues of due process of law. I think that's lost in the cheering for this method used in Dallas, whatever it's positive or justifiable merits.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)I conducted myself to higher standards as an American Infantry officer in war.
bigtree
(86,021 posts)...notwithstanding the decisions made by those who order these military engagements.
clarice
(5,504 posts)bigtree
(86,021 posts)...and should be qualified.
clarice
(5,504 posts)narrative (I don't mean you)
MissB
(15,813 posts)and executioner? I am truly horrified by what this gunman did last night. The loss of life at his hands is simply incomprehensible.
And yet. America doesn't do this. We don't blow up a suspect. (Feel obligated to add: at least not in our borders, to Americans, aside from the 1985 bombing in Philidelphia.)
The use of a robot to deliver a bomb should bother us all very much.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......of how much more mayhem he could have and would perpetrated had they done anything else. No qualification needed.
bigtree
(86,021 posts)...you might have missed the debates on the militarization of the police forces.
You present a false choice. There's absolutely no evidence that 'more mayhem' would have occurred if a bomb hadn't been dropped. It doesn't take much intellect to recognize the folly in that reasoning, especially if you've paid moment of attention to the consequences of militarized police forces in Ferguson and elsewhere.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)
They used the means that they had available to them to put an end to the situation without anyone else.......other than Johnson, of course.......getting hurt or killed. Most people would say that's what law enforcement is supposed to do in such situations.
By the way, you've got that smug, condescending thing down pretty well. I would imagine that intimidates some people. You go!!!
bigtree
(86,021 posts)....you're still arguing that point.
You don't think describing my remarks as 'handwringing' was confrontational, at all? It wasn't accurate.
Stinky The Clown
(67,847 posts)As to the use of a "bomb" . . . . that's a detail that isn't clear. Technically, a firecracker is a bomb, the same as a MOAB. There were no reports of buildings toppling or walls opening up, so it is probably safe to say it was a very small bomb.
Would there be as much concern if a police sniper took him down?
The DPD used what they had on hand to great advantage. An active shooter was threatening more active shooting and the detonation of bombs in the area and (it was reported) right there around himself. What I was commending was the clever use of a tool not intended for such a situation. In the end, the idea proved a good one and the event was ended.
Yes, the perp was killed.
In any situation like this anywhere, the perp is commonly killed. A person who has already committed deadly acts with deadly tools continues to be a threat. The job of the cops is to end the threat.
Look back on that gorilla incident a few weeks back. The gorilla had the little boy in his control. Animal experts considered the gorilla's behavior an imminent threat to the boy. The humane ending would have been tranquilizer darts. The experts' opinion was they could not afford to wait for the darts to take effect. And so the order to use deadly force was given. The situation in Dallas was analogous to that. The BIG difference was the gorilla was NOT at fault while the Dallas shooter absolutely was.
Given that this was really an ad hoc solution, it seems to me it was a good one.
bigtree
(86,021 posts)...you'll see that I allow that this may have been an appropriate use of force.
My remark about the cheering wasn't specifically directed at your post.
I don't see any reason to repeat what I've already written on this thread.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,071 posts)The semi-auto rifle, designed for military use was effectively used against them. Military force v. military force.
bigtree
(86,021 posts)...as I wrote, this may well be justifiable in this case.
I don't believe that negates the concerns I expressed, but you make a good point which deserves consideration.
Renew Deal
(81,900 posts)bigtree
(86,021 posts)...I lived through that tragedy.
Renew Deal
(81,900 posts)bigtree
(86,021 posts)rollin74
(1,996 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kablooie
(18,648 posts)Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
adigal
(7,581 posts)Did they check for homeless people first?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. what, you think they dropped a building on the guy?!!??!??
Where did you get that idea??
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)If they had attempted to "wait him out" using the most extreme/torture-inspired methods (loud music, hitting him with a fire hose etc.), would you have been willing to lead the assault team in? They had a man who had shot 11 of their counterparts, barricaded/armed/armored, and they'd negotiated with him for ~6 hours unsuccessfully; what other methods would you suggest?
Stinky The Clown
(67,847 posts)Why would I be proposing alternatives?
What should I be willing to carry out?
Why would I be suggesting other methods?
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)I had read other threads where the opposite was advocated. I apologize for not fully reading your original post, and withdraw my comment. I "assumed" with the thread title, or got them mixed up.
I agree with you completely; I was in the wrong.
Please accept my apologies.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,847 posts). . . . a lot of money.
I'm sure that shooter would have been happy to wait.
They did what they did based on a given situation and on what they had on hand *now*.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,847 posts)And thanks for playing the game. For your trouble, you're going to receive the home version of Let's Second Guess With Silliness.
Buh byyyye!
:wave:
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Sorry for the joke. What I was seriously wondering is whether the failure to develop less violent alternatives might have forced them to resort to killing him. I have no problem with what they did given the resources they had (assuming that it was necessary to eliminate a lethal threat).
Zambero
(8,981 posts)He had already killed and was determined to kill as many others as he could. He claimed to have been able to detonate planted bombs remotely. Attempted negotiations for his surrender had failed. An attempt to disarm and arrest him would have put persons involved in the line of fire. Extraordinary circumstances sometimes often call for extraordinary measures. I don't fault this particular decision.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Me? I'll buy that for a dollar.
PCIntern
(25,656 posts)to nick his trigger finger and wing him in the shoulder so he couldn't handle his weapons anymore.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Reminds me of all the GI Joe cartoons where everyone miraculously parachuted out of the plane before it blew up and/or crashed. Even the vile Cobra, no fatalities...had to keep the parents happy.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,847 posts)He kinda changed the strategy.
Have a swell day and keep on thinking those good thoughts.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)doing the same thing.