Bombs? Really?

[BehindBlueI's]

And yet when the death penalty is applied these days we no longer hang or gas people, almost nobody uses a firing squad and the chair is on the way out as well, leaving lethal injection. So obviously both the State and society care HOW deadly force is applied.

The death penalty is punishment, not deadly force to protect yourself or others. Not an apples to apples comparison...and we're not talking about torturing people to death.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm 100% good with it. 5 police officers killed doing good
work and so many others and innocent civilians at risk and being **** at after negotiations had failed. Yep. You get what you get scum bag because you earned it!

Now if this would have happened in California during a gun round up I would feel no sympathy. But you don't shoot at the police for enforcing legal laws or keeping the peace. Good police officers wouldn't do **** like that anyways (take guns). But I do believe it's coming soon.

 

[bwframe]

Maybe some, including the OP, should save their argument for when and if the cops screw up. This time, someone made a judgement call and it was the right one. It would be foolish to think LEO isn't under constant scrutiny.

 

[CTS]

I personally don't have a problem with this. It's not the same as having drone fired missals at their command. The only person who died was the one trying to kill people for no good reason...that's what I call a win.

 

[yepthatsme]

I personally don't have a problem with this. It's not the same as having drone fired missals at their command. The only person who died was the one trying to kill people for no good reason...that's what I call a win.

I don't understand. What's the difference here? An explosive device was delivered by an unmanned vehicle. They are both drones. Will the police begin using flying drones to deliver explosives next? I see this as a dangerous precedent and allowing the police to have more power. Do not misunderstand me. I'm am very conservative and I'm glad that they killed the shooter. He more than deserved it. However, using explosives? I have to say that I don't agree with fragging people without a declaration of war.

 

[halfmileharry]

I don't understand. What's the difference here? An explosive device was delivered by an unmanned vehicle. They are both drones. Will the police begin using flying drones to deliver explosives next? I see this as a dangerous precedent and allowing the police to have more power. Do not misunderstand me. I'm am very conservative and I'm glad that they killed the shooter. He more than deserved it. However, using explosives? I have to say that I don't agree with fragging people without a declaration of war.

The cops disposed of a possible bomb with the robot and explosives. It's done all the time. There was a human terrorist theoretically armed with explosives. Seems like standard procedures except for the human excrement involved this time.

 

[yepthatsme]

The cops disposed of a possible bomb with the robot and explosives. It's done all the time. There was a human terrorist theoretically armed with explosives. Seems like standard procedures except for the human excrement involved this time.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between disposing of explosives using a drone to prevent human destruction as compared to disposing of humans using a drone with explosives. Exactly where do you draw the line? Do you now allow the police to use grenade launchers, LAWS rockets, RPGs, Claymores, Minimores, or use drones with laser guided bombs, Hellfire bombs, or air to surface missiles on people on American soil? Do you now arm the surplus military vehicles with canons and 50 caliber machine guns? Tell me where the line is that you are comfortable with local police using explosives. This was just a small step, but it won't stop here. This was not a unique situation that called for drastic measures just to be used once and never again. This set a precedent. This procedure will now be placed in all of the playbooks for the police as an viable option to be used against armed aggressors in a similar situation.


If Americans aren't appalled by the use of explosives, this could possibly become a common tactic for police. Is this what we want in America? Just my

 

[DRob]

The difference is obvious. They were using the robot and a charge to detonate an explosive device the bad guy had. His death was not the main mission of the robot. That he was killed by the disposal of his own device is simply added value without endangering other lives.

 

[Woobie]

Something I haven't seen in this thread is possible deterrent. And maybe there isn't. But if you went in to rob a bank knowing someone might blow you up, maybe you would think again. If this becomes more standard, perhaps the psychological effect will wear off. But for now, no one wants to wind up as a red smear.

I don't think this should be part of the argument for or against, just a possible, and happy, byproduct.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, I know one thing, if I ever turn to a life of crime, and the law catches up with me, I'm not going let them send Johnny 5 over to deliver my pizza and phone.

 

[Woobie]

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between disposing of explosives using a drone to prevent human destruction as compared to disposing of humans using a drone with explosives. Exactly where do you draw the line? Do you now allow the police to use grenade launchers, LAWS rockets, RPGs, Claymores, Minimores, or use drones with laser guided bombs, Hellfire bombs, or air to surface missiles on people on American soil? Do you now arm the surplus military vehicles with canons and 50 caliber machine guns? Tell me where the line is that you are comfortable with local police using explosives. This was just a small step, but it won't stop here. This was not a unique situation that called for drastic measures just to be used once and never again. This set a precedent. This procedure will now be placed in all of the playbooks for the police as an viable option to be used against armed aggressors in a similar situation.


If Americans aren't appalled by the use of explosives, this could possibly become a common tactic for police. Is this what we want in America? Just my

I am firmly in the camp that if police can get it, it should be just as easy and cheap for citizens to get it. That's why I support companies who won't sell SBR's where they are illegal to citizens, or 30 round mags in NJ, for instance.

Cops do screw up. There are a lot of them, and America is a big place. Eventually something bad will happen. Apparently some shouldn't even have flash bangs. But cops have had explosives for years, and we don't have a history of abuse or routine accidents.

This was an impromptu act to diffuse a very dangerous situation. For that I give them 10/10. Good on 'em. No complaints whatsoever. Going forward, if a department thinks this is a viable tactic, they need, probably through their respective state legislature, to get the permission of the people they serve. However, if someone has a bomb, and the lowest risk option for the public at large and (not or) the officers involved is to detonate it on the live user of said bomb, then great.

The Feds have gotten way too involved in local policing, as well as a lot of other things like education, that are supposed to be local issues. And they have made things worse in certain ways. I really think this is the source of our distrust of police, and some of it is valid. I really think if the Feds were not so involved, the local populace would feel more in control of and in tune with their police department, and a more trustful working relationship would result. If we want to be concerned about police powers and possible abuse, lets delve back into no knock warrants, due process issues, secret courts and such. Being scared of a tool really shouldn't be near the top of the list.

 

[Rookie]

Well, I know one thing, if I ever turn to a life of crime, and the law catches up with me, I'm not going let them send Johnny 5 over to deliver my pizza and phone.

I'm betting a lot of bad guys will have the same outlook, so this is most likely a one time deal.

 

[mammynun]

Well, I know one thing, if I ever turn to a life of crime, and the law catches up with me, I'm not going let them send Johnny 5 over to deliver my pizza and phone.

How will you stop "them?"

I was listening to the briefing and when it was announced that the perp had been blown up, my initial reaction was "WTF?" After thinking about it (while Photoshopping), I decided that I was OK with it. After reading this thread, I'm still OK with it. Actually, even more so. What the whole thing hinges on, IMO, is that it was precisely targeted... just like a .308/300WM would have been. Perhaps the damage to property was greater, but no additional lives were risked.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between disposing of explosives using a drone to prevent human destruction as compared to disposing of humans using a drone with explosives. Exactly where do you draw the line? Do you now allow the police to use grenade launchers, LAWS rockets, RPGs, Claymores, Minimores, or use drones with laser guided bombs, Hellfire bombs, or air to surface missiles on people on American soil? Do you now arm the surplus military vehicles with canons and 50 caliber machine guns? Tell me where the line is that you are comfortable with local police using explosives. This was just a small step, but it won't stop here. This was not a unique situation that called for drastic measures just to be used once and never again. This set a precedent. This procedure will now be placed in all of the playbooks for the police as an viable option to be used against armed aggressors in a similar situation.


If Americans aren't appalled by the use of explosives, this could possibly become a common tactic for police. Is this what we want in America? Just my

Slippery slope fallacy. "You can drive your car at 70mph. What's next 80? 90? 150? Do you want cars on the highway going 150? No, then we need to ban cars on the highway."

You evaluate each step in it's own light, not keep going until you reach absurdity as a point against something reasonable. Using a robot to place an explosive charge that didn't endanger any bystanders, didn't cause unnecessary property damage, etc. is not a Hellfire. It killed one guy, the target.

I can't help but keep thinking this is the same argument that led to hollowpoints being banned in New Jersey. It's so mean to kill someone with bullets that expand and cut, so you've got to kill them with nice comfortable round nose bullets. If that actually makes everyone less safe, oh well, I feel better about it.

 

[printcraft]

Well, I know one thing, if I ever turn to a life of crime, and the law catches up with me, I'm not going let them send Johnny 5 over to deliver my pizza and phone.

Pepperoni pizza with extra cyanide! I like where this is going. See, no bombs.

 

[bwframe]

Dunno if its been reported or not yet, but FNC was just interviewing a (maybe former?) Dallas bomb squad officer with some specifics.

Bomb detonated 2 feet from the terrorist. Cannot do toxicology as there is not enough remains to do it on.



"Think you used enough dynamite, Butch?"

 

[halfmileharry]

Autopsy by garden hose

Dunno if its been reported or not yet, but FNC was just interviewing a (maybe former?) Dallas bomb squad officer with some specifics.

Bomb detonated 2 feet from the terrorist. Cannot do toxicology as there is not enough remains to do it on.



"Think you used enough dynamite, Butch?"

 

[gunsisgood]

Now if this would have happened in California during a gun round up I would feel no sympathy. But you don't shoot at the police for enforcing legal laws or keeping the peace. Good police officers wouldn't do **** like that anyways (take guns). But I do believe it's coming soon.

Yep
I can see hillary chomping at the bit
to get her paws on the controls of a few hundred of these suicide bots.
Game changer for sure.

 

[DRob]

I have not read through this entire thread, and don't intend to, so perhaps the info I received has already been posted. If so it's now posted again.

Had breakfast with the guy who maintains IMPD's robots. What he got was that the Dallas robot was not intended to detonate the bad guy's bomb. The intent was to simply breach the door in order to gain access to the area he was in. Of course, it makes sense to be sure to use "enough" as opposed to "not enough" explosive to do the job. They had been in communication with the cop killer but when he broke off the comms, they decided to make a move. The breaching charge was clearly enough and, fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, it detonated the bad guy's bomb. And, by the way, the IMPD guy has met the robot operator in question at some EOD seminars. He's ATF.

 

[Jludo]

I have not read through this entire thread, and don't intend to, so perhaps the info I received has already been posted. If so it's now posted again.

Had breakfast with the guy who maintains IMPD's robots. What he got was that the Dallas robot was not intended to detonate the bad guy's bomb. The intent was to simply breach the door in order to gain access to the area he was in. Of course, it makes sense to be sure to use "enough" as opposed to "not enough" explosive to do the job. They had been in communication with the cop killer but when he broke off the comms, they decided to make a move. The breaching charge was clearly enough and, fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, it detonated the bad guy's bomb. And, by the way, the IMPD guy has met the robot operator in question at some EOD seminars. He's ATF.

If that's the substantiated truth I doubt anyone has any issue with how the situation was handled.
I hadn't heard that story yet.