Bombs? Really?

[Dead Duck]

I think it's more fitting if the line is drawn by a robot to honor the one who was sacrificed.

[video=youtube;eBRrQBPtdak]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eBRrQBPtdak[/video]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You're a pretty frightening man just by knowing this $#!+. Somebody needs to know it, but damn the information is ugly. How ugly is the implementation of it.

In my ignorance I saw that the man in the picture still had his lips, eyelids and fingers. I supposed that indicated his distance or shelter from the blast. I had never considered the air pressure spike but your info here makes it obvious. In my mind's eye I picture the condensation ring you see in war footage of HE ordinance detonations.

Yow, mama.

Killing people usually is ugly. There's seldom a "nice" way to do it. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he was tortured to death. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he were not given the option to peacefully surrender. This was not a drone strike on an unsuspected target. This was not torturing him. If the pressure was high enough to damage the brain, he probably died with less pain than a bullet through the heart. While "bomb" is a scary word, this was a pretty humane way to end a life that needed to be ended. I concur 100% with the Chief down there, I fail to see any ethical issues.

 

[DRob]

There's no ethical issue. I don't even think that's what this thread is a about. It's about who did it rather than what was done. Of course this totally ignores the fact that the robot's mission was not to kill the man.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Killing people usually is ugly. There's seldom a "nice" way to do it. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he was tortured to death. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he were not given the option to peacefully surrender. This was not a drone strike on an unsuspected target. This was not torturing him. If the pressure was high enough to damage the brain, he probably died with less pain than a bullet through the heart. While "bomb" is a scary word, this was a pretty humane way to end a life that needed to be ended. I concur 100% with the Chief down there, I fail to see any ethical issues.

Wait! You wouldn't torture him to death? Why not? I thought killing him by any means necessary was ok. I thought that the means was unimportant, only that deadly force is warranted. BBIs, You are just like ME! You DO have a line! It's a bit down the street from mine but the line is there! (what do my kids say? booya? A guy almost NEVER gets one on BBIs!)

 

[Cameramonkey]

There's no ethical issue. I don't even think that's what this thread is a about. It's about who did it rather than what was done. Of course this totally ignores the fact that the robot's mission was not to kill the man.

And you are falling into the same trap the antis do in regards to perceived definitions/feelings vs reality; This isnt about a "robot"! Asimov's laws are talking about AUTONOMOUS devices; devices that act on their own and make their own decisions in real time, independent of external human input.

ROVs are absolutely NOT robots and therefore not subject to Asimov's laws because they have no logic and are controlled directly and totally by a human.

This was a remote controlled device, meaning it has no decision making abilities and therefore is not subject to Asimov's laws. This ROV was no more a "Robot" than a predator drone controlled by an air force pilot.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wait! You wouldn't torture him to death? Why not? I thought killing him by any means necessary was ok. I thought that the means was unimportant, only that deadly force is warranted. BBIs, You are just like ME! You DO have a line! It's a bit down the street from mine but the line is there! (what do my kids say? booya? A guy almost NEVER gets one on BBIs!)

Torturing someone isn't simply applying deadly force. Torture is inflicting unnecessary pain, mental or physical. That's well above deadly force. Same as I have no problem with butchering livestock and have done it myself many times, but I'd have real issue with torturing an animal to death.

There could be many reasons I'd "draw the line", ranging from due process issues to substantial risk to innocents in the area. None of those were present in this instance. The bomb as delivered here vs a bullet were fungible.

Now, I'm tired and am off to bed. If you wish to be tossed in a ditch, you'll have to to do it yourself.

 

[Dead Duck]

Torturing someone isn't simply applying deadly force. Torture is inflicting unnecessary pain, mental or physical. That's well above deadly force.

I agree.
Torture should only be done to Pedophiles and Rapists.................s.l.o.w.l.y.

 

[Route 45]

It sure is exactly that for me, an ethical dilemma exactly. And for a few of us in this thread also even if we are in a bit of a minority. If I don't draw a line somewhere then there will be no line at all. That's the first question; Line or none. Then exactly where the line is to be.

I don't see what you dilemma is. Deadly force is deadly force. Once it is justified, it is justified. I see little difference between a C4 blast and a couple of rounds of 00 buck to the face at point blank range. In fact, the bomb blast is likely quicker and more humane.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Torturing someone isn't simply applying deadly force. Torture is inflicting unnecessary pain, mental or physical. That's well above deadly force. Same as I have no problem with butchering livestock and have done it myself many times, but I'd have real issue with torturing an animal to death.

There could be many reasons I'd "draw the line", ranging from due process issues to substantial risk to innocents in the area. None of those were present in this instance. The bomb as delivered here vs a bullet were fungible.

Now, I'm tired and am off to bed. If you wish to be tossed in a ditch, you'll have to to do it yourself.

But you still have some kind of line. Either a line is valid or it's not. Then we can argue where that line should be. Yes I am going to my ditch to sleep too, but that was another thread!

I don't see what you dilemma is. Deadly force is deadly force. Once it is justified, it is justified. I see little difference between a C4 blast and a couple of rounds of 00 buck to the face at point blank range. In fact, the bomb blast is likely quicker and more humane.

I couldn't care less that the guy's dead. My issue is the using of military weapons and tactics by civilian police on civilian populace. Despite the very good arguments that the local constabulary has made, that deadly force is not defined by means but rather by result and that the legality of explosive is only a license away, (whew! huff puff, INGO's longest sentence) I am not convinced that there is any permit that will allow ME to use explosives in any antipersonnel capacity at all self defensive deadly force or not.

Two identical devices are defined differently by the intent with which it is being used. Example; a stick of dynamite in the yard to dislodge a stump..... With proper permits, legal. The identical stick of dynamite hidden in the planter at my front door to be remotely or automatically detonated as a defense against home invasion constitutes an illegal explosive device, booby trap or weapon of mass destruction and quite illegal even on private property. There is no civilian recourse for that kind of usage.

The "bomb" was presented as an antipersonnel strategy when I first heard the chief report it's success. Illegal. If it was in reality intended to simply breach the door, and dumba$$ badguy decides to hide behind that same door.....As Frank said "Boo **** ing Hoo" it was legal.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

As I said above, I'm not onboard with LE stocking explosive antipersonell munitions and devices.

LE doesn't stock those things. Explosives possessed by LE agencies are for breaching, disrupting suspicious items, or destroying old explosives.

 

[Birds Away]

Killing people usually is ugly. There's seldom a "nice" way to do it. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he was tortured to death. I'd consider it an ethical dilemma if he were not given the option to peacefully surrender. This was not a drone strike on an unsuspected target. This was not torturing him. If the pressure was high enough to damage the brain, he probably died with less pain than a bullet through the heart. While "bomb" is a scary word, this was a pretty humane way to end a life that needed to be ended. I concur 100% with the Chief down there, I fail to see any ethical issues.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How robot, explosives killed Dallas sniper - CNN.com

 

[Alamo]

The robot, which cost $151,000, sustained minor damage to the extension arm and is still functional, the chief says.

Interesting.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Interesting.

Steel doesn't mind compressive force much. It really doesn't like cutting force. A single block of C4, unless specifically shaped and primed as cutting charge, isn't going to do much damage to a steel plate it's sitting on top of.

The MICLIC (MIne Clearing LIne Charge) is roughly a ton of C4. The stand off is very short in a metal vehicle, because steel doesn't compress and because the pressure in the vehicle can't change fast enough to hurt the occupants.

[video=youtube;a52-rOC8_Zk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a52-rOC8_Zk[/video]

It works by the pressure wave setting off land mines. The air pressure is "heavy" enough the mine is activated just like a vehicle/person stepped on it. However the stand off for something not worried about over pressure (even an aluminum APC) is very short.

So, yeah, I wouldn't expect a block of C-4 to destroy an EOD robot.

 

[indiucky]

Steel doesn't mind compressive force much. It really doesn't like cutting force. A single block of C4, unless specifically shaped and primed as cutting charge, isn't going to do much damage to a steel plate it's sitting on top of.

The MICLIC (MIne Clearing LIne Charge) is roughly a ton of C4. The stand off is very short in a metal vehicle, because steel doesn't compress and because the pressure in the vehicle can't change fast enough to hurt the occupants.

[video=youtube;a52-rOC8_Zk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a52-rOC8_Zk[/video]

It works by the pressure wave setting off land mines. The air pressure is "heavy" enough the mine is activated just like a vehicle/person stepped on it. However the stand off for something not worried about over pressure (even an aluminum APC) is very short.

So, yeah, I wouldn't expect a block of C-4 to destroy an EOD robot.

The knowledge you have underneath that fedora continues to impress...

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

I see nothing wrong with the use of a weapon that keeps our officers safe. If they start using drones equipped with missles to keep them safe, so be it. As long as bystanders and innocent people aren't harmed while they use them.. What do I care one less bad guy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The knowledge you have underneath that fedora continues to impress...

...well, I get bored easy.

In all seriousness, if I got to blow things up more often and pick up cigarette butts less often I probably would have re-enlisted again. Blowing things up is a...blast. Yes, I said it.

 

[DRob]

And you are falling into the same trap the antis do in regards to perceived definitions/feelings vs reality; This isnt about a "robot"! Asimov's laws are talking about AUTONOMOUS devices; devices that act on their own and make their own decisions in real time, independent of external human input.

ROVs are absolutely NOT robots and therefore not subject to Asimov's laws because they have no logic and are controlled directly and totally by a human.

This was a remote controlled device, meaning it has no decision making abilities and therefore is not subject to Asimov's laws. This ROV was no more a "Robot" than a predator drone controlled by an air force pilot.

Nitpicking the use of the vernacular! Doesn't matter what you call the vehicle. I'm falling into the "trap", if you please, of having gotten information on this event from a guy who knows his stuff, knows the guy who was running the robot/ROV in question, and didn't have to rely upon the news media or a dumbed-down press conference for his information.

Maybe this will make you and Asimov feel better. The mission of the ROV was to deliver a charge intended to breach a door, not to kill the individual on the other side of it. His death was what some might call unintended consequences. We'll never know but, if he had not had his own explosive device nearby, he might still be alive or he might have been killed by a method apparently more acceptable to some.

 

[rhino]

...well, I get bored easy.

In all seriousness, if I got to blow things up more often and pick up cigarette butts less often I probably would have re-enlisted again. Blowing things up is a...blast. Yes, I said it.

When I was still teaching in the classroom at Ivy Tech, the number one request (by far) during labs was "when can we blow stuff up?"

Humans like to blow sh** up.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

When I was still teaching in the classroom at Ivy Tech, the number one request (by far) during labs was "when can we blow stuff up?"

Humans like to blow sh** up.

The only thing more fun than setting off a claymore mine (from a safe distance) is shooting up a range with a mini-gun/chunker turret on a Cobra.