Bombs? Really?

[Jludo]

What are your training qualifications for police and how long have you been instructing/training them on threat mitigation and how to handle situations like these?

If you have no experience in this realm and no qualifications, I recommend you let those who do actually inform you of how things work.

Tombs if that was the standard for discussion I'd think you would have far fewer posts.

 

[thunderchicken]

I have a limited amount of experience as a LEO (decideda carrier changes was needed after 3yrs). But I have no problem with the outcome or the manner this threat was neutralized. This was obviously planned and the shmuck was well prepared. 5 dead 6 or 7 others wounded...he got what he deserved.Frank N Stein is right boo****ing hoo an active shooter has to be taken out by any means parking garages offer little cover to an advancing swat team so the bomb prolly saved lives

 

[MCgrease08]

Actually, yeah, sorta. As a free society, we've adopted certain rules for everyone's benefit.

Fighting crime, and even fighting criminals - like REALLY fighting directly with them - involves rules. In this case, the rules allow deadly force. Doesn't matter the mechanism that releases the force causing death. Could be jackboots or sidewinders. If deadly force is allowed, then it's allowed.

This. In the eyes of the law, deadly force is deadly force. It's either OK or it's not. The method of delivery is irrelevant.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Haven't there been situations in the past where these sorts of diffusal robots were outfitted with guns? Like shotguns?

Have they been used before to shoot barricaded suspects?

They negotiated for hours, I assume the guy said he wasn't coming out alive. Maybe they thought he had a bomb vest.

At that point, he is the explosive and needed to be disarmed. Again, it makes perfect sense why they did what they did, and I'm glad it worked.

But that doesn't mean it's off-limits for the public to ask questions about it.

 

[thunderchicken]

At least he won't be getting educated in prison and costing tax payers for years.

 

[Tombs]

Tombs if that was the standard for discussion I'd think you would have far fewer posts.

Isn't that witty?

It isn't a standard for discussion, it's a standard for evaluating the threat the police were facing that night and the means of which they needed to employ to ensure the safety of officers.

What next, are you going to tell me if I use a rifle instead of a handgun for defending myself that I am in the wrong because that level of force is inexcusable? Give me a break.

 

[seedubs1]

So we're getting to the point of saying it's ok for police to use drones to take out people when deadly force is acceptable. Again, not ok with any of this. Police are authorized to use deadly force, but "by any means possible" is not acceptable to me. They shouldn't be authorized to use anything that a standard citizen can't legally use for self defense as a means to carry out deadly force.

 

[Jludo]

IF this ******* goes after your family let's see how civil you will be about it.
I don't like any of it. It's awful it has to come to this.
Still, this guy was deserving of anything he received.

What would you do if it was your child is not a good argument /standard. It's an appeal to emotion rather than a clear headed, logic driven position.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What are your training qualifications for police and how long have you been instructing/training them on threat mitigation and how to handle situations like these?

If you have no experience in this realm and no qualifications, I recommend you let those who do actually inform you of how things work.

This is completely irrelevant. He doesn't, nor does anyone else need to be an expert on law enforcement to object to having methods available which potentially could be used on any of us in the future, and following the trends with other extraordinary methods, likely will be used in progressively less necessary situations and for lesser offenses. I doubt that anyone on any side of this discussion has any sympathy for the deceased murderer but rather is concerned about not handing the .gov a club which could just as easily be used to hit a far wider variety of people for less defensible reasons once such tactics become accepted.

 

[Rookie]

Police don't have grenades. They used supplies available to EOD. And I'll say it again: boo ****ing hoo.

Grenades, I would have a problem with. I'll ignore the last part.

This may come as a total shock to some of you but police departments have had access to explosives for decades. They typically serve two purposes, explosive breaching (like in Orlando) and bomb detonation. In spite of the fact this crap has been around for decades the police have somehow managed to not start building bombs and blowing **** up on a regular basis. Seems to have been reserved for special occasions, like 5 cops getting murdered at one "peaceful" protest.

If they improvised, then more power to them. Bad guy down without further loss of life. Works for me.

 

[Principal Skinr]

You'll have to point out any part of what I said where I implied something so nonsensical.

Blowing people up as a police officer is something new. It should be discussed.

"Who cares if the police officer used a guided missile to stop the suspect, at least the suspect died!"

You implied it, IMO, when you said, "You going to keep track of that? Make sure it doesn't happen again? Using something like this "rarely" or "every now and then" doesn't make it less of a concern..."

I don't disagree that it should be discussed, and I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing here. I stated before that I have no problem with them doing this. If you didn't know SWAT has c4 or other explosives for years, then I'm surprised. I've always assumed they did, as another poster said, for various things, such as breaching. Since you also said " I'm glad they stopped the guy without any more officers being hurt. That's excellent, that's the number one priority.", then I think using whatever means available is entirely appropriate. Maybe they improvised and used a bomb squad robot with c4 attached to it with a remote detonator. Not too complicated for smart, experienced people trying to accomplish priorty 1 using all means at their disposal.

I'm not advocating unlimited weaponry, but I do think the threat presented to them last night was predictable, and therefore justified having prepared this type of solution in advance. (Again, maybe they didn't do it in advance. Maybe they improvised. We don't know that yet.)

 

[seedubs1]

I draw that line at the line the .gov has said I, as a civilian, must legally abide by. If it's not ok for me to utilize in a legitimate self defense situation, it shouldn't be ok for an officer to use. If they need more, call in the national guard, or any other ACTUAL military force.

Isn't that witty? It isn't a standard for discussion, it's a standard for evaluating the threat the police were facing that night and the means of which they needed to employ to ensure the safety of officers. What next, are you going to tell me if I use a rifle instead of a handgun for defending myself that I am in the wrong because that level of force is inexcusable? Give me a break.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You implied it, IMO, when you said,...

That wasn't my intention then.

I'm more curious than anything. I can't find any info on if such a method has been used before. This sounds like new territory.

 

[Tombs]

I draw that line at the line the .gov has said I, as a civilian, must legally abide by. If it's not ok for me to utilize in a legitimate self defense situation, it shouldn't be ok for an officer to use. If they need more, call in the national guard, or any other ACTUAL military force.

People are actively dying, you have at your disposal the means to stop further loss of life.

Do you sit on your hands or do you continue to let good men and women die?

 

[MCgrease08]

How would everyone feel if an officer would have struck and killed the shooter with a vehicle? Or beat him to death with a mag light?

Perhaps we should complile a list of all the acceptable methods for employing deading force.

As far as I understand it, once the threshold for employing deadly force is met, than all methods / options are on the table.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Assuming numbynuts needed to be killed, why does it what how that was accomplished?

If necessary, it is justifiable homicide regardless of method.

 

[Jludo]

People are actively dying, you have at your disposal the means to stop further loss of life.

Do you sit on your hands or do you continue to let good men and women die?

That's a false dichotomy, you knock down the door and the swat team does their job. It's not bomb robot or do nothing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Answers my question:

Use of police robot to kill Dallas shooting suspect believed to be first in US history

 

[phylodog]

For the record I don't agree with scumbags murdering police officers with rifles.

Here's an avenue for those of you who want to make your own bombs.
IDHS: Regulated Explosives Use

 

[Tombs]

That's a false dichotomy, you knock down the door and the swat team does their job. It's not bomb robot or do nothing.

Wow with skills like yours why aren't you training our police!? How can you possibly afford to waste the dissemination of this information online, you should be selling it!