Bombs? Really?

[seedubs1]

Again, there's a difference between utilizing explosive material as a tool to breach a wall or neutralize a bomb and utilizing explosive material to blow up a person. Clearly you don't see that, though.

Clearly they should have been forced to send an officer up to the truck bomb and detonate it himself.

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[gunsisgood]

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 I tell to my boss e v e r y day

 

[Jludo]

Clearly they should have been forced to send an officer up to the truck bomb and detonate it himself.

Why do you say that.

 

[seedubs1]

Because he doesn't know how to distinguish utilization of something as a tool to neutralize a bomb and utilization for homicide.

Why do you say that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeahn it is odd that I am being called divisive and have yet to see that label put on anyone else.

Lol. Happens to me all the time Frank. I don't have an issue with a bomb. I think this conversation is ridiculous. Did this guy need killing or not? Why are we squabbling about the method. As long as it was quick and efficient rather than slow and meant to maim, what's the issue?

 

[seedubs1]

Next time, let's hope the swat team doesn't drop a bomb in a toddlers crib because we decide from this incident that it's ok for cops to use bombs to kill.

Lol. Happens to me all the time Frank. I don't have an issue with a bomb. I think this conversation is ridiculous. Did this guy need killing or not? Why are we squabbling about the method. As long as it was quick and efficient rather than slow and meant to maim, what's the issue?

 

[Tombs]

Nope. Whole bunch of nope. Police are not relegated to only buying old outdated automatic weaponry that has been put completely out of reach, price wise, due to the NFA. They do not play by the same rules as we do. This is not an adequate argument.

There's RDIASs. You can put them in a brand new rifle. Is that outdated?

Yeah the law sucks, the point is that you can have the same capabilities. Put in the work to get an FFL, and you can have the same capabilities a police department can.

Do you really think they have zero oversight for all of this hardware? There's strings attached to them just like you would have.

 

[phylodog]

Again, there's a difference between utilizing explosive material as a tool to breach a wall or neutralize a bomb and utilizing explosive material to blow up a person. Clearly you don't see that, though.

Yet we are going to lose our collective minds over the fact that in spite of possessing explosives for decades, in spite of the fact that if there ever were a clear cut case for deadly force this is it and in spite of the fact that this tactic has been employed exactly one time in US history.

 

[Jludo]

Lol. Happens to me all the time Frank. I don't have an issue with a bomb. I think this conversation is ridiculous. Did this guy need killing or not? Why are we squabbling about the method. As long as it was quick and efficient rather than slow and meant to maim, what's the issue?

Kut I don't believe I've seen you claim anything similar to:

"Boo ****ing hoo. I bet you don't have a problem with the cops being murdered with a rifle."

That'll get you called divisive.

 

[Rookie]

Next time, let's hope the swat team doesn't drop a bomb in a toddlers crib because we decide from this incident that it's ok for cops to use bombs to kill.

That's a stretch.

 

[thunderchicken]

Someone said multiple times to bring in the National guard..seriously how long would the police have to wait while taking fire before the gov gave authorization and troops were armed organized and arrive 10-23?? With someone shooting at you you don't sit & wait

 

[seedubs1]

Yes. And I, for one, am NOT ok with it. Again, possession and usage for breaching and neutralizing bombs is not the same as being authorized to blow up people with it. The latter, I am not ok with.

Yet we are going to lose our collective minds over the fact that in spite of possessing explosives for decades, in spite of the fact that if there ever were a clear cut case for deadly force this is it and in spite of the fact that this tactic has been employed exactly one time in US history.

 

[Tombs]

Again, there's a difference between utilizing explosive material as a tool to breach a wall or neutralize a bomb and utilizing explosive material to blow up a person. Clearly you don't see that, though.

I guess we shouldn't prosecute clinton then, I mean it'd be the first time in history a presidential candidate was tried on charges that only 1 other person has ever been brought up on.

 

[T.Lex]

This bombs-for-walls-but-not-for-people idea is interesting to me.

Police use bombs on walls because they are allowed to in certain situations where it is the most effective way of gaining entry to a location that they are allowed to enter. The same rationale applies when using bombs on people. If it is the most effective way of using deadly force on someone who they are allowed to use deadly force on, then they are allowed to do it.

This really isn't new.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This bombs-for-walls-but-not-for-people idea is interesting to me.

Police use bombs on walls because they are allowed to in certain situations where it is the most effective way of gaining entry to a location that they are allowed to enter. The same rationale applies when using bombs on people. If it is the most effective way of using deadly force on someone who they are allowed to use deadly force on, then they are allowed to do it.

This really isn't new.

The implementation of it is. First in US.

 

[phylodog]

Yes. And I, for one, am NOT ok with it. Again, possession and usage for breaching and neutralizing bombs is not the same as being authorized to blow up people with it. The latter, I am not ok with.

At this point I think everyone is pretty clear you're not ok with it

 

[MCgrease08]

Next time, let's hope the swat team doesn't drop a bomb in a toddlers crib because we decide from this incident that it's ok for cops to use bombs to kill.

You're kind of missing the point here. Deadly force against toddlers isn't ever going to be authorized or acceptable.

If an officer employs deadly force when it isn't warranted, then they should and do face legal repercussions. No matter the method.

Just because an explosive was used in this case, it doesn't somehow weaken or blur the threshold of when deadly force can be used.

 

[BogWalker]

Next time, let's hope the swat team doesn't drop a bomb in a toddlers crib because we decide from this incident that it's ok for cops to use bombs to kill.

What ridiculousness even is this post? Giving the police access to a bomb automatically means they will start using it for killing that otherwise wouldn't have happened?

Makes no sense. That's like saying giving an otherwise law-abiding gun owner an AR-15 means he will now start murdering people.

This doesn't change the where and when of when deadly force is justified. Having access to bombs doesn't suddenly make it justified to start tossing them everywhere. The same rules of when police can kill will still apply, they'll just carry it out with a new method.

 

[T.Lex]

The implementation of it is. First in US.

Only with the robot.

Philly in '85 used a helo. Haven't seen a rash of police barrel bombs in the intervening years.