The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/th ... b-to-kill/

Is this use legal? Lyons says this is something for the courts to decide.

“In this case it will probably turn on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures,” he says. “I think that the courts would probably construe the shooter to have been in constructive custody – that is, even though he was not physically in the custody of the police, his freedom of movement was so restricted. Whenever someone is in police custody, constructive or actual, the police have to behave reasonably.”

But a lot of the legality of the case boils down to perceptions, Lyons says.

“Obviously police officers were in harm’s way, so I’m sure the decision was made on the basis of trying to minimize the exposure of officers to danger,” he says. “There are, however, other considerations. … The only two times in American policing history that bombs have been deployed (they) have both been deployed against African-Americans – even though African-Americans are only 12 percent of the population. If this is going to fuel those feelings further, might it be case that the short-term benefits of minimizing harm to officers may be offset by greater long-term consequences as other people may decide to take up arms against police.”

Lyons is Dean of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University.

dandad wrote:Judge Dread has come

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking.

These stories of expediency in judging guilt and exacting punishment are always set in a future of dystopia where society is threatened by a menacing force or is itself in the late stages of social decay. Judge Dredd and Robocop tell us a moral cautionary tale: you cannot short circuit the justice system without short circuiting justice and lose your humanity in the process .

Every police snipers work by the creed, "take a life to save a life." In this Dallas Shooting, it was improper to send in a bomb carrying robot when the shooter was stationary and not attempting to kill an officer or take hostages. Again, if the police had the robot detonate a stun grenade at close range and accidentally killed the perp, the intention would not be to kill but neutralize to capture. That would have made all the difference.

Instead, Dallas Police using a bomb to kill the perp because the he has already killed police officers unfortunately reeks of vendetta and unprofessionality. Modern Law has long moved away from an-eye-for-an-eye even though our unconsciousness is still linked to it when we suffer pain. But the entire body of law is built on the concept of allowing cooler heads to prevail lest an innocent is executed in the heat of passion.

Quite simply, the actions of the Dallas Police Department was also a blow to the sanctity of our Constitutional Right for due-process.

CDFingers wrote:There is almost no rhetorical attack on the DPD use of the bot that will be successful.

There's a reason for that.

CDFingers

You are right. The reason is that any such argument would have to be based on the manifestly silly notion that a man wearing body armor, armed with a military grade rifle, claiming to possess explosives, and who has just killed 5 and wounded 9 people did not pose a significant threat to the officers or others.

Anyone who doubts this should read Garner V Tennessee, which lays out the standard for the use of deadly force by Police Officers. To summarize Garner, the officer must have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Does anyone seriously doubt that probably cause existed to believe that Johnson posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others?

The use of a bomb by Police, rather than a gun, is of no legal consequence in this situation.

Legal Experts Raise Alarm over Shocking Use of 'Killer Robot' in Dallas

"Police cannot use deadly force unless there's an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to them or other people. If the suspect was holed up in a parking garage and there was nobody in immediate danger from him, the police could have waited him out. They should have arrested him and brought him to trial," Cohn said. "Due process is not just enshrined in our constitution, it's also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. has ratified, making it part of U.S. law."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... bot-dallas

Fifth amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The key here is imminent danger. Intellectuals around the world can't summarily declare that there was no imminent danger, not until there's a thorough investigation. The perp had demonstrated that he was fully willing and capable of killing people, and he also issued bomb threats. Maybe DPD was worried that he was stalling to get more cops coming, so he could run out and detonate a bomb vest.

I don't like their use of explosives, but the assertion that no imminent danger existed is speculation, not fact.

Stiff wrote:The key here is imminent danger. Intellectuals around the world can't summarily declare that there was no imminent danger, not until there's a thorough investigation. The perp had demonstrated that he was fully willing and capable of killing people, and he also issued bomb threats. Maybe DPD was worried that he was stalling to get more cops coming, so he could run out and detonate a bomb vest.

I don't like their use of explosives, but the assertion that no imminent danger existed is speculation, not fact.

Nicely said. Of course there was danger - I've yet to read any analysis that suggests otherwise. The point is that even if we ignore the rest of the country and the rest of the state of Texas, the DPD has dealt with a number of similar types of sieges. Two of the more recent ones can be found in this thread - Txchinaman initially linked one, and I linked it and three others. In three of the instances there were armed bad guys that either threatened to or actually did fire at officers. In one of the instances, the shooter used an AK-47, had a number of 20 lb propane cylinders and containers of 'something flammable' he made clear he would detonate if police came near - and he actually detonated one of them. He was holed up in the woods where the 2nd stand-off took place.

I think most here understand things like Garner, which helps give defenders a somewhat firm 'line in the sand'. But as can be seen by the outcomes of these other instances, Garner doesn't dictate what MUST be done - it simply provides an option. The white guy in the woods that also 'could' have had a vest, actually did have explosives, and also shot at police officers was taken into custody - he wasn't blown up.

My question isn't "are police allowed to kill the criminal" because of COURSE they are "allowed"! My question is - what was the difference in this case - why, when even the DPD has demonstrated a wide range of actions in the past - did this case leave a pound of C4 as the only option remaining on the table? That's a question I'm seeing 'out in the world' and that's the question DPD will have to answer in order to maintain their positive direction in restoring their relationship with the public. Because this wasn't just a routine case where either the bad guy is in jail or dead, this is a 'well outside the box' precedent-setting case that is not universally seen as a 'slam dunk.'

We will need to wait till the investigation is done to get the story. But from sources such as the Chief of the DCCCD where the campus the shooter was killed said, the shooter had barricaded himself at the end of a hallway with one way in and out. If any officer had stepped into the hallway they would be shot like fish in a barrel. This may have been a last resort used under extreme stress. Remember there were other non-police people in the building having locked themselves in closets and offices.

TrueTexan wrote:We will need to wait till the investigation is done to get the story. But from sources such as the Chief of the DCCCD where the campus the shooter was killed said, the shooter had barricaded himself at the end of a hallway with one way in and out. If any officer had stepped into the hallway they would be shot like fish in a barrel. This may have been a last resort used under extreme stress. Remember there were other non-police people in the building having locked themselves in closets and offices.

Yeah, so far the messaging overall seems to be a mess. I hear you about the hall, and do understand why it's a tactical problem. I agree that it appears there were people 'sheltered in place' for blocks.

I guess my concern is that the 'accepted story' doesn't always bring all the facts forward. This isn't a slam. I've been involved in scripting scenarios, feeding real-time information to exercise participants, documenting the course of the exercise, debriefing the participants, and then preparing the report that clearly shows how quickly the 'story' departs the script. We're at a disadvantage here as we don't have the script, and the only guy that did is dead. I'd wager that we have an 80% chance that the final story differs significantly from the actual events if for no other reason than people in 'fight or flight' mode aren't focused on documenting events, and the final story is built from these various pieces of tunnel vision. Toss in a helping of politics and the way the media will mess it up and we might as well be writing a sequel to "Gone with the Wind."

Do you really need someone to explain the difference in response in the instant case from the three that you cited?

http://www.upi.com/blog/2014/02/20/Dall ... 392904745/

Apartment believed to have contained a rape suspect...no shots fired by subject, nobody hurt, suspect not known to be armed, wearing body armor or boasting of having explosives.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/police ... -team-raid

Seriously? a rural organic garden raid? No weapons involved, no shots fired, no nearby innocents sheltered in place, no gunman claiming to have explosives, wearing body armor and shooting a military grade weapon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... rs/395804/

Suspect was in an armored van, out in the open in a parking lot, was ultimately shot to death by Police snipers. In other words, his story ended pretty much the same as Johnson's--he was dead.

Mustang wrote:Do you really need someone to explain the difference in response in the instant case from the three that you cited?

http://www.upi.com/blog/2014/02/20/Dall ... 392904745/

Apartment believed to have contained a rape suspect...no shots fired by subject, nobody hurt, suspect not known to be armed, wearing body armor or boasting of having explosives.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/police ... -team-raid

Seriously? a rural organic garden raid? No weapons involved, no shots fired, no nearby innocents sheltered in place, no gunman claiming to have explosives, wearing body armor and shooting a military grade weapon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... rs/395804/

Suspect was in an armored van, out in the open in a parking lot, was ultimately shot to death by Police snipers. In other words, his story ended pretty much the same as Johnson's--he was dead.

I cited four, and referenced that txchinaman cited the armed van stand-off. You omitted the one that actually applied to the conversation. Those were simply linked as indications that in some instances the DPD did consider a longer-term standoff to be an available option.

Note, though, that while in your earlier post you highlighted the need to bomb based on the "possibility" that the suspect had a vest or had bombs, yet discredited those same possibilities in these other cases. Can't do that - either the police feared for their lives or the lives of innocents or they didn't. Isn't that what Garner is about?

Finally, yes the guy in the van was killed. It wasn't from a drone strike though. The debate here isn't about whether the police had the "legal authority" to kill the guy, but rather whether it's an ethical or moral choice to use a drone strike on US soil to "take out the perp."

AndyH wrote: I cited four, and referenced that txchinaman cited the armed van stand-off. You omitted the one that actually applied to the conversation. Those were simply linked as indications that in some instances the DPD did consider a longer-term standoff to be an available option.

Note, though, that while in your earlier post you highlighted the need to bomb based on the "possibility" that the suspect had a vest or had bombs, yet discredited those same possibilities in these other cases. Can't do that - either the police feared for their lives or the lives of innocents or they didn't. Isn't that what Garner is about?

Finally, yes the guy in the van was killed. It wasn't from a drone strike though. The debate here isn't about whether the police had the "legal authority" to kill the guy, but rather whether it's an ethical or moral choice to use a drone strike on US soil to "take out the perp."

This is your fourth ...the one where the subject surrendered after 2 hours, hadn't killed anyone and did not have body armor.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/he ... nation.ece

The most obvious distinguishing feature to this incident is that the guy surrendered after two hours. Johnson refused to surrender, openly mocked attempts to negotiate and stated his intentions to continue his killing.

Johnson stated that he was wearing body armor and had bombs...that elevated the situation above a mere, unstated possibility to a very real possibility. Surely you can see the difference.

You claim that the debate here isn't whether the police had the legal authority to kill Johnson, but other posters have suggested that this was "murder". In fact, I culled this quote from one of your posts, ""What law or process gives anyone to right to bomb a suspect of a crime?". This seems to question the legality of using a bomb to stop Johnson.

So which is it...a legal question or a moral question? And if it is a moral question, what moral issue separates killing someone with bomb from killing someone with a gun?

Mustang wrote:

AndyH wrote: I cited four, and referenced that txchinaman cited the armed van stand-off. You omitted the one that actually applied to the conversation. Those were simply linked as indications that in some instances the DPD did consider a longer-term standoff to be an available option.

Note, though, that while in your earlier post you highlighted the need to bomb based on the "possibility" that the suspect had a vest or had bombs, yet discredited those same possibilities in these other cases. Can't do that - either the police feared for their lives or the lives of innocents or they didn't. Isn't that what Garner is about?

Finally, yes the guy in the van was killed. It wasn't from a drone strike though. The debate here isn't about whether the police had the "legal authority" to kill the guy, but rather whether it's an ethical or moral choice to use a drone strike on US soil to "take out the perp."

This is your fourth ...the one where the subject surrendered after 2 hours, hadn't killed anyone and did not have body armor.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/he ... nation.ece

The most obvious distinguishing feature to this incident is that the guy surrendered after two hours. Johnson refused to surrender, openly mocked attempts to negotiate and stated his intentions to continue his killing.

Johnson stated that he was wearing body armor and had bombs...that elevated the situation above a mere, unstated possibility to a very real possibility. Surely you can see the difference.

You claim that the debate here isn't whether the police had the legal authority to kill Johnson, but other posters have suggested that this was "murder". In fact, I culled this quote from one of your posts, ""What law or process gives anyone to right to bomb a suspect of a crime?". This seems to question the legality of using a bomb to stop Johnson.

So which is it...a legal question or a moral question? And if it is a moral question, what moral issue separates killing someone with bomb from killing someone with a gun?

What it appears to be, mustang, is a blatently obvious double standard. In this case, when you want to ridicule, the guy didn't have a vest. But police can't assume he does or does not - they have to assume he does and act accordingly if they want to go home that night. Yes, he surrendered after two hours. Which means he was given the opportunity to talk and get to the point of surrendering. As you probably know, no two humans are the same and one criminal might need more than 2 hours to calm down. I'll bet that if the white guy was surrounded he wouldn't have calmed after two hours - I'll bet the situation would have escalated until someone else died. But the police chose to handle it differently.

Compare/contrast the armed standoffs in Texas back to Waco and the way the Oregon State Police and FBI handled the armed insurrection from the whack jobs on the Malheur. Armed with AR15s, AR10s, various sidearms, tons of ammo, vests, night vision gear, radios, etc. and with the clear intent to shoot any cops that came in to carry them out. How many hours did they give them to cool down and come in? They didn't get 2 hours, or 6 hours, or even 24 hours. They got NINE HUNDRED SIXTY hours. A full 40 days.

Of course it's only coincidental that the black guys are all dead and the white guys are in prison. Totally.

Humans aren't rational beings, but they can rationalize to beat the band, can't they?

AndyH wrote: What it appears to be, mustang, is a blatently obvious double standard. In this case, when you want to ridicule, the guy didn't have a vest. But police can't assume he does or does not - they have to assume he does and act accordingly if they want to go home that night. Yes, he surrendered after two hours. Which means he was given the opportunity to talk and get to the point of surrendering. As you probably know, no two humans are the same and one criminal might need more than 2 hours to calm down. I'll bet that if the white guy was surrounded he wouldn't have calmed after two hours - I'll bet the situation would have escalated until someone else died. But the police chose to handle it differently.

Compare/contrast the armed standoffs in Texas back to Waco and the way the Oregon State Police and FBI handled the armed insurrection from the whack jobs on the Malheur. Armed with AR15s, AR10s, various sidearms, tons of ammo, vests, night vision gear, radios, etc. and with the clear intent to shoot any cops that came in to carry them out. How many hours did they give them to cool down and come in? They didn't get 2 hours, or 6 hours, or even 24 hours. They got NINE HUNDRED SIXTY hours. A full 40 days.

Of course it's only coincidental that the black guys are all dead and the white guys are in prison. Totally.

Humans aren't rational beings, but they can rationalize to beat the band, can't they?

Andy, you realize that when a subject says that he has a vest, that is probable cause to believe he has a vest, right? On the other hand, Officers can't simply assume facts for which there is no evidence. Garner v Tennessee requires Probably Cause, based on articulable evidence. The Police are not allowed to claim assumptions as facts and then base their probable cause on those assumptions.

Judge: Officer, what evidence did you have that Johnson had a bullet proof vest?
Officer: Your Honor, he told me that he did.

Versus

Judge: Officer, what evidence did you have that the subject had a bullet proof vest?
Officer: Well, Your Honor, none, really. I just assumed that he did.

Do you see the difference?

You claimed " I bet that if the white guy was surrounded he wouldn't have calmed after two hours - I'll bet the situation would have escalated until someone else died." That is an easy bet to make... now...since we will never know what the "white guy" would have done. But I'll say this, my reading of the situation is that he was surrounded and was talked into surrendering. Johnson chose not to.

The Malheur incident was completely different than the Dallas incident. You seem to have a penchant for identifying unrelated incidents which bear little resemblance to the instant matter, and pointing out that they were handled differently. Well, no kidding, they were different incidents with completely different fact patterns.


"Of course it's only coincidental that the black guys are all dead and the white guys are in prison. Totally."

Andy, you understand that the man who directed that the bomb be delivered to Johnson was Dallas Chief of Police David Brown, himself a black man, right?

AndyH wrote:

Stiff wrote:The key here is imminent danger. Intellectuals around the world can't summarily declare that there was no imminent danger, not until there's a thorough investigation. The perp had demonstrated that he was fully willing and capable of killing people, and he also issued bomb threats. Maybe DPD was worried that he was stalling to get more cops coming, so he could run out and detonate a bomb vest.

I don't like their use of explosives, but the assertion that no imminent danger existed is speculation, not fact.

Nicely said. Of course there was danger - I've yet to read any analysis that suggests otherwise. The point is that even if we ignore the rest of the country and the rest of the state of Texas, the DPD has dealt with a number of similar types of sieges. Two of the more recent ones can be found in this thread - Txchinaman initially linked one, and I linked it and three others. In three of the instances there were armed bad guys that either threatened to or actually did fire at officers. In one of the instances, the shooter used an AK-47, had a number of 20 lb propane cylinders and containers of 'something flammable' he made clear he would detonate if police came near - and he actually detonated one of them. He was holed up in the woods where the 2nd stand-off took place.

I think most here understand things like Garner, which helps give defenders a somewhat firm 'line in the sand'. But as can be seen by the outcomes of these other instances, Garner doesn't dictate what MUST be done - it simply provides an option. The white guy in the woods that also 'could' have had a vest, actually did have explosives, and also shot at police officers was taken into custody - he wasn't blown up.

My question isn't "are police allowed to kill the criminal" because of COURSE they are "allowed"! My question is - what was the difference in this case - why, when even the DPD has demonstrated a wide range of actions in the past - did this case leave a pound of C4 as the only option remaining on the table? That's a question I'm seeing 'out in the world' and that's the question DPD will have to answer in order to maintain their positive direction in restoring their relationship with the public. Because this wasn't just a routine case where either the bad guy is in jail or dead, this is a 'well outside the box' precedent-setting case that is not universally seen as a 'slam dunk.'

The devil is in the detail, in the police negotiator's appraisal of the suspect and the police chief's judgment of the situation. I know enough that every single case is different, and that superficial comparisons aren't necessarily valid. It is an undisputable fact that he had actually killed 5 police officers, so there was absolutely no question on his willingness and ability to kill more officers.

Due to the seriousness of his action, I am perfectly fine with giving the DPD the benefit of the doubt until they conclude the investigation.

As for the bomb, at the end of the day the law doesn't distinguish one form of deadly force from the next. If the use of deadly force is justified, it is justified whether it's delivered through a knife stab to the heart, or a .308 round to the base of the skull, or a pound of C4.

Stiff wrote:

AndyH wrote:

Stiff wrote:The key here is imminent danger. Intellectuals around the world can't summarily declare that there was no imminent danger, not until there's a thorough investigation. The perp had demonstrated that he was fully willing and capable of killing people, and he also issued bomb threats. Maybe DPD was worried that he was stalling to get more cops coming, so he could run out and detonate a bomb vest.

I don't like their use of explosives, but the assertion that no imminent danger existed is speculation, not fact.

Nicely said. Of course there was danger - I've yet to read any analysis that suggests otherwise. The point is that even if we ignore the rest of the country and the rest of the state of Texas, the DPD has dealt with a number of similar types of sieges. Two of the more recent ones can be found in this thread - Txchinaman initially linked one, and I linked it and three others. In three of the instances there were armed bad guys that either threatened to or actually did fire at officers. In one of the instances, the shooter used an AK-47, had a number of 20 lb propane cylinders and containers of 'something flammable' he made clear he would detonate if police came near - and he actually detonated one of them. He was holed up in the woods where the 2nd stand-off took place.

I think most here understand things like Garner, which helps give defenders a somewhat firm 'line in the sand'. But as can be seen by the outcomes of these other instances, Garner doesn't dictate what MUST be done - it simply provides an option. The white guy in the woods that also 'could' have had a vest, actually did have explosives, and also shot at police officers was taken into custody - he wasn't blown up.

My question isn't "are police allowed to kill the criminal" because of COURSE they are "allowed"! My question is - what was the difference in this case - why, when even the DPD has demonstrated a wide range of actions in the past - did this case leave a pound of C4 as the only option remaining on the table? That's a question I'm seeing 'out in the world' and that's the question DPD will have to answer in order to maintain their positive direction in restoring their relationship with the public. Because this wasn't just a routine case where either the bad guy is in jail or dead, this is a 'well outside the box' precedent-setting case that is not universally seen as a 'slam dunk.'

The devil is in the detail, in the police negotiator's appraisal of the suspect and the police chief's judgment of the situation. I know enough that every single case is different, and that superficial comparisons aren't necessarily valid. It is an undisputable fact that he had actually killed 5 police officers, so there was absolutely no question on his willingness and ability to kill more officers.

Due to the seriousness of his action, I am perfectly fine with giving the DPD the benefit of the doubt until they conclude the investigation.

As for the bomb, at the end of the day the law doesn't distinguish one form of deadly force from the next. If the use of deadly force is justified, it is justified whether it's delivered through a knife stab to the heart, or a .308 round to the base of the skull, or a pound of C4.

Thanks Stiff - I agree with all you've said and appreciate your time. I'll certainly be looking for the release of whatever after-action report DPD releases (with or without FOIA requests).

I can't shake the feeling that this action, combined with the other 'bot and AI developments moving faster than we're stopping to think, plus our demonstrated habit of shooting first and asking questions later, is leading us down a road we may find we really don't want to be traveling on.

TrueTexan wrote:We will need to wait till the investigation is done to get the story. But from sources such as the Chief of the DCCCD where the campus the shooter was killed said, the shooter had barricaded himself at the end of a hallway with one way in and out. If any officer had stepped into the hallway they would be shot like fish in a barrel. This may have been a last resort used under extreme stress. Remember there were other non-police people in the building having locked themselves in closets and offices.

Of course you realize this means there was no way out for him except into the line of fire of the police, who were waiting for him. It doesn't sound like he was an imminent threat. Not until he charges out armed.

I think police in the U.S. confuse "imminent threat" with "possible threat". In Europe the threshold for use of deadly force is even higher:

"In the US, the only truly national deadly force behavioral mandates are set by the Supreme Court, which in 1989 deemed it constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably” perceive imminent and grave harm. State laws regulating deadly force – in the 38 states where they exist – are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows, or more so.

By contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.

For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ame ... b2818b8870

When people are getting shot when they reach for their wallets (Philando Castile) or run from police officers (Walter Scott), you know there is a serious problem.

The other part of this is the shooter had said he had explosives and was going to detonate them. They weren't sure if he had them set to go off with a cell phone call. Or what. Even if he had them on him he was in a building with civilians present. Seems the DPD decided to do this to protect civilians and officers from further loss of life. On the later search of his house explosives were found along with bomb making supplies.

CDFingers wrote:I watched the Chief's press conference when he announced how the shooter was killed. I think he made the correct choice of assets to use in this case--sure, they could have surrounded him and tried to starve him out. But: the shooter was determined to shoot more officers. Enter robot. Exit shooter.

Prayers for humanity.

CDFingers

They are not judge jury and executioner. No one's lives were in imminent danger at that moment. This sets a dangerous precedent. The same justifications used to bomb innocents in the middle East are coming home to roost. This was murder not justice. Nothing more.

CDFingers wrote:Other choices involved sending living things into the shooter's sights.

These bots and drones can be used improperly, sure. When it's a choice between you and your officers, and him, you send in the bot and take him out. In this case the bad guy was holed up in such a way as a police sniper would be ineffective. I think a few car owners will make insurance claims. I can live with damaged machines, which can be fixed. Not so with living assets.

It's always good to consider alternatives. This bot was a ROV, not an AI. I'd fret if it were an AI.

CDFingers

And the next time when someone gets caught I the blast they didn't mean to hit? That'll be la else an unfortunate collateral damage. They could have e as easily strapped non lethal weapon s to it. But opted of lethal. This was a lynchig nothing more

Stiff wrote:This was very likely a bomb disposal robot, which had the ability to use a small explosive to trigger or destroy a real bomb. Instead of using the robot to detonate a bomb, they used it to detonate a cop killer. Creative, but distasteful.

In all fairness though, I seriously doubt Dallas police had access to tranquilizer gas like the Russians used in that theater in Moscow. Short of gassing him, the conventional method is to toss tear gas canisters and/or flashbangs in to disorient him, then storm in and hope to god you shoot him first. Considering he had an evil black rifle, the chance of him taking one of the SWAT team members along to the grave is considerable. It's tough to fault them for not wanting to lose another officer.

Besides, fuck him.

This anger and hatred, it is no different than his. Ironic

I must say it is disheartening to see so called liberals cheer the end of due process

wanzer777 wrote:I must say it is disheartening to see so called liberals cheer the end of due process

wanzer777 wrote:I must say it is disheartening to see so called liberals cheer the end of due process

I find this analysis to be flawed. I see the statement as an exaggeration and a suppression of available evidence.

First, the available evidence shows us this individual shot unarmed people, was wearing body armor, carried extra ammunition, and promised to shoot more people. He retreated into a narrow corridor with only one way in. Had officers walked into that kill zone, they would have been killed. Under these circumstances the authority for the kill rests locally. The decision was made under field conditions; the correct authority made the call. The call was correct.

Second, the analysis is an exaggeration because of two things. First, due process did not "end." Second, due process under field conditions was met.

Ergo: admonition against unsupportable claims.

CDFingers

wanzer777 wrote:I must say it is disheartening to see so called liberals cheer the end of due process

I see this statement as either the inability to recognize imminent danger and/or willingness to disregard (not yet published) details of a fluid and life-threatening situation for ideological reasons.

If I am faced by a criminal and I reasonably believe that my life is in danger, I am under no obligation to give him legal due process. Due process does not apply where imminent danger exists, because nobody is required to let himself be hurt or killed just so the aggressor can have his day in court.

Stiff wrote:

wanzer777 wrote:I must say it is disheartening to see so called liberals cheer the end of due process

I see this statement as either the inability to recognize imminent danger and/or willingness to disregard (not yet published) details of a fluid and life-threatening situation for ideological reasons.

If I am faced by a criminal and I reasonably believe that my life is in danger, I am under no obligation to give him legal due process. Due process does not apply where imminent danger exists, because nobody is required to let himself be hurt or killed just so the aggressor can have his day in court.

Name one person who's life was in danger at that moment. Had this been a civilian self defense case there would be a good case against the cops