The Liberal Gun Club Forum

TxChinaman wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas ... -shooting/

A little over a year ago a guy bought himself an armored vehicle and launched an attack at Dallas Police Department main headquarters. He sprayed the front lobby with rifle fire, left explosive devices at the entrances. Thankfully no officers were killed. Police used a .50 cal rifle to stop the vehicle after a chase. The guy was sitting in the armored van, ranting and raging, refusing to surrender. After a few hours the chief of police gave the order for a sniper to shoot to kill. So not unprecedented for DPD to use direct deadly force after negotiations seem to be making no progress.

Sounds like they had already decided to be judge, jury, and executioner well before the sniper attack.

I don't object to the use of a robot in this case, for the sake of not exposing police to more gunfire.

But what kind of bombs are our police departments armed with nowadays? Antipersonnel/fragmentation devices? If so, why?

Why not have the robot deliver a flash-bang concussion device, or a shit-ton of tear gas, or you know, something that police are actually supposed to have?

Now if they said they exploded a concussion device near him and he died as an (inadvertent) result, I'd have no problem with that in this instance.

Elmo wrote:I don't object to the use of a robot in this case, for the sake of not exposing police to more gunfire.

But what kind of bombs are our police departments armed with nowadays? Antipersonnel/fragmentation devices? If so, why?

Why not have the robot deliver a flash-bang concussion device, or a shit-ton of tear gas, or you know, something that police are actually supposed to have?

Now if they said they exploded a concussion device near him and he died as an (inadvertent) result, I'd have no problem with that in this instance.

FWIW I heard on the news (I think NPR) that they used C-4.

was there enough of him left to ID?

CDFingers

Bad precedents always start with well-justified reasons, such as "What other choice did we have?" Of course there were other choices, but as it's long been said, "If you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail." Dallas had a big hammer and found their nail without much delay.

Precedents, both good and bad are always stretched until they're bad, and IMO, this one started out pretty bad to begin with. Whatever terminology you want to use, this was the first fatal drone strike in the US and not only did it not get presidential approval, I am aware of no approved protocols for it; it was simply "We thought it was for the best." Also, as I understand sniper protocols it is to protect others from the instance of a danger; were others immediately at risk before the decision to fire the bomb? If not, would the sniper have been authorized to fire? It's my impression that the answer to that has been "No" since Ruby Ridge's green light to shoot on sight, per some snipers who were at Ruby Ridge. There is a qualitative difference between a sniper shot and a bomb: the sniper leaves a lot of forensic evidence while the bomb destroys it. It also precludes the possibility of a possibly non-fatal disabling shot.

Dallas officers have been trained in de-escallation procedures; did the police chief forget to attend the classes?

ETA: Also, even on Ruby Ridge there was a robust after action review that included issues with the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Many of the FBI HRT decided among themselves to ignore the RR ROE and continue to use the FBI protocol. From what I know of Texas police procedures, if a review happens at all it will be completely internal and will excuse all involved, and that's hardly "robust." Ruby Ridge was bad news for American police, but they owned up to it (to an extent) and internalized the errors and aren't likely to make the same sorts of mistakes that police shootings every day show evidence of. Here's a wiki review of Ruby Ridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Jaywalker wrote:Bad precedents always start with well-justified reasons, such as "What other choice did we have?" Of course there were other choices, but as it's long been said, "If you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail." Dallas had a big hammer and found their nail without much delay.

Precedents, both good and bad are always stretched until they're bad, and IMO, this one started out pretty bad to begin with. Whatever terminology you want to use, this was the first fatal drone strike in the US and not only did it not get presidential approval, I am aware of no approved protocols for it; it was simply "We thought it was for the best." Also, as I understand sniper protocols it is to protect others from the instance of a danger; were others immediately at risk before the decision to fire the bomb? If not, would the sniper have been authorized to fire? It's my impression that the answer to that has been "No" since Ruby Ridge's green light to shoot on sight, per some snipers who were at Ruby Ridge. There is a qualitative difference between a sniper shot and a bomb: the sniper leaves a lot of forensic evidence while the bomb destroys it. It also precludes the possibility of a possibly non-fatal disabling shot.

Dallas officers have been trained in de-escallation procedures; did the police chief forget to attend the classes?

ETA: Also, even on Ruby Ridge there was a robust after action review that included issues with the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Many of the FBI HRT decided among themselves to ignore the RR ROE and continue to use the FBI protocol. From what I know of Texas police procedures, if a review happens at all it will be completely internal and will excuse all involved, and that's hardly "robust." Ruby Ridge was bad news for American police, but they owned up to it (to an extent) and internalized the errors and aren't likely to make the same sorts of mistakes that police shootings every day show evidence of. Here's a wiki review of Ruby Ridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

You mean like the old

" We have investigated our self, and found we did nothing wrong" routine ?

https://dpdbeat.com/2016/07/08/investig ... -officers/

Investigative Update Regarding the Deadly Attack on Police Officers

Updated July 9, 2016:

When all attempts to negotiate with the suspect, Micah Johnson, failed under the exchange of gunfire, the Department utilized the mechanical tactical robot, as a last resort, to deliver an explosion device to save the lives of officers and citizens.

The robot used was the Remotec, Model F-5, claw and arm extension with an explosive device of C4 plus “Det” cord.

Approximate weight of total charge was one pound.

Price for the bot: Between $20,000 and $70,000. DPD says theirs are on the lower side of the price range...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-pd-robo ... d=40463758
Catalog...
http://www.northropgrumman.com/performa ... s_pdf2.pdf



One pound shaped charge:

Regarding sniper protocols and Texas police - right or wrong, it becomes "shoot on sight" once the suspect kills an officer.

A few years ago a group of escaped convicts killed an officer from one of the DFW area cities. The officer was responding to a robbery alarm and got shot 11 times as he pulled up behind the store where the convicts were stealing multiple firearms. They also ran the officer's body over with their van just to make sure he was dead. The scene was incredibly horrific. Then the department got an anonymous tip that the gang might be holed up in a local motel. I'm acquainted with the SWAT sniper who had his rifle aimed at the motel room. All he could see through his scope was silhouettes of people moving around behind the drapes. His commander kept asking him over the radio if he could take the shot. His response was negative ID, no shot. His commander started yelling "take the shot! Take the shot!" His response each time was negative ID, no shot. Well turns out the room was occupied by a family on vacation and not the fugitives. His superiors were so pumped up and angry about the death of an officer that they wanted him to just shoot blindly at a shape behind the drapes. So fortunate he acted cool and stuck with protocol.

TxChinaman wrote: So fortunate he acted cool and stuck with protocol.

A real professional acting under extreme pressure. Much respect. Pass on a heartfelt "thanks" from down here if you feel so inclined.

This confirms the "I wonder if they have a vehicle that would protect officers from 5.56 rounds?" question... DPD deployed them about 8 hours ago in response to a threat to their station.



http://www.wfaa.com/news/reports-dpd-un ... /268431154

TxChinaman wrote:His commander started yelling "take the shot! Take the shot!" His response each time was negative ID, no shot. Well turns out the room was occupied by a family on vacation and not the fugitives. His superiors were so pumped up and angry about the death of an officer that they wanted him to just shoot blindly at a shape behind the drapes. So fortunate he acted cool and stuck with protocol.

Awesome story. Someone has to be the adult in the room. Even if the SWAT team is authorized to shoot on sight, I doubt their stated intention can be to execute.

Using a 1lb of C-4 to bomb a human being is intent to kill. Unless they were trying to pierce some barrier, I don't know how it can be seen as anything else.

It may take public outrage and demand for resignation/investigation to bring this matter up for public scrutiny. I, for one, do not feel this extrajudicial execution should be allowed to stand unchallenged.

AndyH wrote:This confirms the "I wonder if they have a vehicle that would protect officers from 5.56 rounds?" question... DPD deployed them about 8 hours ago in response to a threat to their station.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/reports-dpd-un ... /268431154

Would never fit in a parking garage.

Until I read what actually happened, I thought about a Claymore on a stick.

I thought the last thing the shooter saw would say "FRONT TOWARD ENEMY".

CDFingers

https://sofrep.com/58811/photo-saiga-ri ... -shooting/

If this truly is a picture taken of the shooter's rifle right after the police robot bomb was deployed, there looks to be quite a bit of rubble and debris scattered on the floor. Must have been quite a blast if that plaster, lath, and sheathing was from an adjacent wall.

TxChinaman wrote:https://sofrep.com/58811/photo-saiga-ri ... -shooting/

If this truly is a picture taken of the shooter's rifle right after the police robot bomb was deployed, there looks to be quite a bit of rubble and debris scattered on the floor. Must have been quite a blast if that plaster, lath, and sheathing was from an adjacent wall.

CBS has officially reported it as an SKS. You would think from the blast of the explosion the rifle would have traces of gore on it.

eelj wrote:

TxChinaman wrote:https://sofrep.com/58811/photo-saiga-ri ... -shooting/

If this truly is a picture taken of the shooter's rifle right after the police robot bomb was deployed, there looks to be quite a bit of rubble and debris scattered on the floor. Must have been quite a blast if that plaster, lath, and sheathing was from an adjacent wall.

CBS has officially reported it as an SKS. You would think from the blast of the explosion the rifle would have traces of gore on it.

Dont look like an sks, which everyone reported it as, and i agree that one would expect not just gore and blood on it, but major damage to it. Is this a oswald gun?

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk

eelj wrote:

TxChinaman wrote:https://sofrep.com/58811/photo-saiga-ri ... -shooting/

If this truly is a picture taken of the shooter's rifle right after the police robot bomb was deployed, there looks to be quite a bit of rubble and debris scattered on the floor. Must have been quite a blast if that plaster, lath, and sheathing was from an adjacent wall.

CBS has officially reported it as an SKS. You would think from the blast of the explosion the rifle would have traces of gore on it.

Looks kind of clean for a rifle that supposedly was blasted by C4.

I'm going to speculate that the shooter didn't leave his SKS rifle unmodified in its original C&R condition. Especially the 10 round magazine. Lots of aftermarket furniture and higher cap detachable mags on the market for it.

While I do not believe the DPD needs an excuse for using explosives on the perp, reports I've read perp had said he had planted IED's around the city and the DPD felt they needed to end any possible detonations by cell phone. True or not, they killed the POS - how is of little import.

CDFingers wrote:Until I read what actually happened, I thought about a Claymore on a stick.
I thought the last thing the shooter saw would say "FRONT TOWARD ENEMY".
CDFingers

Morbid... very dark. But I had to laugh. OK, I'll go wash my mind out with soap now.

TrueTexan wrote:Would never fit in a parking garage.

Yup. I can't positively identify the model/manufacturer. The best guestimate I've got from different vehicles is that the shortest is about 8'8". I haven't seen any HMMVs or other smaller vehicles in various video clips, and haven't yet found any of the 1033 transfer documents. It would be useful if the DPD would give us a thumbnail sketch of the range of options they considered before sending R2 in. Considering they're an urban police force, I'm thinking it's a tactical error not having a vehicle of some type that can get into a parking garage, even if 'just' an armored Expedition.

Dangerous precedent or not, I'm sickly curious.....did the sniper see the robot coming? Are they quiet enough to sneak up on someone? Did the cops perhaps tell him they were sending in a phone or something to him by robot?

KlownKannon wrote:Dangerous precedent or not, I'm sickly curious.....did the sniper see the robot coming? Are they quiet enough to sneak up on someone? Did the cops perhaps tell him they were sending in a phone or something to him by robot?

Perhaps it was his Jimmy Johns order being delivered.

It appears someone in or close to Dallas police is leaking images. Officials won't confirm or deny. Not for the faint of heart.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... robot.html

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/752028367675809792

It also appears that the attorney that posted the pictures thinks that the Black Lives Matter movement is a terrorist organization.

If you follow the SOF link, it now says the rifle is a Saiga/AK-74.