The Liberal Gun Club Forum

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?

Seems they're pretty quiet.



This one sounds like an RC car...

Personally, I don't have any problem with this. There is no question that at that point anyone getting a clear shot at him would have been authorized to, and justified in, taking him out. What's the difference between sending him a deadly piece of technology supersonically through a gun barrel and doing it more slowly with a remote control? The robot was always under direct human control and no other person was endangered by it. It was targeted, just as a bullet would have been, and even more controlled. The way I see it, they were justified in killing him to neutralize the immediate threat he posed by any means that didn't endanger others unnecessarily or cause excessive property damage.

Evo1 wrote:The way I see it, they were justified in killing him to neutralize the immediate threat he posed by any means that didn't endanger others unnecessarily or cause excessive property damage.

But he wasn't an immediate threat when they blew him up. He had been holed up for some time. If he had come charging out with his weapon and a sniper shot him, that would be a different story.

SilasSoule wrote:

Evo1 wrote:The way I see it, they were justified in killing him to neutralize the immediate threat he posed by any means that didn't endanger others unnecessarily or cause excessive property damage.

But he wasn't an immediate threat when they blew him up. He had been holed up for some time. If he had come charging out with his weapon and a sniper shot him, that would be a different story.

Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

SilasSoule wrote:

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

He signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger.

whitey wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

He signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger.

I'm flipping through my copy of the Bill of Rights and I can't find the "...signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger..." phrase anywhere. Perhaps it's in a later amendment?

Probably just under the one where it's apparently okay for him to murder innocent people.

Jaywalker wrote:

whitey wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

He signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger.

I'm flipping through my copy of the Bill of Rights and I can't find the "...signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger..." phrase anywhere. Perhaps it's in a later amendment?

His constitutional protections would seem to kick in once he is captured or surrenders. The Constitution does not require the sacrifice of cops until the BG runs out of ammo. Your shooting into a crowd would indicate a denial of others rights, but they're just cops so it doesn't count.

Jaywalker wrote:

whitey wrote:

SilasSoule wrote:

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

He signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger.

I'm flipping through my copy of the Bill of Rights and I can't find the "...signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger..." phrase anywhere. Perhaps it's in a later amendment?

Case law, actually.

But you already knew that and elected to ignore it.

whitey wrote:Seriously? Put me on the side of not giving a shit about this asshole and blowing him up.

SilasSoule wrote:I prefer having death penalties handed out by judges and juries.

whitey wrote:He signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Jaywalker wrote: I'm flipping through my copy of the Bill of Rights and I can't find the "...signed his fate away once he pulled the trigger..." phrase anywhere. Perhaps it's in a later amendment?

Case law, actually.

But you already knew that and elected to ignore it.

Educate us, SG, or anyone else. Don't keep it to yourself. I'm thinking it'll be useful for all citizens to understand exactly where the line is drawn so they can choose whether or not to cross it. Thanks in advance.

I'm not speaking for SG here or anyone else, just myself. If you've chosen to use a weapon to kill innocent people, especially police, don't be surprised that your outcome doesn't favor you walking away in handcuffs. As we are all apt to say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Please explain to me why and how long DPD should've waited out this guy until he gave up, which by all accounts he never had any intention of doing so?

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

There's a reason for that.

CDFingers

whitey wrote:I'm not speaking for SG here or anyone else, just myself. If you've chosen to use a weapon to kill innocent people, especially police, don't be surprised that your outcome doesn't favor you walking away in handcuffs. As we are all apt to say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Please explain to me why and how long DPD should've waited out this guy until he gave up, which by all accounts he never had any intention of doing so?

I wasn't in the garage, so frankly I have no idea if the shooter was going to give up or not. Sadly, I don't even know if the messaging from the DPD is accurate. All I can do is compare the overall situation with other events and see if the responses differ and if so by how many orders of magnitude. All I know for sure right now is that police seem to respond differently when one of theirs is shot, and there are quite a number of events where negotiations took 6-8 hours before the person was hauled away in cuffs. And yes - there were other instances, such as the Austin tower shooter, where the only thing that stopped the shooting was a number of good guys with guns. The guy in Dallas was pinned in place and couldn't move. Police wouldn't have to be in harm's way to seal the area and wait him out. A sniper or two across the street could contain the situation in the event he decided to shoot out of the garage. Since the city sealed off a 36 square block zone around the shootings anyway, it's not like there was much of a civilian threat once he was contained.

The shooter apparently made clear that he was fed up specifically with the way police around the country are (mis)treating blacks. Since I've yet to see any major police force actually acknowledge their role in CAUSING the problem, and since the expected human response to an outside attack is to circle the wagons, and since we already have at least 100 years of examples of the use of plausible deniability to mask extrajudicial executions, you'll forgive me if I'm not inclined to accept DPD's messaging without some support.

I may be very wrong - which is why I'm asking for someone to help us understand. But this event left me feeling worse about the situation, not better. I fear that it removes any moral high ground the DPD might have after five of their officers were killed, and I also fear that this tactic will become a new way for a SWAT team to deliver a 'warrant' at my front door at 3AM.

AndyH wrote:Educate us, SG, or anyone else. Don't keep it to yourself. I'm thinking it'll be useful for all citizens to understand exactly where the line is drawn so they can choose whether or not to cross it. Thanks in advance.

A disingenuous question rates a sarcastic answer.

SwampGrouch wrote:

AndyH wrote:Educate us, SG, or anyone else. Don't keep it to yourself. I'm thinking it'll be useful for all citizens to understand exactly where the line is drawn so they can choose whether or not to cross it. Thanks in advance.

A disingenuous question rates a sarcastic answer.

I'll go back and read the exchange for the 4th time. I guess I missed the 'disingenuous' part. Sorry.

Yeah...nope, still not seeing it.

What law or process gives anyone to right to bomb a suspect of a crime?

Does the means of killing matter for that legal standard? In this case, probably not, according to several legal experts I spoke to. The bomb disposal robot that turned into an improvised remotely triggered killing machine wasn’t autonomous and can, in this instance, be looked at as a tool that was used to diminish the threat suspect Micah Johnson posed to Dallas police officers.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dallas ... l-analysis

According to Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and editor and contributor to Drones and Targeted Killings: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, it's a sign that U.S. law enforcement is continuing to go in "the wrong direction."

"The fact that the police have a weapon like this, and other weapons like drones and tanks, is an example of the militarization of the police and law enforcement—and goes in the wrong direction," Cohn told Common Dreams. "We should see the police using humane techniques, interacting on a more humane level with the community, and although certainly the police officers did not deserve to die, this is an indication of something much deeper in the society, and that's the racism that permeates the police departments across the country. It's a real tragedy."

"Due process is not just enshrined in our constitution, it's also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
—Marjorie Cohn,
Thomas Jefferson School of Law

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

Maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know. Maybe someone can link a better source than these.

AndyH wrote:What law or process gives anyone to right to bomb a suspect of a crime an active shooter?

Fixed it for you.

SwampGrouch wrote:

AndyH wrote:What law or process gives anyone to right to bomb a suspect of a crime an active shooter?

Fixed it for you.

Hmmm.... Fixed implies something was broken. Maybe I should read this like being spayed or neutered - a kind of Orwellian twist where something is actually broken but we're not supposed to notice?

When the shooter was contained in the parking garage, he was no longer mobile, no longer shooting at public, and his attention was focused in the garage. He wasn't going anywhere. In other instances, that's when the siege would begin.** That's when there's no reason for officers to be away from cover and thus should not be in immediate danger of being shot even if the idiot starts shooting again. I also understand that a bunch of folks with 30 gallons of adrenaline coursing through their systems are in full 'reptile brain' mode and that folks with a different skillset might be more useful from that point onward.

One double-edged sword is that if the guy was taken alive, we could confirm that he was acting alone. But since fear is a good means of controlling people while also ensuring one's own job security, there appears to be a real conflict between taking the guy alive if possible in accordance with due process and killing him to provide the useful benefits of public doubt.

I've read enough Ayoob to see how damn near any killing can be 'justified' with the right words and a compliant jury, but I'm hoping to be able to look beyond just that tiny box. If you please.

- Dallas PD had 6 hour stand-off when woman reported being raped. No shots were fired at officers.
- The same police force had a 10 hour stand-off with owners of an organic farm and homestead before destroying their gardens.
- Standoff after shooter holed-up outside DPD HQ lasted 'hours' - officers were fired on here.

We can go round and round on this and none of us will have the "right" answer. If you feel sorry for the perp/victim, perhaps you should write a letter to the Dallas Chief saying so. I'm sure he'd be thrilled to hear your explanation.


This asshole had a purpose and was killed for what he did

https://instagram.com/p/BHmwFJchJm3/

The police chief of the DCCCD, the Dallas Community College District, has stated the shooter was shooting from a loading dock and the went in to a hallway where he barricaded himself. Stated there was no way any officer could approach him without being shot. After the explosion the campus police along with other LEOs rescued 60 people from closets and offices.

https://www.dcccd.edu/AU/MedRelate/News ... 70816.aspx

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

The guy hadn't surrendered, so he was still active. He also expressed a desire to continue killing. I don't understand the idea it was ok to shoot him dead but using a bomb is judge, jury and executioner.

BKinzey wrote:The guy hadn't surrendered, so he was still active. He also expressed a desire to continue killing. I don't understand the idea it was ok to shoot him dead but using a bomb is judge, jury and executioner.

Bad form, you know. They should have given the chap a sporting chance!

whitey wrote:This asshole had a purpose and was killed for what he did

https://instagram.com/p/BHmwFJchJm3/

Of course he did. Has anyone here suggested he didn't have a purpose or that he didn't do anything wrong?

Before this goes off the rail any further than it already has, as I mourn the loss of lives - all of them - black and white -- what I'm mourning as much is what appears to be yet another bite out of the civil rights of the citizens I'm still on the hook to support and defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am sorry that questioning facts and examining reasons is a problem - I didn't see that coming. Mea culpa.

The instagram video was interesting, and I recalled seeing pieces from that angle when I was up all night with two screens of stuff streaming in. I'm confused by the pinkish walkway in the clip, though as there's nothing like that around the El Centro College. The only part of the building with that pattern of windows is at Lamar and Elm and there's no raised walkway across the street. Anyone know what that railing is?

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7803827 ... 56!6m1!1e1

TrueTexan wrote:The police chief of the DCCCD, the Dallas Community College District, has stated the shooter was shooting from a loading dock and the went in to a hallway where he barricaded himself. Stated there was no way any officer could approach him without being shot. After the explosion the campus police along with other LEOs rescued 60 people from closets and offices.

This is all confusing. From the same map link, we can see that El Centro doesn't appear to have a parking garage. If he was barricaded in a hallway, that would mean he was actually inside the college when bombed. The 2nd linked story talks about shooting from the east and west side of the college, yet the loading area is on the north - on Elm. I recall watching the live feed from WFAA as it unfolded and while there was video of strobe flashes from inside the college, it was reported to be from the fire alarm.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/he ... te-man.ece

Armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle, knowledge of military tactics and wearing body armor, Johnson exchanged gunfire with Dallas police for hours Thursday night but eventually was trapped in a downtown parking garage where police killed him early Friday using a robot-deployed bomb.

The parking garage is across the street from El Centra at Main and S Lamar. That's also the building where the WFAA new crew filmed at least one flash-bang detonation. It appeared to be on the 2nd or 3rd level of the garage.
https://twitter.com/JLindgrenCBS11/stat ... 7862865920

Judge Dread has come

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk