Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had not read that before, so thank you. That makes the use of the robot bomb much more in line with previous decisions to use deadly force. I thought that they were negotiating with him and then decided to send the bomb in.
I think it is easy to get that impression because we think of bomb squad robots as slow bulky things. The robot they used is small and very agile (capable of going up and down stairs at > 10 mph).
We will probably see new use of force policies to cover this situation, but it will likely be nearly identical to the policy for authorizing police snipers to fire.
I think it is easy to get that impression because we think of bomb squad robots as slow bulky things. The robot they used is small and very agile (capable of going up and down stairs at > 10 mph).
We will probably see new use of force policies to cover this situation, but it will likely be nearly identical to the policy for authorizing police snipers to fire.
Thank you for the explanation as well as your rational and thoughtful comments.
I think it is easy to get that impression because we think of bomb squad robots as slow bulky things. The robot they used is small and very agile (capable of going up and down stairs at > 10 mph).
We will probably see new use of force policies to cover this situation, but it will likely be nearly identical to the policy for authorizing police snipers to fire.
I do not worry about our police using these practices as much as I worry about others adapting them to assassinate or acts of terrorism. We have never kept any technology secret for long. Sooner or later it will be available to the highest bidder. I am also sure that some with flying drones or remote toy cars will also think about adapting their technology.
But the standard has always been that deadly force can be used when a person presents a danger of death or injury to someone. Although this guy said he intended to kill officers who came close, apparently once he was holed up in the garage he was not able to hurt anyone else.
I'm just pointing out that this use of deadly force is different from what has happened before. Our jurisprudence dictates that it takes a jury of 12 peers to unanimously agree that a defendant is entitled to the death penalty. I'm not comfortable with that, but apparently most people are.
Not sure the bolded is established fact. For example, he told them he planted explosives. Were they able to determine if he had explosives on him? Lots we don't know.
Don't you agree if they were able to take him down with a gun they would have?
He had a gun; how were they going to get him out of there?
I do not worry about our police using these practices as much as I worry about others adapting them to assassinate or acts of terrorism. We have never kept any technology secret for long. Sooner or later it will be available to the highest bidder. I am also sure that some with flying dronesor remote toy cars will also think about adapting their technology.
I remember watching one of the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" movies (Magnum Force I believe it was) where there was a scene where he was being chased by a toy car with a bomb attached. I thought it pretty far fetched that a tiny toy car could keep up with a full sized automobile but maybe it wasn't so far fetched. Scary thought anyway.
Its not a question of due process, its a question of whether or not lethal force was justified. If the perp wanted due process, he could have surrendered.
Police only have arrest powers. They Cannot plan to kill. Lethal force is only allowed in self defense. It has to be an immediate act to qualify. The planning and preparation of a bomb does not meet the immediate act test. So it needs the approval of an Officer of the USA such as a Judge or a military officer. But since military officers only have powers abroad. It is only a Judge who can issue an execution warrant..
Not sure the bolded is established fact. For example, he told them he planted explosives. Were they able to determine if he had explosives on him? Lots we don't know.
Don't you agree if they were able to take him down with a gun they would have?
He had a gun; how were they going to get him out of there?
According to two previous posters, the fifth officer was killed in the garage trying to get close to the shooter. If that's true, the situation was much more volatile than I had understood.
If they thought he was going to kill or injure someone else, deadly force was justified.
According to two previous posters, the fifth officer was killed in the garage trying to get close to the shooter. If that's true, the situation was much more volatile than I had understood.
If they thought he was going to kill or injure someone else, deadly force was justified.
The killing or injuring of someone else needs to have a immediate basis. There has to be a "someone" involved. "Thinking" dosent count. Just like spidey sense.
Police only have arrest powers. They Cannot plan to kill. Lethal force is only allowed in self defense. It has to be an immediate act to qualify. The planning and preparation of a bomb does not meet the immediate act test. So it needs the approval of an Officer of the USA such as a Judge or a military officer. But since military officers only have powers abroad. It is only a Judge who can issue an execution warrant..
Not sure that's correct. Many hostage situations have the police planning as they go to bring in more firepower in case they need it. Its just not as obvious as this situation where they apparently made up a new "firepower" while the event was ongoing.
The "plan" you say they cant make is already made going into any hostage situation. If they deem the person an imminent threat at any time they plan to kill him. If they called in extra swat teams I don't think you would be making this argument.
And, pretty sure you could make the argument that someone is an ongoing imminent threat. What if he had a bomb strapped to him or as someone else said the means on him to detonate bombs he said he planted elsewhere. Pretty sure that would make him an eminent threat even if not to the officers around him.
Its interesting legal argument; I feel pretty sure we will see a court hearing it.
Not sure that's correct. Many hostage situations have the police planning as they go to bring in more firepower in case they need it. Its just not as obvious as this situation where they apparently made up a new "firepower" while the event was ongoing.
The "plan" you say they cant make is already made going into any hostage situation. If they deem the person an imminent threat at any time they plan to kill him. If they called in extra swat teams I don't think you would be making this argument.
And, pretty sure you could make the argument that someone is an ongoing imminent threat. What if he had a bomb strapped to him or as someone else said the means on him to detonate bombs he said he planted elsewhere. Pretty sure that would make him an eminent threat even if not to the officers around him.
There also IS precedence for NOT doing this. It was the MOVE bombing in Philly where the police bombed a house then shot anyone trying to leave it until the entire city block burned down killing many people. There were many legal findings that police cannot use explosives due to the indiscriminate nature of them.
There IS precedence on not doing this and plenty of legal decisions from the MOVE bombing where the philly police bombed a house full of people then tried to shoot the people escaping the flames untill every many woman and child burnt to death except one. They also ended up burning down an entire city block.
Its interesting legal argument; I feel pretty sure we will see a court hearing it.
The imminent threat is part of the self defense doctrine. There are many cases about this. It is not necessary illegal for the police to kill someone. However it requires a writ from a judge. Even to use breaching explosives requires a writ. It is usually an arrest or search warrant in these cases which authorizes it. There is no writ here. The police only had arrest powers. Nothing more.
The bad guy can be killed while you are trying to arrest him and it is perfectly ok. However using an explosive does not meet the attempting to arrest part. It is attempting to kill.
Last edited by Joe33; 07-11-2016 at 01:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
