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.
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.
I agree with you. Since we don't know what was going on in the garage, it's impossible to say whether there was an imminent threat. Did he say he had bombs strapped to himself and was going to jump out of the garage?
When I first heard about it, to me it sounded like they blew him up because they were tired of negotiating and he'd just killed five of their own. Those circumstances would not justify the robot bomb. But if they legitimately believed he was going to harm someone else, then the decision to use the robot would be justified.
I agree with you. Since we don't know what was going on in the garage, it's impossible to say whether there was an imminent threat. Did he say he had bombs strapped to himself and was going to jump out of the garage?
When I first heard about it, to me it sounded like they blew him up because they were tired of negotiating and he'd just killed five of their own. Those circumstances would not justify the robot bomb. But if they legitimately believed he was going to harm someone else, then the decision to use the robot would be justified.
There is a lot of precedence on the MOVE bombing in Philly where the PD bombed a house because the people inside refused to give up. All except one were killed when the police shot anyone who tried to escape the flames. Men women and children burned to death. It was pretty much decided at that point that police couldnt use explosives.
I've been looking for the source of the report that Johnson killed the 5th officer in the garage but can't find anything. Does anyone have a link to that?
Quote:
here is a lot of precedence on the MOVE bombing in Philly where the PD bombed a house because the people inside refused to give up. All except one were killed when the police shot anyone who tried to escape the flames. Men women and children burned to death. It was pretty much decided at that point that police couldnt use explosives.
I remember when that happened but had forgotten it.
MSNBC Live guest Haley Edwards says the fitting of the robot to blow apart the scumbag in Dallas was mean.
She claims the robot wasn't designed for such violence, and should only be used for observation and other pleasant tasks.
Further, this method of ending the situation prevented the perp from being subdued and lawyering up!
Technology knows no bounds and am glad someone on the force had the enginuity to fab-up such an "accessory".
Oh, the humanity!
Sounds like Haley Edwards was shocked. She (or he?) does not represent "the left".
My takeaway when I heard about it was "this is brilliant". Pretty much, if it becomes standard practice, and only used in extreme stand-off situations, then it will eliminate a lot of innocent death.
I'm socially left and fiscally conservative. I am not shocked, but I am awed. (It's great)
I agree with you. Since we don't know what was going on in the garage, it's impossible to say whether there was an imminent threat. Did he say he had bombs strapped to himself and was going to jump out of the garage?
When I first heard about it, to me it sounded like they blew him up because they were tired of negotiating and he'd just killed five of their own. Those circumstances would not justify the robot bomb. But if they legitimately believed he was going to harm someone else, then the decision to use the robot would be justified.
You are flat wrong... "because they were tired"...what garbage and tells me you have no understanding of tactical situations... hostage or crisis negotiations... and plain common sense.
He did exit the garage abd killed a Dallas officer in cqb...
He deserved every application of force upon him legally ethically and morally. He was an active on going threat..it never stopped until he was killed. You did indentify this CORRECTLY as an acceptable use of force.
The use of the robot was an excellent tactic. Look for more robot use in the future... I foresee drones and autonomous robots..sad but true.. millennials want technology..they're getting it.. I'm old school..I wish a swat sniper drilled him with a 308 round to the head
I'm only sorry that only one pound of c4 was used..but I understand why.. I would have preferred the terrorist be vaporized..
Last edited by notmeofficer; 07-11-2016 at 02:48 PM..
You are flat wrong... "because they were tired"...what garbage and tells me you have no understanding of tactical situations... hostage or crisis nrgotiations... and plain common sense.
He did exit the garage abd killed a Dallas officer in cqb...
He deserved every application of force upon him legally ethically and morally. He was an active on going threat..it never stopped until he was killed. You did indentify this CORRECTLY as an acceptable use of force.
The use of the robot was an excellent tactic. Look for more robot use in the future... I foresee drones and autonomous robots..sad but true.. millennials want technology..they're getting it.. I'm old school..I wish a swat sniper drilled him with a 308 round to the head
I'm only sorry that only one pound of c4 was used..but I understand why.. I would have preferred the terrorist be vaporized..
Ongoing is not imminent. Everything can be considered an ongoing threat.
No one is saying it was a bad idea, just that it sets us up for some weird legal situations that should probably be resolved before this becomes more popular.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,480,204 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
I agree with you. Since we don't know what was going on in the garage, it's impossible to say whether there was an imminent threat. Did he say he had bombs strapped to himself and was going to jump out of the garage?
When I first heard about it, to me it sounded like they blew him up because they were tired of negotiating and he'd just killed five of their own. Those circumstances would not justify the robot bomb. But if they legitimately believed he was going to harm someone else, then the decision to use the robot would be justified.
I've voted Democrat for half my life. Comments like yours and why I will probably never again vote Democrat. He just shot 11 police and mad claims about having bombs, what better solution was their? Should they have went in and hugged him?
I've voted Democrat for half my life. Comments like yours and why I will probably never again vote Democrat. He just shot 11 police and mad claims about having bombs, what better solution was their? Should they have went in and hugged him?
They should have made a safe space for him to talk about his feelings and for him to not be judged while doing so. Then he should have been coddled and told what a good boy he was for expressing himself, while ever so gently chastising him for expressing himself in a less than positive way by shooting those bad bad cops.
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.
