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.
It's only a matter of time before a remote controlled vehicle is used to commit a bombing, but I wouldn't say the Dallas police "invented" the concept.
They made damn sure he wasn't given due process of law, didn't they? Can't believe no one is outraged at this terrorist method, of judge, jury and executioner being used to MURDER a suspect! Like they couldn't have used tear gas? They were determined to kill him, no other option.
They made damn sure he wasn't given due process of law, didn't they? Can't believe no one is outraged at this terrorist method, of judge, jury and executioner being used to MURDER a suspect! Like they couldn't have used tear gas? They were determined to kill him, no other option.
Good grief. It was an active shootout. He was talking with the police and given the opportunity to surrender, which he refused.
Had a police sniper taken him out instead or just a 'regular' policeman who got in a lucky shot, would you still be upset over "due process"?
They made damn sure he wasn't given due process of law, didn't they? Can't believe no one is outraged at this terrorist method, of judge, jury and executioner being used to MURDER a suspect! Like they couldn't have used tear gas? They were determined to kill him, no other option.
Boy, would I love to be the 911 dispatcher answering your call for police protection.
They made damn sure he wasn't given due process of law, didn't they? Can't believe no one is outraged at this terrorist method, of judge, jury and executioner being used to MURDER a suspect! Like they couldn't have used tear gas? They were determined to kill him, no other option.
ROFLMAO. The next time some crazy person is blasting away, feel free to volunteer to approach him with handcuffs.
Let's apply a little common sense to the OP's question.
The robot is a machine, incapable of doing anything without human input.
The human being(s) in control of said piece of machinery, that maneuvered it into place, and pushed the button to detonate, could be said to have committed whatever act one might wish to attach to the action.
This discussion is somewhat similar to those back in 2011 when Anwar al-Awlaki (terrorist & American citizen) was taken out by a drone strike in Yemen. Lots of talk then about "due process" being violated.
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.
