According to the Dallas Police Chief, the dead killer was killed by a robot

[Stinky The Clown]

I must say, this was a good idea and quite a feat.

The killer was in a position where he had command of any route by which cops could approach him. It would have been certain death for the cops to close in on him. So they got a bomb robot and put a bomb in the robot's "hand" and set it out toward the killer. When they got it close enough, they detonated the bomb, killing the killer.

I am not a fan of militarized police forces - no how, no way - but a bomb robot is standard issue for any big city or state police force. This was very good thinking and in this case a very effective alternative to cops with long guns or cops storm the killer's position.

Thumbs up to the DPD people who thought that one up!

[morningfog]

1. What the fuck? Is this real? The police bombed him? Good lord.

[KeepItReal]

2. Yes, they did use some kind of robot deployed explosive.

That was the decision made to protect police nearby.

That's what the chief said.

[snooper2]

5. Yep good way to kill the asshole...

[clarice]

34. yup.nt

[840high]

56. Yes it was.

[WhisCo]

6. They should have just kept going in like lemmings until he ran out of ammo.

(This is sarcasm, great work to end the shooter's rampage using technology and giving him no more targets).

[66 dmhlt]

9. Please, get the medical help you so desperately need.

[WhisCo]

14. I guess sarcasm doesn't come across?

The guy was an active shooter. There's no need to let him murder more innocent police when we have the technology to kill him safely. What's the difference if a sniper takes him or a remote control robot takes him?

[Adrahil]

18. Put a sarcasm tag in your earlier post.

Frankly, given some things I've read rcently, I couldn't assume it was sarcasm. I nearly alerted it.

[WhisCo]

20. You're right.

[still_one]

26. The way to put in the sarcasm emoji, is when you are constructing your reply, select the

"smiles" button, then select the ellipses at the end of the emojis, "...", and select the sarcasm emoji:



Welcome to DU, and I am NOT be sarcastic about that

[Monk06]

31. So fear of injury/interrupted my donut break means sending a bomb drone in to kill everyone within

half a city block

The US is now the middle east where IEDs and robotic assassins are the weapons of choice

Keep excalating America and you can turn into Lebanon circa 1983

[840high]

57. This is a nasty post.

[WillowTree]

63. ".......to kill everyone within half a city block......." Way to exaggerate there, Monk.

[Fla_Democrat]

68. I don't think it was a bunker buster, or a

MOAB.

Maybe the police should have sent out a call on social media for some volunteers from the 'all you need is love' brigade who feel violence is never the answer to go in and disarm him with good vibes and positive energy.

Would have been some wicked awesome selfies snap chatted, for sure.

[cwydro]

73. FIVE police officers murdered, and you call that a "donut break interruption."

Dude, wow.

[tymorial]

85. This is the last straw

This site is so full of misanthropic nasty miserable individuals. I'm over it goodbye

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. Good.

Fuck that guy.

[Albertoo]

10. What do you suggest? Bringing him candy?

[morningfog]

15. I thought you were just saying how an armed populace could take on armed terrorists?

If an armed police force couldn't do it, I guess your premise is, well, bullshit.

[Adrahil]

19. They could have, but would tak casualties. They made the right call.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. How often is a terrorist going to find a tactically perfect position?

Yes, a sniper can find positions in which they make it very difficult to take them out with anything but a counter-sniper (or military ordnance civilians won't have, like artillery, air strikes, etc.). How often is that likely to happen? Not very, I'd say.

[Albertoo]

47. Your use of uncivil terms doesn't strengthen the point you're trying to make

Point which is invalid anyway:

it's not because the population is armed that there is no need for extra power from the police.

Just like the fact soldiers have guns doesn't cancel the need for warplanes.

[morningfog]

51. I see. You and your armed bros are the first line of defense

against the armed terrorists. Good luck bub.

[Albertoo]

52. I do not own a weapon

[morningfog]

53. Well thanks for nothing!

[Albertoo]

54. Is that supposed to mean anything?

[LanternWaste]

25. I can only imagine the mental convenience that two and only two possibilities exist afford...

I can only imagine the mental convenience that two and only two possibilities exist afford an undisciplined or irrational mind. Robot bombs or candy... that's adorable.

It may help you in the long wrong to realize that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Albertoo]

48. Do tell me, Mr/Mrs subtle person, how many options did you see here?

A- take the shooter down
B- ?
C- ?
D- ?
E- bring him candy

[jpak]

49. Candygram for Mungo...

[RedRocco]

66. ...

?t=15s

[yuiyoshida]

77. omg..I was seriously considering of

posting that and I chickened out..

[jpak]

86. I chickened out on the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

[Albertoo]

96. To which thou shalst first a left hand twist give, then count to the number of three

[jmowreader]

95. It seems bombs are necessary even there

[Nevernose]

23. Probably a bomb disposal robot

Since the guy claimed to have explosives on his person and planted around the area.

I don't really see the difference between shooting him and blowing him up, though.

[clarice]

35. Seems a good way to me.nt

[LonePirate]

3. Couldn't they have waited him out or deployed some tear gas?

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Sending a robot/machine on a suicide bomber's mission sets a very dangerous and chilling precedent. So much for protecting property it seems.

[WillowTree]

64. He was still armed and shooting.

How many more people would have been injured or killed while the police "waited him out"? They did what was necessary to neutralize a murderous mad man and I salute them for it.

[FLPanhandle]

4. Good robot.

Give it some extra oil.

[840high]

58. .+1

[Capt. Obvious]

7. Did you see the robot?

[Albertoo]

11. Was Robocop half human? forgot :)

[Glassunion]

13. No... Too expensive, as the robot blew up too... I'm thinking more like:

[Capt. Obvious]

21. So Number Five is not alive?

[Glassunion]

27. Sadly no.

Number 5, is now in 500 pieces.

[yuiyoshida]

80. No No No!!!

[vanlassie]

12. Was there imminent danger? If not, why not starve him out?

[Glassunion]

17. From my understanding, there was.

[geek tragedy]

29. 5 dead cops, another 6 in the hospital indicate imminent danger nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Was he armed? Could he have left his hiding place and caused grievous harm before being neutralized?

Yes to both = imminent danger.

[clarice]

36. Huh !!!!!!!!??????????? nt

[bigtree]

16. police bombings aren't always virtuous

...as this one.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm

[AntiBank]

24. read my mind

[pinboy3niner]

33. Yeah, but if we had this robot bomb in Vietnam it could have saved a lot of lives

I'd rather lose a million robots than 58,000 lives.

Yeah, this reply doesn't really make sense, but emotionally, after all the friends I lost, it's kind of satisfying to say this.

[bigtree]

38. I understand your sentiment

...thing is, the thing which keeps our American society from devolving into a violent free-for-all is our willingness to set and generally adhere to a standard of behavior which demands a measured use of violent force.

Moreover, in situations like Vietnam, where the deployment of American force wasn't in direct defense of American lives or security, there's a risk of military action becoming a mostly consequence-free choice for our citizenry. That's much of the reason why military engagements like Iraq are allowed to proceed with impunity, even when there's no demonstrated risk to our own lives or security; or the cause mostly unjust, unconstitutional, or illegal.

Like with drones... it's understandable to be satisfied with the decreased risk to American soldiers, but the decisions to deploy this remotely deployed force shouldn't hinge solely on whether American lives are at risk.

I think you understand that, but I'll make the point anyway, because as we saw in Philadelphia, other lives might be in the balance. There are also issues of due process of law. I think that's lost in the cheering for this method used in Dallas, whatever it's positive or justifiable merits.

[pinboy3niner]

40. Philadelphia was a crime

I conducted myself to higher standards as an American Infantry officer in war.

[bigtree]

41. I think the vast majority of those who serve, do so with integrity, as well

...notwithstanding the decisions made by those who order these military engagements.

[clarice]

37. But absolutely justified in THIS instance...which I think was the subject of the OP. nt

[bigtree]

39. I think the cheering for this action ignores the implications of this kind of force used by police

...and should be qualified.

[clarice]

42. I agree....clarified by the facts....many people just jump to conclusions to fit their own...

narrative (I don't mean you)

[MissB]

43. This. Is no one appalled that the they chose to be judge, jury

and executioner? I am truly horrified by what this gunman did last night. The loss of life at his hands is simply incomprehensible.

And yet. America doesn't do this. We don't blow up a suspect. (Feel obligated to add: at least not in our borders, to Americans, aside from the 1985 bombing in Philidelphia.)

The use of a robot to deliver a bomb should bother us all very much.

[vanlassie]

44. I am.

[WillowTree]

65. And I think the hand wringing and bemoaning this action ignores the implications.......

.......of how much more mayhem he could have and would perpetrated had they done anything else. No qualification needed.

[bigtree]

71. no one is handwringing or bemoaning anything

...you might have missed the debates on the militarization of the police forces.

You present a false choice. There's absolutely no evidence that 'more mayhem' would have occurred if a bomb hadn't been dropped. It doesn't take much intellect to recognize the folly in that reasoning, especially if you've paid moment of attention to the consequences of militarized police forces in Ferguson and elsewhere.

[WillowTree]

90. He was still armed and shooting. That pretty much qualifies as ongoing mayhem.

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

They used the means that they had available to them to put an end to the situation without anyone else.......other than Johnson, of course.......getting hurt or killed. Most people would say that's what law enforcement is supposed to do in such situations.

By the way, you've got that smug, condescending thing down pretty well. I would imagine that intimidates some people. You go!!!

[bigtree]

91. I haven't disagreed in any post on this thread that this incident may have been justified

....you're still arguing that point.

You don't think describing my remarks as 'handwringing' was confrontational, at all? It wasn't accurate.

[Stinky The Clown]

75. If you took the OP for "cheering" you're quite wrong.

As to the use of a "bomb" . . . . that's a detail that isn't clear. Technically, a firecracker is a bomb, the same as a MOAB. There were no reports of buildings toppling or walls opening up, so it is probably safe to say it was a very small bomb.

Would there be as much concern if a police sniper took him down?

The DPD used what they had on hand to great advantage. An active shooter was threatening more active shooting and the detonation of bombs in the area and (it was reported) right there around himself. What I was commending was the clever use of a tool not intended for such a situation. In the end, the idea proved a good one and the event was ended.

Yes, the perp was killed.

In any situation like this anywhere, the perp is commonly killed. A person who has already committed deadly acts with deadly tools continues to be a threat. The job of the cops is to end the threat.

Look back on that gorilla incident a few weeks back. The gorilla had the little boy in his control. Animal experts considered the gorilla's behavior an imminent threat to the boy. The humane ending would have been tranquilizer darts. The experts' opinion was they could not afford to wait for the darts to take effect. And so the order to use deadly force was given. The situation in Dallas was analogous to that. The BIG difference was the gorilla was NOT at fault while the Dallas shooter absolutely was.

Given that this was really an ad hoc solution, it seems to me it was a good one.

[bigtree]

81. if you read my response carefully

...you'll see that I allow that this may have been an appropriate use of force.

My remark about the cheering wasn't specifically directed at your post.

I don't see any reason to repeat what I've already written on this thread.

[Evergreen Emerald]

79. I think the critizism of this tactic ignores the military forced used against them.

The semi-auto rifle, designed for military use was effectively used against them. Military force v. military force.

[bigtree]

82. interesting point

...as I wrote, this may well be justifiable in this case.

I don't believe that negates the concerns I expressed, but you make a good point which deserves consideration.

[Renew Deal]

46. Here's a Frontline special on it

[bigtree]

72. I don't need Frontline

...I lived through that tragedy.

[Renew Deal]

74. I understand

[bigtree]

83. thanks for the vid.

[rollin74]

22. excellent work by Dallas police getting to this guy and taking him out

[geek tragedy]

28. not sure standard issue, but good use of technology here. nt

[Kablooie]

45. Isaac Asimov would not be happy.

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[adigal]

50. So did this bomb take out other buildings???

Did they check for homeless people first?

[X_Digger]

55. This bomb didn't take out the building he was in..

.. what, you think they dropped a building on the guy?!!??!??

Where did you get that idea??

[SuperDutyTX]

59. What alternatives would you propose, and would you be willing to carry them out yourself?

If they had attempted to "wait him out" using the most extreme/torture-inspired methods (loud music, hitting him with a fire hose etc.), would you have been willing to lead the assault team in? They had a man who had shot 11 of their counterparts, barricaded/armed/armored, and they'd negotiated with him for ~6 hours unsuccessfully; what other methods would you suggest?

[Stinky The Clown]

60. What are you on about?

Why would I be proposing alternatives?

What should I be willing to carry out?

Why would I be suggesting other methods?

[SuperDutyTX]

61. My mistake; I withdraw my comment.

I had read other threads where the opposite was advocated. I apologize for not fully reading your original post, and withdraw my comment. I "assumed" with the thread title, or got them mixed up.

I agree with you completely; I was in the wrong.

Please accept my apologies.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. ....you know where this is going.

[Vattel]

67. Is a less violent but equally safe approach technologically impossible?

[Stinky The Clown]

69. Sure it is. In this regard, truly, anything is possible. It will take a few years and . . . .

. . . . a lot of money.

I'm sure that shooter would have been happy to wait.





They did what they did based on a given situation and on what they had on hand *now*.

[Vattel]

70. Batman would have thrown in a cannister of sleeping gas.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. Thanks for your serious reply

And thanks for playing the game. For your trouble, you're going to receive the home version of Let's Second Guess With Silliness.

Buh byyyye!

:wave:

[Vattel]

78. I didn't know clowns were so serious.

Sorry for the joke. What I was seriously wondering is whether the failure to develop less violent alternatives might have forced them to resort to killing him. I have no problem with what they did given the resources they had (assuming that it was necessary to eliminate a lethal threat).

[Zambero]

84. The shooter defined the rules of engagement

He had already killed and was determined to kill as many others as he could. He claimed to have been able to detonate planted bombs remotely. Attempted negotiations for his surrender had failed. An attempt to disarm and arrest him would have put persons involved in the line of fire. Extraordinary circumstances sometimes often call for extraordinary measures. I don't fault this particular decision.

[Rex]

87. Some folks are having a hard time dealing with the fact they used robo-cop.

Me? I'll buy that for a dollar.

[PCIntern]

88. They should have gotten The Lone Ranger

to nick his trigger finger and wing him in the shoulder so he couldn't handle his weapons anymore.

[Rex]

89. Ah yes those bygone days where people simply wounded each other for family TV.

Reminds me of all the GI Joe cartoons where everyone miraculously parachuted out of the plane before it blew up and/or crashed. Even the vile Cobra, no fatalities...had to keep the parents happy.

[craigmatic]

92. What about brging him in to stand trial?

[Stinky The Clown]

93. I'll betcha that was the original plan

He kinda changed the strategy.

Have a swell day and keep on thinking those good thoughts.

[craigmatic]

94. I don't think that was the original plan. Remember Chris Dorner? They burned him alive for

doing the same thing.