Dallas shooting: suspect killed by police wanted to 'kill white officers'

[brooklynite]

Source: The Guardian

One of the gunmen who opened fire on police in Dallas said he wanted to kill white police officers and expressed anger at a recent spate of shootings by police before he was killed, it was revealed Friday morning.

The suspect, who has not been named, was cornered for several hours by officers and was killed by an explosive device deployed by a police bomb robot after extensive negotiations failed, said Dallas police chief David Brown.

Brown told reporters at an early morning news conference that “The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” during negotiations. “He said he was upset about the recent shootings, he was upset at white people. The suspect said he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

The suspect said that he was not affiliated with any groups and he stated that he did this alone. The suspect said other things that are part of this investigation.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/08/dallas-police-shooting-gunman-kill-white-officers

[Chemisse]

5. Do you really need to stir this pot? n/t

[Person 2713]

8. You just did

[OccupyPA]

2. Thank God

The racist terrorist is dead.

[ag_dude]

3. The "did this alone" thing doesn't make sense.

It was already clearly known he wasn't alone.

[brooklynite]

9. No it is not...

There have been "persons of interest" taken into custody, but no evidence has emerged that ties anyone else into the actual shootings.

[ag_dude]

14. Why is CNN (and most other news sources) reporting otherwise?

Numerous news sources are reporting "shooters".

[brooklynite]

16. Reporting tends to be chaotic...

...no video has emerged of a second shooter; no Police report of engaging a second shooter. They may be talked to related persons (like the sister of the guy in Orlando).

[wcast]

13. To me it means he wasn't working in conjunction with a group like BLM.

Many whites in America paint the whole black community with the same brush. Whenever a non-white commits a horrible act, it is attributed to the group to which they are linked. Case in point is the Miami shootings where motives were instantly ascribed to the shooter being Muslim and many whites use that as justification for their prejudice. When a member of the white community commits such an act, the immediate question is motive and what could have caused him to act in such a way.

The shooting of the Dallas policemen was a horrific act. So was the shooting of the black men by police. However, to many, the former trumps the latter and it will be viewed through the lens of police need to act defensively because blacks kill police.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Nice job by the robot.

[Chemisse]

6. Indeed - a handy little device in circumstances such as these n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. This sounds like a first.

At least that's my best recollection.

[Chemisse]

11. I don't ever recall hearing of this either.

It's a good idea, a robot that can keep on marching forward even when shot at.

[Capt. Obvious]

12. Just doing its job

[Frank Cannon]

23. That was my first thought, as well.

"Thank you for your cooperation. Good night."

[HeartoftheMidwest]

15. Ummm, no, no it's not.

Since when do the police summarily kill suspects? Sending in a bomb to kill him??? Why not tear gas?? Why not flash bang grenades AND tear gas, to immobilize him and take him alive??

I thought we had a purported belief in a justice system, and laws, trial by jury?

When do police get the OK to murder a suspect who's cornered? Who decides that course of action?

I find the actions of the police puzzling. Certainly more details will come out. But this isn't something to applaud. It's wonderful that no more lives were lost or people hurt, but I can't wrap my head around the police INTENTIONALLY killing someone that way. And if that becomes an acceptable practice, how long before other departments use that tactic....and abuse it.

[dhill926]

17. agree....

[gopiscrap]

18. agreed

[brooklynite]

19. Tear gas and flash bangs DISORIENT a shooter; they don't DISABLE one.

An apparently trained (references to tactical skill in obtained video) with a high kill rate and potentially large cache of ammunition and threats of planted bombs, who refuses to surrender is not a risk most law enforcement organizations are going to take.

[christx30]

24. Agreed.

Under those circumstances no one in the world would risk it. He'd already killed 5 cops. No one wanted to be number 6.
The bad guy could have surrendered if he wanted to save his own life. After he killed so many people, my only concern is I hope the robot is ok after the blast.

[groundloop]

21. The suspect had told police he had explosives and would use them....

I understand your argument, and I'm not saying that you're wrong. However, given that this nut had already shot so many people and his statements that he was going to use explosives to kill even more, I can understand the reasoning end it the way they did. And I'm glad I wasn't the one who had to make that decision.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

25. I understand what you're both saying about explosives, but....

...if the police REALLY believed that, they would have evacuated the area, and surrounding buildings, etc., etc. I understand the need to be cautious, but consciously executing the suspect, after two hours of negotiating? Hell, SWAT teams negotiate for many times that number of hours when they have distraught white males that have killed spouses, etc.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wait this person out, however long it takes. He would eventually need food, water, the bathroom. The suspect may have eventually killed himself. But executing someone who is not an immediate threat ( "was cornered"; "was negotiating with" ) means he wasn't actively attacking anyone.

The police had a PROFESSIONAL DUTY to TRY to resolve the situation as peacefully as possible, to bring the suspect to trial. That's how the law is supposed to operate.

( And yes, tear gas pretty much messes up your ability to do anything but wretch and writhe in pain. )

[HeartoftheMidwest]

27. I'll amend this post, in light of...

..new information that the shooter did continue to trade fire with police. He couldn't have had unlimited ammo, though, so there is still a responsibility on the part of law enforcement to try to take him alive.

An Army veteran.

[snooper2]

31. So we should let one murderous asshole hold one or multiple city blocks hostage for how long again?

[HeartoftheMidwest]

32. Until, if possible...

...it's resolved peaceably. Or whenever a police action inconveniences people, we should just snuff the suspect? Really?

[Maru Kitteh]

36. But he did continue to shoot at police, how many more should he be allowed to attempt to kill

while we wait for him to run out of ammunition? What is your answer there?

[HeartoftheMidwest]

37. They had him cornered. In a parking garage.

And they negotiated for at least two hours.
Doesn't sound like LEO lives were in too much danger at that point.

So why did they blow him up?

[Maru Kitteh]

39. Because he CONTINUED TO SHOOT AT THEM.

Just because he was talking to them on occasion did not stop him from trying to kill them so I ask you again, how many more of these officers should he have been allowed to attempt to kill while they - as you suggested - waited for him to run out of ammunition?

Just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition.

Just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition.

That's what you said.

One of the most patently and inconceivably ridiculous things I've read here in a LONG time.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

43. I haven't seen anything reported anywhere ( yet )......

....that stated that any lives were at risk at that point. I have stated previously that IF peoples' lives were genuinely at risk ( how many LEO's were wounded during this exchange in a parking garage?? None that I've heard of ) then this was certainly justifiable to end the standoff. But I haven't seen any information on that yet.

And you aren't in the least disturbed that police are now REMOTELY BLOWING PEOPLE up???!!! Maybe next time they can just use a drone strike??? Who needs a pesky trial??

The reason I bring this up is that I remember the blood frenzy in CA when a black police officer killed other LEOs after declaring war on them: (from the Wiki article):

"In two separate incidents during the manhunt, police shot at three civilians unrelated to Dorner, mistaking their pickup trucks for the vehicle being driven by Dorner. One of the civilians was hit by the police gunfire, another was wounded by shattered glass, and a third individual was injured when police rammed his vehicle and opened fire.[7][8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt
The LEOs looking for that suspect in CA were opening fire on any vehicle that even LOOKED like the suspect's vehicle, including one that was slightly similar, but an entirely different color! ( Almost killing two women who were out delivering newspapers. ) Those LEOs were determined to KILL Dorner, even when unprovoked at all, and without verifying that Dorner was even IN any of the vehicles that they shot at.

I just don't want law enforcement, in their anger and passion, killing people summarily. They have an obligation....duty...to try to use whatever means are necessary to end the manhunt with a suspect in captivity. If the suspect jumps out, guns blazing, a shooting is justified. If the suspect had an avenue of escape, and could have caused more harm, a shooting is justified. So far, haven't seen any proof of that.

Again, why are police REMOTELY blowing up suspects????

[Maru Kitteh]

47. You said to just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition

Police remotely killed the suspect because he continued to fire on them. To suggest they needed to wait for him to actually injure or kill someone in the garage is SICK. JUST SICK.

You said to just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition.

That's sick.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

49. Again, NOT seeing any indications ( yet ) that police were in any danger.

Usually that's what "cornered" implies.
In a parking garage, with incredibly thick walls, I'm assuming the police were out of range or well-protected where they were.

I see nothing in the reports about tear gas, or uses of other methods to flush the suspect out.

It seems inevitable that this would be the outcome, but I am disturbed that more of an effort wasn't made. I am disturbed that LEOs decided to remotely blow the suspect up. I am disturbed by the continued militarization of the police.

And I am deeply disturbed that he was an Army veteran. There may be more to that angle, later.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. You said to just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition

Address that.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

53. I said no such thing.

I'm saying that in the big picture of things, the suspect was trapped, had no way out, and police were in total control of the situation.
At least, that's what "cornered" implies. The police could've waited 20 days, for what it's worth. The gunman wasn't going anywhere. There are no reports of anyone ( LEO, etc. ) being injured in the garage.

So was remotely blowing the suspect up necessary? All avenues exhausted? If the suspect in any way was a real threat INSIDE THE GARAGE, then yes, there are ways to take care of it.

Or was it just blood rage that so many officers had been killed and injured?? Was it just retaliatory? That's all I'm asking....because we have a justice system to sort all of that out. And police have a DUTY to follow that system too, no matter how anguished or furious they might be.

I'm sure all these facts will come out eventually.

It's all a tragedy.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. Yeah, you did. All anyone has to do is look at your posts, so explain it.

You said to just let him keep trying to kill people until he runs out of ammunition. Why?

[HeartoftheMidwest]

56. I said his ammo supply was limited.

That means that at some point, the suspect would be even more helpless than he was, cornered in the parking garage.
That there were probably other more peaceful ways to de-escalate the situation. That I didn't see any evidence that other methods were tried, besides two hours of negotiations ( which often take place over a greater amount of time. )

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. He would only run out of ammo if he was shooting at the police

so for him to become more helpless, police officers would have to have been at risk of being killed.

[Calista241]

61. At the press conference

Both the Police Chief and the Mayor said they feared he would assault their position and try to breakout of their cordon. The suspect was both well armed and armored with military grade body armor, and had effectively employed military tactics to that point.

The cops ended the standoff with as little danger to the public as possible. I applaud their response.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

60. There are some people who believe cops need to "take one (or a hundred) for the team"

That apparently, they get paid to be meat shields.

[TipTok]

38. Just let him fire until he runs out?

You know that stuff comes in bulk right?

Criminy...

[geek tragedy]

30. Oh Jesus, it's not murder to kill a mass-murdering madman

who's armed to the teeth and whose only goal is to kill more cops.

Perfectly acceptable to kill him under those circumstances in order to prevent the further loss of innocent life.


Given that there were already 5 dead cops and 6 more in the hospital with gun shot wounds, no way were they required to risk further deaths.

Due process doesn't apply to armed lunatics in the active process of trying to kill people.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

33. The fact that no one gunned him down where he stood..

...or crouched, or hid, puts the lie to your assertion that he was in "the active process."
He HAD been, earlier.....if they had shot him THEN, no one would argue whether it was justifiable or not.
But he was cornered, trapped.....and they had an obligation to try to end it with the suspect alive and in custody. Then the law could take it's course.

[geek tragedy]

34. they only have that obligation if it doesn't put their own

lives at risk.

his life was not worth risking theirs.

if they had a chance to take him out without endangering anyone else, they take it and don't think twice.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

40. "His life was not worth risking theirs."

But that's part of what they do. And again, the suspect was cornered, and they negotiated for over two hours.
So that doesn't sound like a gun battle to me.
They sat and talked to him; he just wasn't going to surrender. He was CORNERED. They couldn't wait because....??????

And they opted to ASSASSINATE him, without due process? As Americans, that doesn't bother you at all??!?!?!

[geek tragedy]

41. It's not their job to assist this guy in killing more of them.

If he wasn't going to surrender, then they were going to have to kill him regardless.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown told reporters Friday morning that after hours-long negotiations broke down and officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect, police weren't left with many options to disarm the shooter.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/suspect-killed-bomb-robot

Due process doesn't apply when the guy is armed and expressing an explicit desire to kill anyone he sees, and shooting at anything that moves.

People who make themselves that kind of extreme threat to public safety waive their protections and authorize the police to take them out at the first opportunity.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

55. I see we're at an impasse.

I'll leave it there.
The suspect....was....cornered. That gives all the power to the police.
The suspect wasn't on the run; wasn't out in the streets. If the police stopped shooting at the suspect, what would he have done? Probably not much. Or perhaps killed himself.

It disturbs me to my core that the police remotely blew the suspect up.

[christx30]

42. And if the gunman had any desire to live,

he could have placed his gun on the ground and surrendered. He did not. He wanted to keep killing. At some point, people are responsible for what happens to themselves. If you want to live, don't shoot and kill cops. If you shoot and kill cops, give up when they return fire. If you don't give up, you are going to die. No one is obligated to die to make sure you get your day in court.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

45. Reply to geek and Christ:

They had him cornered.
His ammo supply was finite. They couldn't keep him pinned down there??? They didn't have the patience to wait him out? He didn't have hostages, and LEOs had access to armored vehicles, sonic cannons, tear gas, and unlimited time.

And still no one thinks it's inappropriate to send in robotic devices to blow someone up??!

[Calista241]

62. They were expecting him to try and break out.

They were in a parking desk in an unsecure position against a well armed and well armored suspect. The suspect had demonstrated knowledge of military tactics, had threatened them, and they could not afford to have a protracted, mobile firefight in downtown Dallas.

They also weren't sure at that time if there weren't more gunmen they'd have to root out, and his IED threat was also something they could not ignore.

Did they have sonic weapons onsite? Could they get armored vehicles onsite and in the parking deck? All of that shit matters only if you can effectively deploy them.

[msanthrope]

44. Saddle up. nt

[HeartoftheMidwest]

46. Sorry.

Don't understand your reply.

[Maru Kitteh]

48. Maybe get your ass down to the next active shooter situation and let him shoot at you

till he runs out of ammunition, like you said the people responding to this shooter should do?



I think it's fair.

Disclaimer: I don't know what the poster actually meant.

[Maven]

51. If you use lethal force against police officers you should expect them to respond in kind.

Would you feel better if they "intentionally" shot back at him, and that's how he was killed?

[HeartoftheMidwest]

57. I would feel better if the police were able to...

...try all the usual methods for capturing a suspect who is cornered.
That's all.
And sending in remotely-controlled vehicles to blow up suspects? What a can of worms that may turn out to be.

[DonCoquixote]

52. big difference between a normal suspect

and one that is SHOOTING AT YOU while heavily armed. The robot allowed police to make sure that they could take him in without causing more risk to anyone, including whatever innocent bystander happened to be in the way of bullets this guy was shooting.

This is NOT a bit where Michael brown raised his hands, or Phil from Minnesota tried to actually cooperate with thie officers. This was a man who was IN COMBAT as he died.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

58. So sending the robot in with tear gas...

...isn't an option?
Wouldn't it have been nice if that had at least been tried?

[citood]

10. I had no idea these robots were used offensively

"killed by an explosive device deployed by a police bomb robot"

[Blue_Tires]

20. Fucking morons

Not only have they made the target on our backs bigger, nobody in the media is talking about Castile and Sterling anymore...

[Igel]

28. The only reason the "target on (your) backs (is) bigger" is straightforward.

You're viewed not as individuals but as a member of a group, a group that acts together, where the members are similar, and who protect each other against outsiders. Doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, it's the whole "you're a member of a group, not a person" way of thinking.

The only way that this guy would go gunning for white cops is if he viewed them not as individuals but as a member of a group, a group that acts together, where the members are similar, and who protect each other agianst outsiders. Doesn't matter if this is right or wrong, it's the whole "you're a member of a group, not a person" way of thinking.


Nationalism had to die for a few reasons. The first is that it divided nations. The group that acts together, where members are simillar, and who protect each other against outsiders was, under nation-state thinking, the nation. Americans stick together, French stick together, Nepalese stick together. It was a kind of ideal, seldom achieved in practice but it worked to unify large portions of the world.

The stongest vision for a united Europe will fail because it cannot do this. Those strongest supporters have a "European identity," but it's a weak one. No common culture, no common language, no common set of traditions or folklore to mark ground boundaries determined by "deep" culture. The best they have is a common framework for doing business with some official environmental values. It's not the Fs that unite, it's the actual values and modes of interaction (the Fs are food, fashion, folklore, and festivals, none of which are crucial to what really binds people in a culture). Europe lacks both common Fs and a complete set of core values.

The second reason nationalism had to die is that it superseded group identity. You can't be a loyal Polish-American activist if your loyalty to American is greater than your loyalty to Polish; you can keep some of the Fs, but that's about it. It ultimately required disposing of things that disunited us because, dang, somebody, the wrong somebody, might feel bad. At the same time, it created great political opportunities that rely on group boundaries and making sure that groups are so allied internally that they can close circles against outsiders. It aided and abetted seeing individuals as members of a group. The tension in a lot of thinking is between the natural assimilatory tendencies of immigrants and group members in contact with other groups, individualism, and fostering group identity--in a single argument a person will flip between insisting on being seen as a member of a group and as a free-standing individual, but if you talk to 1000 people you get 1000 different ways to square that circle. But the group-think has to die. Nation-states can work out inter-group treaties and contracts just fine because borders make fine demarcations. Communalism is just plain evil, and leads to Rwanda, Indonesia, the Congo, Jugoslavija. White supremacy is just one kind of communalism, where skin-color is a marker for deeper values, and has all the same features of other subspecies of communalism. A great example of a communal set-up is Lebanon. That's a sucky example to want to follow.

[Sunlei]

22. was this one shooter?

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Good question: could it be that he was actually acting alone?

It sounds like the other three in custody (two males associated with the Mercedes, and one women) are either saying nothing or denying involvement. Could this guy have done this solo? Or could there be others not apprehended?

[ramapo]

26. Since when?

When did local police arm themselves with bombs and them robots to deliver them?

Are drones with surplus hellfire missiles next?

[Taitertots]

35. It wouldn't be the first time the government bombed Americans

[Calista241]

63. It was an explosive charge on a bomb disposal robot.

Those charges are often used to destroy bombs before they go off as designed. I hesitate to call the explosive charge a bomb as it wasn't an area of effect weapon.

I suspect they used the robot to deliver a cell phone so they could talk to him, which they did for an hour or two.