You guys remember the phrase "Judge, Jury, Executioner"



That is not what the Constitution of the USA is about.

Not saying the shooter is innocent.

But you have a guy with an AR or SKS or whatever. Versus basically the government, with everything at its disposal. If not, then the SWAT team.

There is no less lethal option? No robot with stun gas, flash bang, whatever? Heck I don't know what they have. Even barricading the guy in there for 2 days without water, with a siege, can work.

Maybe in the future, Judge Dredd is all we need. No need for courts.

Here's another idea: Do we even know what the shooter said? Is he the shooter? (I mean, chances are yes he probably is, but how do you really know for sure except what they told you after he's dead?)

This guy got capital punishment. Death penalty. I thought usually you need the jury to be unanimous on that?

Why do we have some serial killer types getting 10, 15, 20 years and then coming back out to murder again? Meanwhile this dude got nuked in an hour.

I know what you guys are saying but I am not sure the danger of going down this path is recognized.

This stand-off not only makes the kill act less direct (more video game-like in a way), but most importantly it puts nobody in harms way except the target, and thus makes it an even easier choice. Expedited execution.

This stand-off not only makes the kill act less direct (more video game-like in a way), but most importantly it puts nobody in harms way except the target, and thus makes it an even easier choice. Expedited execution.

I think the concern here is not whether what the cops did to stop the Dallas terrorist is good or not.

The question now is "what is the acceptable use of drones in the termination of US citizens who might be in a standoff situation?"

Passivekinetic nailed it.

Prior to this, when an order to kill is made, the order to kill is weighted against the cost of executing it. Because the cost is high (putting police lives at risk), this order isn't given arbitrarily, and is usually reserved until other options have been pursued.

In contrast, a kill order with the use drones / robots is now a very low risk order and may be the most expedient order in future standoff situations where it will save police lives.

Are we as a society ready to go there?

My answer is very simple.  The method and execution(how it's done) doesn't matter.  It's the laws, ethics, rights, and oversight that matters the most.  Violate one of those then you have problems whether it's someone controlling a drone or hands on person doing it.

Parallels can be seen in the order to execute in, "Eye in the Sky."

However, Dallas Police Chief David Brown was adamant that his officers were left with no choice. He described the failed negotiations with shooter Micah Johnson:

    “I was in radio contact with the SWAT team negotiating once we had him pinned down in the second floor of the El Centro College building.

    And they began conveying to me that this person was in a…gunfight with them. And he was in a position such that they could not see him, he was secreted behind a brick corner. Any effort to get a sniper shot to end his trying to kill us would be to expose officers to grave danger.
    The other option was continuing negotiations, which had already lasted two hours and had not been productive.

    He just basically lied to us, playing games, laughing at us, singing, asking how many did he get and that he wanted to kill some more and that there were bombs there so there was no progress on the negotiation. And I began to feel that it was only at a split second he would charge us and take out many more before we would kill him.”

Johnson instructed officers to “use their creativity” to stop him. When the critics began to speak out, he silenced them with one sentence: “I just don’t give any quarter to critics who ask these types of questions from the comforts and safety of their own homes…I’d do it again.”

My answer is very simple.  The method and execution(how it's done) doesn't matter.  It's the laws, ethics, rights, and oversight that matters the most.  Violate one of those then you have problems whether it's someone controlling a drone or hands on person doing it.

Edit:  Clarification on my terminology.  Execution = how the method is performed.  Not referring to the definition execution = killing someone.

US foreign policies are overwhelmingly imported back home, this is just the beginning of a trend of how to kill US citizens on US soil with out any form of due process of the law.

Due process DOES NOT APPLY to an in-progress crime.  Stop acting like it does. 

For example, if you rob a bank, and you head for the state line, you are a fugitive.  The law does whatever it can within the law to capture you for trial.  Only then is "due process" afforded to you.  No matter how many times you talk to the cops on the phone, email them, or send smoke signals, you have no right to due process at that point in time.

First priority in law enforcement is to stop the crime/threat.  Once the suspect is detained, THEN due process can commence, starting with his Miranda Warning.

due process applies at all time, not just after you have handcuffs on you.