Please don't take this poorly or as any type of put down on you, as I am not, but I am simply trying to offer a perspective.
You seem to be missing a valuable piece of the puzzle or information under which the Police were taking as legitimate information. That being the shooter, possible multiple shooters had or claimed to have IED's that were not only set up around multiple locations of the immediate area but possible surrounding areas and possibly spread within the City of Dallas itself. This shooter was purported to be able to detonate, even remotely detonate any of these devices.
Given the information held by the police at the time of the incident, the act was prudent. Actually quite brilliant.
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.
The above information held by the police "at the time the incident was taking place" makes him an active threat who has the means, motive and opportunity to take human life. Potential delays, negotiations, failed attempts at gassing or tasing by a robot or other means could become the catalyst to trigger the killer, to trigger IED devices placing human life in direct threat.
If the guy is imminently going to shoot the cop, then the cop can defend himself/herself. Same 2A rights as citizens.
No I disagree. Killing him with SWAT or a robot is the same. In fact, with a robot, there is EVEN LESS justification to kill him, because there are NO human lives being at risk. The WHOLE POINT of the robot.
See above. There were claims of IED's that could be remotely triggered, presenting a clear threat to others which may include serious bodily injury or death.
In the meantime, there is something seriously wrong here and it looks like I am not the only one thinking this.
Part of it has to do with the new level of "stand-off" that is now available to kill civilians (remote control robot, next up will be autonomous AI android with seek and destroy, even further separating the act of kill from the person who initiated the kill order).
Perhaps more people don't completely understand the facts or information held by the police at the time of the incident? If there is a threat that justifies deadly use of force, is it just not sporting enough if we use alternate methods in which to stop that threat? What difference if he got a bus dropped on him, a snipers bullet through the brain or a robot delivering an explosive? Do we need to keep it sporting to make it more civil? No one forced this lunatic to start killing people in cold blooded ambush. Sorry he didn't get a sporting opportunity to kill more.
This is a complex topic, being discussed during a time of high complexity in this nation's history.
Obviously many of us have strong feelings one way or another.
To bring back the focus, the question is not whether to send in robots or send in people. Obviously sending in people in harms way is infinitely less desirable than sending in the robot-bomb.
The question, at least in my mind, is whether it was necessary to kill the guy.
Kill the guy? You mean stop the lethal threat by means that could potentially cause death? Yes, it was necessary in that instance.
I'm not saying it was not necessary, just stepping back a bit and QUESTIONING (not condemning) the kill order, which SEEMED to be issued a little quick.
"Kill order"?
A little quick? Given the information that he killer had placed IED's in various locations and the ability to set them off, (Means, motive, opportunity) especially with prior acts just committed, I think it was prudent for the Dallas PD to act in an expeditious manner.
How would you feel if the police negotiated for a long period of time and the killer detonated a bomb killing members of your family? How would you feel if you knew that the police could have used a means to stop that threat, but decided not to do it because it might make you, or others feel uneasy?
Many here have posted reasons for expediency, and in fact I agree with many of those points.
What is the CONCERN here is a THEORETICAL situation of the robot/drone being used in the future FOR OTHER SITUATIONS against civilians.
I think this stuff should be QUESTIONED and ANALYZED instead of so quickly ACCEPTED. That's the issue here.
Should we never progress in technology, or tactics? I think we need to look at the totality of the situation here and match the means used to the actual circumstances.
For example, what's to say, in the future, if gun confiscation were to be the order of the day, that a hundred robot bombs won't be sent to people's homes to blow them and their families up?
I mean, you have gun owners with many guns, lots of ammo, and the potential to cause damage right? Their family members, being in the same household, probably are complicit, and when you weigh their rights versus the rights of greater society (greater good) OBVIOUSLY the LOGICAL thing to do is to BLOW THOSE M*F*kers up quickly, with minimum collateral damage.
You can even outsource the remote control of these robot assassins to teenagers abroad, since the locals may not want to kill their own neighbors and friends.
So, whether you think this scenario is nonsense or not, this is the reason we are discussing this robot/drone thing.
(i.e., whether, since you are using a robot instead of putting people in harm's way, the robot can be used in another manner to subdue the person instead of so expediently killing him/her).
OK this last part here you just slipped this past red herring to absolute silliness that goes beyond what I consider reasonable discussion and will therefore stop here.
take a guess at what blowing up someone with a drone does
Stops a threat that had the claimed ability to kill more innocent lives, possibly at a touch of a button(s)? Maybe it wasn't sporting enough for you either? I have to admit that a full on frontal assault into a fortified stronghold that could potentially be wired with IED's and more death and destruction is much more exciting in a sick and twisted kind of way. Not so smart, not so safe, but definitely more exciting for those wanting a great story with more dead cops shown on the news. I am sure anytime you want to volunteer as point man on that one, the Dallas PD is hiring.