2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on July 09, 2016, 12:55:00 AM
-
By sending in a robot with a bomb to kill a suspect we have entered the age long feared and anticipated by human rights advocates. There's literally nothing to stop the type of extrajudicial assassinationr that creates more extremists than it kills. It won't be long before someone has an autocorrect mistake in a text message and they get vaporized along with the family next door.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/five-reasons-armed-domestic-drones-are-terrible-idea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/domestic-drones-unique-dangers
-
I would support the use of drones. It's easy to be a backseat driver or monday morning quarterback, but it's a lot more difficult being the guys in the front leading the charge and taking fire. Even worse is seeing your teammates going down. Why take a chance when you don't have to? The criminal/terrorist/murderer has chosen their path and it's their decision. Why risk your life to save someone that is trying to kill you?
To me it doesn't matter how we take the criminal down whether it's a drone, bomb, tank, bullet, etc as long as innocents aren't hurt and all laws are followed. Using drones makes no difference as long as they follow current laws and are not abused. Abuse of laws makes no difference whether it's a drone or a person doing it.
-
I am with Zippz on this one. Imagine a drone (inaccurate generalized term) that could enter a room with a barricaded suspect and use a less lethal weapon like a Tazer to incapacitate a suspect while police make entry.
I don't think that just because we have remotely piloted vehicles that the military or law enforcement is going to start bombing domestic targets. And even if they were going to do that, they could do it with manned aircraft anyway so drones don't really change much.
When it comes to the 4th amendment though, these small vehicles do become a concern.
-
https://youtu.be/SNPJMk2fgJU
-
I am with Zippz on this one. Imagine a drone (inaccurate generalized term) that could enter a room with a barricaded suspect and use a less lethal weapon like a Tazer to incapacitate a suspect while police make entry.
I don't think that just because we have remotely piloted vehicles that the military or law enforcement is going to start bombing domestic targets. And even if they were going to do that, they could do it with manned aircraft anyway so drones don't really change much.
When it comes to the 4th amendment though, these small vehicles do become a concern.
I'll agree with this here. They should have used the drone in a nonlethal capacity, especially in the incident with the Huston killer. Using the drone to deliver a grenade when the guy is already pinned down was not a judicious use of deadly force, IMO.
-
Its not a drone.
-
I can see a reasoning behind going straight to lethal force with the bomb robot/drone (drone could be defined as any remote/autopiloted craft depending where you look). The criminal proved that he wanted to kill people and was very effective at it. He was still shooting and any of those bullets could have resulted in another casualty up to 400 yards away (to police or civilians). Police therefore had to take him out the safest and most effective way possible. Tasers, pepper spray, and other non-lethals I'd guess is maybe 50-75% effective. They are also effective for only a very short period of time. Someone would still have to take a chance of entering that room not knowing if the non-lethal was effective, and if they were still affected by it.
Police don't use non-lethals when they are faced with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, sword, etc) unless they have lethal force backup for those same reasons.
I'd question the police if they knew there were no other innocents and hostages in the room they blew up. Also they usually use snipers, I wonder why they weren't used.
-
Its not a drone.
droid
-
I'll agree with this here. They should have used the drone in a nonlethal capacity, especially in the incident with the Huston killer. Using the drone to deliver a grenade when the guy is already pinned down was not a judicious use of deadly force, IMO.
The guy said he was going to kill more cops, WTF you want them to go try and get him out alive ? you want them to spend days trying to talk him out ? FUCK NO, the guy got what he deserved, no more officers got shot, no more life were put in danger to entertain his needs. He had ample opportunity to surrender and chose not to.
-
The guy said he was going to kill more cops, WTF you want them to go try and get him out alive ? you want them to spend days trying to talk him out ? FUCK NO, the guy got what he deserved, no more officers got shot, no more life were put in danger to entertain his needs. He had ample opportunity to surrender and chose not to.
What do I want?
How about equal protection under the law?
Would it be acceptable for you or me to use explosives delivered by a UAV to defend ourselves? Don't think so.
What if it took days to talk him down? Does it matter if he's pinned down and no where to go? What if he had help? Now he's dead and can't talk, and more extremists, still on the loose can plot new attacks on police.
I don't really care the killer is dead. Just the methods are moving down a slippery slope, and sets a real onerous precedent.
-
What do I want?
How about equal protection under the law?
Would it be acceptable for you or me to use explosives delivered by a UAV to defend ourselves? Don't think so.
What if it took days to talk him down? Does it matter if he's pinned down and no where to go? What if he had help? Now he's dead and can't talk, and more extremists, still on the loose can plot new attacks on police.
I don't really care the killer is dead. Just the methods are moving down a slippery slope, and sets a real onerous precedent.
I'm having difficulty seeing how a bomb on a robot which the bad guy can see, giving him the chance to surrender before getting blown up, is worse than an unannounced sniper's bullet.
I think both methods are going to be "last resort", not an automatic response. While it's preferable to take the guy alive, it should not be at the risk of losing more people dying.
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/bda5e7086f9b2638e7b24289fda9004f.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/2ad8aa619c8a3334756cced633ab4813.jpg)
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/4c1a45426fe921dbd7eeea0388685c4b.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/953074f335559c7b6a41e336e21ed90f.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/e0a286b532f281322c4778caf9109819.jpg)
-
Well, I'm not going to argue.
If we are going to sit here and bitch about why the government refuses to apply the constitution on 2A, yet disregard it when it comes to other issues, even though the person may have 'deserved it', is kind of the definition of hypocritical.
Kind of sounds like the gun grabbers themselves..... using emotions instead of logic....
-
Well, I'm not going to argue.
If we are going to sit here and bitch about why the government refuses to apply the constitution on 2A, yet disregard it when it comes to other issues, even though the person may have 'deserved it', is kind of the definition of hypocritical.
Kind of sounds like the gun grabbers themselves..... using emotions instead of logic....
I'm not arguing either. I think you have to treat each situation as appropriate. In Dallas, they saw him as a continuing threat, not as a pinned down, contained perp they need to arrest. He needed to be stopped before he killed more people.
Stop the threat, or detain the suspect? Priorities.
Since neither of us was at the scene, I'm curious what more you believe the Cops should have used to preserve the shooter's life, given that in the majority of these situations, the shooter tends to take his own life anyway.
-
I'm not arguing either. I think you have to treat each situation as appropriate. In Dallas, they saw him as a continuing threat, not as a pinned down, contained perp they need to arrest. He needed to be stopped before he killed more people.
Stop the threat, or detain the suspect? Priorities.
Since neither of us was at the scene, I'm curious what more you believe the Cops should have used to preserve the shooter's life, given that in the majority of these situations, the shooter tends to take his own life anyway.
Like I said. I don't give two shits about the shooter and I am glad he was stopped.
It's the method. What is the purpose of a militarized civilian police force?
They are already blaming open carry Huston for a part of what happened. So, what is next?
-
Like I said. I don't give two shits about the shooter and I am glad he was stopped.
It's the method. What is the purpose of a militarized civilian police force?
They are already blaming open carry Huston for a part of what happened. So, what is next?
I believe calling a police department "militarized" is as useful as calling an AR-15 a "weapon of war." If the Cops are taking tactical advantage of new technologies and training that prove more effective than before, I think calling them "militarized" is fear mongering.
Do SOME precincts opt to use the big guns and cool toys too soon in a situation? Hard to say. Shock and awe can diffuse the situation if the perp sees his chances of escaping are zero.
I do think the escalation of force in many cases is unwarranted, but it's impossible IN THE MOMENT to know when that is. When the public is killing cops for protests and thrills, and they have all manner of weapons (not just guns), Cops are in a difficult job. Treat everyone as innocent until they try to kill you, or treat them as a suspect until you determine they are not a likely threat? Part of that's training, and part is the individual officer's personality, for lack of a better word.
-
Your acting like this was an officer who ran to his squad car grabbed a drone and a grenade and blew the guy up, This was a swat or EOD team, this is what they do, they train and plan for dealing with this type of situation. They have specialized equipment to deal with these situations
-
Point is being missed entirely.
-
Careful what you wish for, they are already moving forward.
-
Point is being missed entirely.
Ok how do you think they should of ended the situation,
-
Ok how do you think they should of ended the situation,
It has nothing to do with the situation.
-
http://globalnews.ca/news/2813549/killer-robot-used-by-dallas-police-sparks-ethical-debate/
Killer robot used by Dallas police sparks ethical debate
-
It'll be interesting to see what types of new weapons will be covered by the 2nd amendment in the future. Just as the founding fathers probably didn't foresee rifles shooting over a mile or automatics, will we be able to have laser guns, weaponized drones, and other arms too?
Perhaps we should be able to own small amounts of explosives too.
-
It has nothing to do with the situation.
Of course it has everything to do with the situation, your comparing the use of a drone (which in reality this is not a drone in the military sense) to the use of a drone against a military target.
the use of it here is no different to the use of a sniper rifle to put an end to a threat, would you be reacting the same way of the three a grenade into the room? Or if they had of store the room and shot him ?
-
http://globalnews.ca/news/2813549/killer-robot-used-by-dallas-police-sparks-ethical-debate/
Killer robot used by Dallas police sparks ethical debate
I do t get what the debate is about, a person made the decision to end his life to save/prevent others from being hurt or killed, the tool used should not even be a factor.
-
Of course it has everything to do with the situation, your comparing the use of a drone (which in reality this is not a drone in the military sense) to the use of a drone against a military target.
the use of it here is no different to the use of a sniper rifle to put an end to a threat, would you be reacting the same way of the three a grenade into the room? Or if they had of store the room and shot him ?
There is a difference, you just refuse to see it.
-
http://bb4sp.com/ag-lynch-announces-global-police-force-partnership-with-un/
They would love to use bomb toting robots to have their way with the citizens, I'm sure..... :(
-
It must be nice to have an excuse for when things get too hard you can just kill the person instead.
-
It must be nice to have an excuse for when things get too hard you can just kill the person instead.
Is that you volunteering to go in there and get him out ?
-
I stopped working for the government after I realized the vast majority of it did nothing involving protecting and serving. If you want to really help police, tell them to stop enforcing bad laws.
-
All the services that police provide can be done better through community and market based services.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/policing-is-a-dirty-job-but-nobodys-gotta-do-it-6-ideas-for-a-cop-free-world-20141216
-
All the services that police provide can be done better through community and market based services.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/policing-is-a-dirty-job-but-nobodys-gotta-do-it-6-ideas-for-a-cop-free-world-20141216
Rolling stone..... Really?
-
What do I want?
How about equal protection under the law?
Would it be acceptable for you or me to use explosives delivered by a UAV to defend ourselves? Don't think so.
What if it took days to talk him down? Does it matter if he's pinned down and no where to go? What if he had help? Now he's dead and can't talk, and more extremists, still on the loose can plot new attacks on police.
I don't really care the killer is dead. Just the methods are moving down a slippery slope, and sets a real onerous precedent.
Supposedly he said he had explosives set up. This could be reason to expedite stopping the threat as opposed to talking out a barricaded suspect. Who knows where he might have placed IEDs he could have called with a cell phone to activate?
I am interested in how they did it though. Did they have a device that was already capable of delivering explosives or did they have to jury rig something? It looks like they jury rigged something but apparently details aren't being released.
I think I get the moral dilemma you are getting at though. In old times a SWAT team commander would have to make a decision to risk the lives of his men if they had to breach a barricaded suspect. This encouraged them to use all available alternatives at their disposal. But now with a suicide drone it makes it awfully temping to jus say "F@%# it, just blow him up"
-
Rolling stone..... Really?
There have been some very weird characters posting on 2AHawaii in the last few days..................
-
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.
-
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.
Then that puts the same line of thinking on any other police shooting, even tho the guy had a gun and had the intention of using it what gives the rights to any cop to become judge jury and executioner ?
would;d we be having the same conversation if a swat team had of stormed the room and shot him or if a police sniper 400 yds away shot him ? I dont think so, It would be pat on the back you stooped the bad guy, good job.
With regards to keeping him contained for a few days could you imagine the scene outside and surrounding the building ? He would of became a martyr for BLM, More of these thugs would of been drawn to the area in support more then likely resulting in more lifes being lost.
For a less lethal option such as knock out gas, These things arent instant, He said he had explosives in the building, Now do you take the risk that hes got a bomb and a way to detonate it and whilst this less lethal option is being deployed he detonates a bomb ?
-
Then that puts the same line of thinking on any other police shooting, even tho the guy had a gun and had the intention of using it what gives the rights to any cop to become judge jury and executioner ?
If the guy is imminently going to shoot the cop, then the cop can defend himself/herself. Same 2A rights as citizens.
would;d we be having the same conversation if a swat team had of stormed the room and shot him or if a police sniper 400 yds away shot him ? I dont think so, It would be pat on the back you stooped the bad guy, good job.
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.
With regards to keeping him contained for a few days could you imagine the scene outside and surrounding the building ? He would of became a martyr for BLM, More of these thugs would of been drawn to the area in support more then likely resulting in more lifes being lost.
With respect, this is irrelevant.
This argument can be said for anyone, for any crime, any cause. Better kill him now, before he gets on TV and gets all the media attention and sympathy.
For a less lethal option such as knock out gas, These things arent instant, He said he had explosives in the building, Now do you take the risk that hes got a bomb and a way to detonate it and whilst this less lethal option is being deployed he detonates a bomb?
I understand that. But as I said, in 2016, surely we have other options?
The Judge Dredd thing is central to what is being discussed here.
2A rights are also very easily attacked through this kind of "just in case" thinking.
-
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.
With respect, this is irrelevant.
This argument can be said for anyone, for any crime, any cause. Better kill him now, before he gets on TV and gets all the media attention and sympathy.
I understand that. But as I said, in 2016, surely we have other options?
The Judge Dredd thing is central to what is being discussed here.
2A rights are also very easily attacked through this kind of "just in case" thinking.
Agree. Well laid-out response, Brother.
-
If the guy is imminently going to shoot the cop, then the cop can defend himself/herself. Same 2A rights as citizens.
I have bombs = Imminent threat to every one
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.
I have bombs = Imminent threat to every one
This argument can be said for anyone, for any crime, any cause. Better kill him now, before he gets on TV and gets all the media attention and sympathy.
The reason these guys do this shit (and school shootings) is because they want there 15 minutes of fame, If they had of kept him barricaded in there for days he would of become a rally point resulting in more death and damage, not to mention the time and money on police officers to keep the area contained, The loss of use of the whole area because he said he had bombs, Your talking about shutting down a several block radias in the middle of a major city, just so one guy (who dident have hostages) can get his 15 minutes on TV.
I understand that. But as I said, in 2016, surely we have other options?
The police are not there to help criminals, Those days are gone. They are there to end a situation that puts lifes at risk in the quickest and safest way possible.
The Judge Dredd thing is central to what is being discussed here.
If he wanted to get in front of a judge and jury he could of surrendered, Instead he chose to baricade himself in an area and tell the police im gona kill more of you and I have bombs. Remmber they didnet just walk up to some one and say gey your a criminal I sentence you to death, They chased him into an area because he had just shot 15 people.
2A rights are also very easily attacked through this kind of "just in case" thinking.
Your making big jumps from they killed a guy who jusy shot 15 people and is in a baricade situation to, there gona blow up gun owners,
-
I think it's difficult for anyone to imagine being in a police officer's shoes unless you've done it. Less lethal's don't always work. I've been gassed, sprayed, tazed, choked out, pounded on, and other things. I haven't been flashbanged, but I think it would be cool to feel what it's like. None of those things would prevent me from killing someone. I may be a little less effective, but I'm pretty confident I could reasonably do it. This was a military guy that was very determined and effective, I think he would be able to do the same. Another problem using a less lethal that is ineffective is he adapts and makes whatever future nonlethal/lethal measures less effective and more dangerous too.
Waiting it out is a possibility. If anything he could only go 2-3 days with lack of rest. However they would have to shut down a large part of the city for that time and still face the possibility of more civilians/officers getting shot no matter how well they cordon off the area or take cover. His only disadvantage was not having a hostage.
There were a lot of unknowns and confusion at the time. Were there bombs with him or elsewhere that he could detonate? Were there other gunmen in the area that could cause more harm during negotiating?
I don't see this as a case of due process violations. Everyone second that goes by and ever shot that he takes is the potential for someone to die within a 400 yard area. I think he was ready to die for his cause, and take as many people out with him as he could. I wouldn't be willing to take a 10% chance of another person dying to save his life. To me this case is like saying CCW isn't needed since you can get pepper spray..
-
This does raise some questions, but are we asking the right questions?
In this situation, I would have tossed a grenade at the guy myself, I posted as much elsewhere. IMO it was completely ethical. Why? Because the police weren't dealing with a criminal act, they were dealing with an act of war. This wasn't some guy that robbed a liquor store and barricaded himself so as to try and escape justice. This was a man that prepared and carried out a coordinated attack against an arm of the government, and was prepared to die fighting.
I don't think it can be classified as a "terrorist" incident due to the fact that only armed police were targeted, only one civilian was injured by stray rounds.
So the question should be "Is our police force designed to deal with acts of war?" The answer should be a resounding "No". They are tasked with enforcing the law, not dealing with armed conflict.
That being said, they HAVE been preparing for war. Armored vehicles, fully automatic weapons, explosives, tactics and training. It's not just our police departments either, it's the DOE, DOJ, IRS, EPA, BLM, FEMA, and many other bureaucratic agencies. Billions of rounds of ammo, and all the other tools of war I've mentioned.
Riddle me this: How is this related to the stated "mission" of these disparate bureaucracies? Answer: It's not.
The only way it makes sense is if they are preparing for a declaration of martial law, or armed insurrection.
From a perspective of "law enforcement" this could be considered a violation of ethics, but from a realistic perspective in the context of "war" it's not. Our government has obviously been thinking about this, and planning for it.
Why?
-
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.
Did the shooter offer his victims "due process" before executing cops at random, in a city which has had ZERO nationally reported events of suspected racially motivated shootings of suspects?
If he wasn't the shooter, he had ample opportunity to disarm, submit and comply with the cops' commands without dying.
I have no sympathy or empathy with the shooter, nor do I have any guilt about his death or the means in which it was achieved.
As has been quoted on this forum numerous times, the police have no duty to protect the individual. They have a duty to ensure the safety of the public at large.
They did their duty, and I applaud them for their heroism in the face of an unknown force obviously intent on killing each and every one of them.
-
I know what you guys are saying but I am not sure the danger of going down this path is recognized.
-
I know what you guys are saying but I am not sure the danger of going down this path is recognized.
I don't think you have identified the "path" you refer to.
When someone is trying to kill you, and has stated that is their intent, what options do you want to start with?
Saying "this is 2016 -- can't we do better than this" is all too familiar. I see it all the time from anti-gun posts, asking about smart gun technology, how violence never solves anything, how we need to evolve past using violence, and so on.
When the other side chooses violence, they made that choice. The options they limit you to are "kill or be killed." If you have another list of options, I'd love to see it.
-
I am not able to articulate eloquently what is going on right now. Maybe after thinking about it a bit more.
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).
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.
Compare with an 18-year old in an air conditioned room with a joystick, manning a drone that shoots missiles half a world away at a village killing women and children because, just in case, there is a terrorist in those huts.
We already use words to distance ourselves (acceptable collateral damage assessment).
-
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.
Your looking at it as an execution and its not, They didnet get the guy in a room put a bomb an it and blow him up as punishment (which what an execution is). He put himself in a room, They said come out and stand trial, He said no im gona kill you as you come to get me, They dient want to die so they blew him up.
He had the option of facing trial and he made the choice to forgo it,
-
I think the concern here is not whether what the cops did to stop the Dallas terrorist is good or not. The Dallas terrorist had crossed way past the line. He has killed numerous police officers and if it took a drone to stop him and save police lives, then so be it.
The question that bothers people now is "what is the acceptable use of robots / drones in the termination of US citizens who might be in a standoff situation?"
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.
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.
How about a small flying robot with a small explosive charge that can be directed to fly into someone's ear and detonate?
Are we as a society ready to go there and deal with this? The Pandora's Box has been opened.
This is like to the human cloning question. Are we ready for the ethical implications of this?
-
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?
I fail to see the distinction between a "drone", explode-a-bot, or a long range sniper. We've used snipers to take out perps for a very long time. The decision to use a sniper is to me even less risky than an explosive device that can cause all kinds of structural risks including gas and electrical systems.
-
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.
-
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."
-
Parallels can be seen in the order to execute in, "Eye in the Sky."
My thoughts exactly! As I just watched Eye on the Sky last night.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
-
The issue is treating a criminal scene like a war zone isn't a slippery slope, it's more like a bottomless cavern that once you step off the edge there's nowhere to go but down.
Cops shoot people. People shoot back. Cops use robot bombs. People make IEDs. Cops send out armed drones and ride around in armored vehicles, moving house to house kicking in doors like soldiers. People start following cops home and taking vengeance on their families.
Viola. War zone where there was once a thriving society with a hope of de-escalation.
I feel terrible for police because they are being put in a very dangerous position here by some very stupid selfish leaders who profit handsomely off the wars on drugs and terror, and the plethora of bad policies derived from both. The police must recognize where their true power comes from, and start refusing policies and orders that put their lives in danger.
http://theantimedia.org/police-start-getting-shot/
-
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.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/07/646751-people-are-actually-complaining-about-police-using-robot-bomb-to-kill-dallas-shooter/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=nation
-
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.
Agreed. The actor has to justify their decisions in the end either way. I think the fear though is that some might just take the easy way out and send inside a jihad drone instead of exhausting all other measures before making an assault.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/6kbao4C.jpg)
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
due process applies at all time, not just after you have handcuffs on you.
How can that be in a criminal case? Due process starts with detainment and arrest. until then, the Cops don't have you in custody. No due process rules apply. No phone call, no bail, no arraignment, etc.
-
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.
Your right to due process starts, WHEN YOU STOP TRYING TO FUKIN KILL PEOPLE.
Lets not pretend that they killed him so he couldn't stand trial, They killed him because he was still shooting at them and was threatening to blow the building up, AT ANY POINT he could of surrendered and got hes due process, HE MADE A CHOICE not to.
-
How can that be in a criminal case? Due process starts with detainment and arrest. until then, the Cops don't have you in custody. No due process rules apply. No phone call, no bail, no arraignment, etc.
so warrants and all the other variety of pre-confinement interactions with law enforcement can be predicated on whims and opinions?
-
so warrants and all the other variety of pre-confinement interactions with law enforcement can be predicated on whims and opinions?
Those are part of an investigation. There are civil liberties and Constitutional rights which protect you during an investigation, but that's not a process.
Once the investigation gathers enough evidence to charge you (like 50 Cops and 500 marchers seeing you gun down a dozen people), you will be formally arrested and charged. That's the first step in "due process".
Why would there be "due process" if you are only a suspect? The evidence might never be sufficient to charge you, so the process never starts.
Law Enforcement = Stopping crimes and investigating crimes
Judicial System = the PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS followed when the government makes an arrest & brings formal charges against a defendant. It's the guaranteed right to defend yourself against legal charges.
Correctional System = Punishment and Rehabilitation phase once defendant is found guilty
Not sure what else to say. If you don't agree, maybe you can cite some reputable sources that show me where I'm mistaken.
Something other than DailyKOS, MSNBC or RollingStone would be a pleasant break! :thumbsup:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/due+process+of+law
-
Did the robot delivering the bomb get blown up too? If so, why waste an expensive robot? Could a rocket propelled grenade have done the same thing? I feel the police were justified taking out this nut case, it could have been done a lot cheaper.
-
Those are part of an investigation. There are civil liberties and Constitutional rights which protect you during an investigation, but that's not a process.
Once the investigation gathers enough evidence to charge you (like 50 Cops and 500 marchers seeing you gun down a dozen people), you will be formally arrested and charged. That's the first step in "due process".
Why would there be "due process" if you are only a suspect? The evidence might never be sufficient to charge you, so the process never starts.
Law Enforcement = Stopping crimes and investigating crimes
Judicial System = the PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS followed when the government makes an arrest & brings formal charges against a defendant. It's the guaranteed right to defend yourself against legal charges.
Correctional System = Punishment and Rehabilitation phase once defendant is found guilty
Not sure what else to say. If you don't agree, maybe you can cite some reputable sources that show me where I'm mistaken.
Something other than DailyKOS, MSNBC or RollingStone would be a pleasant break! :thumbsup:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/due+process+of+law
you should read it through again, none of that says due process only counts after you've been arrested.
-
you should read it through again, none of that says due process only counts after you've been arrested.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are don duty bound to protect an individual (in this case the criminal) but instead must operate in the best interest of the community (in this case everyone else he could of shot or blown up) .
As stated before the shooter made a choice to forgo his right to due process by not surrendering,
Im not sure if you are trolling or not but im willing to give you the befit of the doubt.
-
you should read it through again, none of that says due process only counts after you've been arrested.
Wrong:
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
-
There are some who apparently are ignorant on this matter. Ignorant in that they seem to have little to no understanding about bomb / IED protocols in dealing with a well armed suspect claiming to have numerous devices set to blow up or be triggered. Fortified subject claimed to have IED's that are also fortifying his location. In addition, he potentially has the ability to trigger possible devices in other locations that could possibly kill civilians or other Officers. A simple cell phone call could trigger devices, which means that even though the subjects movement is restricted, the threat is NOT contained. Means, motive and opportunity currently existed at the time the robot was used.
A "highly trained" as the subject was purported to be, or even someone who read some stuff on the internet can make devices, set them up remotely and may lie in wait to draw in more first responders at their "last stand" stronghold. So for those who have no clue you perhaps should get more education on the topic to have a more informed opinion. Seriously, fighting the uneducated is what most of us here on this site face. Being ignorant on a topic is not necessarily bad, but making comments without education can very much be. Don't be one of the uneducated making comments that quite frankly sound silly to those who may have more information on the issue. Or maybe you can join up with LE and be the "canary in a cage" and go in first. Maybe you get blown up, maybe you don't. This is not an acceptable risk. The robot was an excellent option. Kudos to the Dallas Chief.
-
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.
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.
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.
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).
-
Please do research on the subtle distinctions between substantive and procedural due process.
After reading, and really digesting the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and subsequent case law, resume discussions.
-
I, again, assert that there is a cavernous analysis into what is "right," what is legal, and what is ethical.
-
and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property.
take a guess at what blowing up someone with a drone does
-
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.
-
Surf - I agree that in the situation given the IED threat, it was prudent to stop him. Since there was apparently no other viable means except killing him, it was the right thing to do.
Having said that, I do not agree with your assessment that the scenario I posted is a "red herring." In fact it bears consideration because it is entirely not out of bounds of possibility. I already described in that post the sequence of rationalizations that can lead to that kind of outcome.
So, given that we can agree it was prudent to kill the Dallas shooter for that situation, it doesn't mean this is carte blanche to use this method yet again for any other "complicated" situation, precisely because it is such an effective (and convenient) method.
Maybe I can use another example to highlight what has changed, since this robot bomb was used.
Would you like Killary Klinton to have a little red button, on her desk, that if she pressed it, gun owners of America would instantly fall dead?
The outcome is exactly the same as if she ordered nationwide SWATs to do no-knock sweep kills across the nation.
Just that one method is way more convenient than the other.
So on the day that confiscation is handed down, she can press that button, or she can let the SWAT guys do the work, for anyone refusing to turn in their arms (given a certain deadline).
Which method do you think would MORE LIKELY end in mass deaths?
(We are beyond the Dallas situation now, and discussing the implications of the robot bomb, because now it has been used in a real situation, it has been "fielded" and is VALIDATED to be a VIABLE OPTION for real now).
-
I don't want us all to be arguing over, actually, totally wrong topics here. It seems it is getting like that, which is why it is getting frustrating for many.
So just to be clear, we are not actually discussing the killing of the Dallas shooter.
Yes, it overlapped into that for a while, before the facts about the IED were made, and many of you made those of us unaware of that, aware (myself, at least, I was not completely aware of the IED thing).
So, we are past that.
We are discussing the NEW THING that has happened here, which should really FREAK EVERYONE OUT, about the robot bomb.
Not everyone is sufficiently freaked out, because maybe some of us are discussing whether the Dallas dude deserved to die' that is the distraction.
It's actually why Heavies said early on that the Dallas situation has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, which sounded confusing.
Central to the robot thing, is the question which was not made explicit (or not made explicit enough), so let me write it out:
If you are going to use a high tech thing like a robot, isn't there something ELSE you can do, aside from using it "just" to kill? Which is why I asked about stun gas or whatever. The important thing is, whether or not there is effort made, to avoid having to kill, since you have a sophisticated tool now which was not previously available, now on the table for consideration.
-
The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to
(1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or
(2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury,
and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING DEADLY FORCE
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.
The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).
To me, nothing has changed other than the possible use of robotic or even aerial unmanned drones to be used as needed.
Deadly force is deadly force. It may, and in all likelihood will, end your existence. What we are debating is whether an explosive device (robotics are not relevant) is "extreme." If it is, then where does "conventional" and "reasonable" deadly force come into the definition? What are the thresholds?
Is reasonable deadly force really any different than extreme deadly force? Both can, and will probably, stop the threat permanently. Hence the adjective "deadly". Does there need to be some chance of survival for it to not be extreme? Have we grown so accustomed to movies that we believe there is such a thing as "humane use of lethal violence"?
We see beheading videos (if you haven't, you need to watch at least one). We often call these methods extreme, yet that is a centuries old and extremely low tech method of execution. In it's day, beheadings were thought more humane than other methods.
I think the issue here is not oversight, or government restraint, or any slippery slope use of drones in a gun confiscation debacle. It's about how comfortable we are as humans at the thought of certain types of deadly force being used on ourselves!
There are international laws restricting use of chemical, biological and inhumane weapons. Yet, how many movies and documentary footage from WWII show flame throwers being used against people in bunkers and tanks? I think fire is a pretty horrible way to die. I'd almost rather be blown up!
Don't examine WHAT you think should be legal. Examine WHY you think one form of death should be legal and why another should be either banned or used in only extreme situations. Of course, the tinfoil hats will always err on the side of "you can't trust any LE agency to avoid calling every incident "extreme." Let's go with the reasonable and rational definitions for the sake of discussion. Otherwise, if we start believing Cops always escalate to the highest level of force without sufficient cause, then all traffic stops would end in shootings, and we know that's not happening!
-
I think I see a problem with this discussion, and because of this problem I don't think we are going to be able to reach any conclusion here.
Everyone is presenting good points but we are almost talking past each other.
The problem is this: The robot thing has only been used to kill this Dallas shooter, and as far as the facts show, it seems that guy had to be taken out.
The theoretical here, is the concern how this robot bomb MIGHT be again used in the future.
But since there is no other case yet, there's nothing to actually point to, and say SEE! This is bad news!
We will be going around and around in circles, because of this missing piece. And actually we should all pray that we never see any example of it used in just the horrible way some of us fear.
For instance, if this robot bomb was used against a family that had holed up, and killed them in just a couple of hours, THEN the problem of its effiency would be more highlighted.
People can say, hey, even the kids were killed, was that really necessary?! Isn't there something ELSE that could have been done with this high tech robot? (No, because the father was well armed, etc. etc.).
So since that situation does not exist and hopefully never will (.....) we will be going around in circles, talking about whether deadly force is justified in situations (yes, of course), and that killing with a robot is no different than with a rock (yes, again, correct).
We can talk about whether or not such a situation is likely to exist, but I think it's not really productive. It's basically just up to how pessimistic one is about the use of such things, and that is to a large extent subjective (can be backed up with examples but we will then just be in a pissing contest giving lists of examples, not necessarily convincing anyone with logic).
-
I think I see a problem with this discussion, and because of this problem I don't think we are going to be able to reach any conclusion here.
Everyone is presenting good points but we are almost talking past each other.
The problem is this: The robot thing has only been used to kill this Dallas shooter, and as far as the facts show, it seems that guy had to be taken out.
The theoretical here, is the concern how this robot bomb MIGHT be again used in the future.
But since there is no other case yet, there's nothing to actually point to, and say SEE! This is bad news!
We will be going around and around in circles, because of this missing piece. And actually we should all pray that we never see any example of it used in just the horrible way some of us fear.
For instance, if this robot bomb was used against a family that had holed up, and killed them in just a couple of hours, THEN the problem of its effiency would be more highlighted.
People can say, hey, even the kids were killed, was that really necessary?! Isn't there something ELSE that could have been done with this high tech robot? (No, because the father was well armed, etc. etc.).
So since that situation does not exist and hopefully never will (.....) we will be going around in circles, talking about whether deadly force is justified in situations (yes, of course), and that killing with a robot is no different than with a rock (yes, again, correct).
We can talk about whether or not such a situation is likely to exist, but I think it's not really productive. It's basically just up to how pessimistic one is about the use of such things, and that is to a large extent subjective (can be backed up with examples but we will then just be in a pissing contest giving lists of examples, not necessarily convincing anyone with logic).
I think I've said this before, he was costing too much in overtime.
So kill him, beside he killed cops, all the more reason, because
cops are so special as compared to the civilians like the ones in
Orlando.
-
When I mentioned that this was not a "drone" it was important to note that this tool had no decision making capability. Everything was controlled by a human. Same thing with other pop media "drones" i.e. AF Preds.
Damned if you do damned if you don't. This country is so confused. Do we want this pervasive nationwide "Ainokea" attitude / victim mentality? Don't why pop media and wealthy celebrities are chiming in with their worthless opinions. Let's look at their real motives or perhaps they are too blind to see that foreign orgs are backing these civil disorder movements?
-
I think I've said this before, he was costing too much in overtime.
So kill him, beside he killed cops, all the more reason, because
cops are so special as compared to the civilians like the ones in
Orlando.
Yeah, reminds me of how the cops "Waco'd" Christopher Dorner.
Not all that dissimilar from this, just executed by setting the house on fire. He killed cops, so all bets were off in how they took him out.
Cops were ready to blow away citizens in their eagerness to kill Dorner.
-
I think I see a problem with this discussion, and because of this problem I don't think we are going to be able to reach any conclusion here.
Everyone is presenting good points but we are almost talking past each other.
The problem is this: The robot thing has only been used to kill this Dallas shooter, and as far as the facts show, it seems that guy had to be taken out.
The theoretical here, is the concern how this robot bomb MIGHT be again used in the future.
But since there is no other case yet, there's nothing to actually point to, and say SEE! This is bad news!
We will be going around and around in circles, because of this missing piece. And actually we should all pray that we never see any example of it used in just the horrible way some of us fear.
For instance, if this robot bomb was used against a family that had holed up, and killed them in just a couple of hours, THEN the problem of its effiency would be more highlighted.
People can say, hey, even the kids were killed, was that really necessary?! Isn't there something ELSE that could have been done with this high tech robot? (No, because the father was well armed, etc. etc.).
So since that situation does not exist and hopefully never will (.....) we will be going around in circles, talking about whether deadly force is justified in situations (yes, of course), and that killing with a robot is no different than with a rock (yes, again, correct).
We can talk about whether or not such a situation is likely to exist, but I think it's not really productive. It's basically just up to how pessimistic one is about the use of such things, and that is to a large extent subjective (can be backed up with examples but we will then just be in a pissing contest giving lists of examples, not necessarily convincing anyone with logic).
I agree with this.
Both side are correct. In my eyes there was justification in this particular incident, however, I think we need to be vigilant in being careful with the application of this this type of strategy, IMHO.