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.

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.

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.