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.

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,