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!   

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!   

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.