If the decision was your call, how would you choose to kill him and why would it be less morally reprehensible(to you) than blowing the guy up? We're all still trying to figure out what your issue with this is.
How is it hypocritical? Explain?You're the one who's defended the second amendment, right? If so then I find this hypocritical coming from you.
Taking risks and "going in" is a part of the job description, the fact that they want to handle the situation like they were marines in Afghanistan is extremely disturbing.I don't think that is what anyone is saying here. They made use of the tools they had at their disposal after five hours of failed negotiations and continued shooting from the suspect. If they had rushed him, he would have gotten his wish of taking out more cops while they took him down. If they waited, he could have slipped away, rushed them in an attempt to kill more of them before his death, or detonated the bombs he claimed to have everywhere.
They didn't want anyone else to die in this guys crusade. They made a choice, and it wasn't a light one.
If you seriously think that cops will now be using airstrikes against bank robbers, I don't know what to tell other than that I strongly disagree.
you are incorrect. I am not defending anything, but I am unsurprised that this is what some look for or draw out.
yours is made of bricks. and its located in an area with high property taxes.
A heart attack in 40 seconds.
your tapdancing here is... really... odd
You don't know anything about me to make such assumptions. All I know about you is that you aren't worth arguing with because your views are skewed by emotion, tainted with prejudice, and lack basic common sense for public welfare.
Since when were police issued explosives to kill people?
Seems totally fucked up and no doubt a breach of operations but people will turn a blind eye because of the nature of this case.
I think they did what they had to do, like I said. No one would be questioning this move if a sniper had taken him down. They weren't able to snipe him, or otherwise neutralize him, so they came up with a way to do it without further loss of life.
Since when were police issued explosives to kill people?
Seems totally fucked up and no doubt a breach of operations but people will turn a blind eye because of the nature of this case.
How is it hypocritical? Explain?
Snipers are trained, there are protocols and the practice has been used for decades. If the public didn't want law enforcement to use that tactic there has been plenty of time to debate it in public. There is no training for what just occurred, there are no protocols on when to send in a robot to blow up a suspect/criminal/mass murderer/terrorist/serial killer whatever term you want to use.
This is unprecedented and people need to ask themselves seriously, if you are ok with police now having the green light to roll up to people with explosives on a robot to kill them. It is a debate that needs to be made in the public sphere because it is not the same as just sniping someone. The aftermath might be the same but the procedure is far from.
Taking risks and "going in" is a part of the job description, the fact that they want to handle the situation like they were marines in Afghanistan is extremely disturbing.
Thank god I'm not American.
You have 30 seconds to comply! Seriously though I think eventually a robotic police force could be a good thing: a bullet proof robot could disable a criminal while taking fire and not let emotion take over.The future of law enforcement.
Bomb squads across the country are issued explosives to detonate other explosive devices safely.
People forget that the suspect here threatened to have other ied devices set up in the garage. They also would likely have detonated something on his body just in case there was a explosive vest under the body armor, even if they had been able to take him down with a weapon.
do you know enough about me to make those assumptions?
I can't find a link to verify it, but I heard a radio report today that the robot placed the explosive and then backed off out of harm's way before it was detonated.
I understand the worries about precedent. But this was a very, very unique situation. They had a bomb disposal robot on hand because of the bomb threats. It wasn't as if they went down to the station and rigged up a bomb willy nilly. The bomb disposal robots have explosives for the purpose of controlled detonation. They used it in a manner that hadn't been used before, but considering he said he was strapped with explosives, I can understand the decision.
As I said, I honestly doubt this is going to lead to police chucking bombs at car thieves and drug dealers. No one has given police the green light for it. They used tools they had on hand during a difficult, scary, and very unique situation.
.
Based on your performance in this thread, absolutely.
I agree 100% that blowing up any random bank robber or jaywalker, and yes, of course even murderers that comply and are not an active, blatant threat would be a complete abortion of justice. I don't think there is a single person with common sense who would not agree with this.
That's not what this was. If you can't see that you are reaching hardcore to make this about something more than ending an ongoing killing spree then you are either completely naive or blatantly skewed by some intense dislike of authority.
The first time it happens is precisely the time when it needs to be examined and discussed. Police's bomb squads aren't issued explosives and EOD robots with the intent to kill people. Personally I don't trust police departments to say this is a one-off occasion and not think of it again. This is why it's important to have oversight on this to protect both citizens and police from abuse.
I understand the worries about precedent. But this was a very, very unique situation. They had a bomb disposal robot on hand because of the bomb threats. It wasn't as if they went down to the station and rigged up a bomb willy nilly. The bomb disposal robots have explosives for the purpose of controlled detonation. They used it in a manner that hadn't been used before, but considering he said he was strapped with explosives, I can understand the decision.
As I said, I honestly doubt this is going to lead to police chucking bombs at car thieves and drug dealers. No one has given police the green light for it. They used tools they had on hand during a difficult, scary, and very unique situation.
I am not sure I comfortable with the thought that police officers should commit suicide in instances like this when other options are available. They aren't paid enough for that.
Firepower for civilians have practically been the same for the past 90 some years now. Why does the police feel like using explosives was needed for the first time?Why do you think law enforcement has expanded their firepower? Maybe it has to do with the fact that civilians have? The man was using a high powered semi automatic rifle and body armor. The Orlando shooter used an assault rifle. Of course the police are going to up their guns. You saying the police shouldn't is hypocritical to being a proponent to the second amendment. Or, at the very least, ironic to what you've argued before.
You keep saying unique and all the Police Chief cared about was ending the standoff without putting his officers in any more danger. Every single standoff situation(no matter how big or small) has officers in danger. So again what is the protocol going to be? Nobody knows and it is important that people aren't okay with this until there are strict guidelines.
This is how powers are expanded without passing a single law or having people vote. Precedents are set in "unique" situations and when people don't complain or question it, then that "unique" situation gets expanded to encompass a ton of situations.
I would rather the police didn't use robots with bombs to kill suspects. It will be used disproportionately against non-white people.
They are pulled over more, arrested more, tasered and beaten more, shot more, and the SWAT team is called in on them more.
It is very disturbing to me that so many people want to rubber stamp this when it seems clear who is actually going to end up being blown up by robots.
Crying about police-militarization when you are, at the same time, more than OK with the general public being armed to the teeth is extremely hypocritical.How is it hypocritical? Explain?
Taking risks and "going in" is a part of the job description, the fact that they want to handle the situation like they were marines in Afghanistan is extremely disturbing.
Thank god I'm not American.
You keep saying unique and all the Police Chief cared about was ending the standoff without putting his officers in any more danger. Every single standoff situation(no matter how big or small) has officers in danger. So again what is the protocol going to be? Nobody knows and it is important that people aren't okay with this until there are strict guidelines.
This is how powers are expanded without passing a single law or having people vote. Precedents are set in "unique" situations and when people don't complain or question it, then that "unique" situation gets expanded to encompass a ton of situations.
well thanks for your opinion. i'll pin in to the fridge next to all your others, they're so adorable.
I'm not sure why there is so much controversy over this. Dead is dead, what difference does it make if they shoot him in the head or blow him up?
You retaliate with the maturity level of a petulant child and offer nothing in terms of a real conversation. That much was apparent in the first page, but it's so bad that it looks like you're just trying to be a troll. It's so sad that this is actually who you are as a person.
Well, there's nothing else to say here. To anyone else looking to continue with this fool, further engagement is clearly not worth your time.
Explain to me how America managed to go past almost a 100 years without doing this stuff?Crying about police-militarization when you are, at the same time, more than OK with the general public being armed to the teeth is extremely hypocritical.
can you autograph that on my cheek?
can you hold my drink?
Firepower for civilians have practically been the same for the past 90 some years now. Why does the police feel like using explosives was needed for the first time?
Can you contribute to the thread anymore?
Should swat teams not be allowed to access security cameras to establish entry routes to eliminate a suspect? Should high powered long rifles not be allowed? Should flash grenades or gas that blinds and disorients the suspect before death not be allowed?
I don't know what the issue is, its unfair to the suspect that's holed up in an extremely dangerous position for those officers?
If we could send in a humanoid drone that incapacitates the target with a high voltage shock I'd be all for it.
He shouldn't have been killed in any case.. he killed 4 cops, but the law of the land isn't to blow people up, it's to bring them before a court to face justice. This isn't the wild west, you can't fix problems with more death.
You'd have to be ignorant of how firearms function on a base level to make this statement.Wrong. Over the years laws have been created to keep certain automatic and fully automatic weapons out of the hands of civilians. Here's a list. If the Federal Assault weapons ban had been renewed we may have not tragedies of the past few months. The police for sure wouldn't need to become militarized.
Pretty sure taking him out fixed the problem right then and there.He shouldn't have been killed in any case.. he killed 4 cops, but the law of the land isn't to blow people up, it's to bring them before a court to face justice. This isn't the wild west, you can't fix problems with more death.
"What is my purpose?
Oh..."
"We had no other option but to use our bomb robot" is a rather insane sentence when you look at it.
Firepower for civilians have practically been the same for the past 90 some years now. Why does the police feel like using explosives was needed for the first time?
He shouldn't have been killed in any case.. he killed 4 cops, but the law of the land isn't to blow people up, it's to bring them before a court to face justice. This isn't the wild west, you can't fix problems with more death.
He shouldn't have been killed in any case.. he killed 4 cops, but the law of the land isn't to blow people up, it's to bring them before a court to face justice. This isn't the wild west, you can't fix problems with more death.