Support NeoGAF

[web01]

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.

 

[Livingskeletons]

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.

A heart attack in 40 seconds.

 

[God Dayumm]

Nice. One day robots will replace cops and unfair shootings will diminish because robots have no racial prejudices.

 

[Lead]

You're the one who's defended the second amendment, right? If so then I find this hypocritical coming from you.

How is it hypocritical? Explain?

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.

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.

 

[Oppo]

you are incorrect. I am not defending anything, but I am unsurprised that this is what some look for or draw out.

your tapdancing here is... really... odd

 

[DarkKyo]

yours is made of bricks. and its located in an area with high property taxes.

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.

A heart attack in 40 seconds.

Lol, nice. If only.

 

[akira28]

your tapdancing here is... really... odd

crash into me then. I'm defending the shooter? take on me.

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.

do you know enough about me to make those assumptions?

 

[7DollarHagane]

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.

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.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

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.

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.

 

[TacticalHotdog]

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.

Bomb disposal robots normally use a small explosive charge for controlled detonations of explosives. Since it's a plastic explosive, all you have to do is stick more on it to make it a bigger, lethal explosion. Shit's like clay.

I imagine that this was a last minute improvisation since they didn't want to risk any more lives to flush out a cornerned criminal after he had already shot up at least a dozen other officers. They made a gamble, and in this case it worked out well and no one else was hurt.

 

[Sayter]

How is it hypocritical? Explain?

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.

 

[Media]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[GeorgioCostanzaX]

The future of law enforcement.

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.

 

[Fat4all]

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.

Indeed, it would be safe to assume that if he had made a bomb threat there was a possibility of him being strapped with one as well.

 

[DarkKyo]

do you know enough about me to make those assumptions?

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.

 

[Slacker]

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.

Sounds like it deserves a Padme/R2D2 style pat on the head from someone.

I'd be morbidly curious to see what video the robot captured. I wonder if the guy was shooting at it or did anything to try to get rid of the bomb.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

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.
.

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.

 

[Chopper Dave]

I can certainly respect people's uneasiness about police using high explosives as a weapon. It brings an intense look of warfare to an institution that all too often misuses the more traditional tools they're equipped with. This is an extreme case though and we justifiably would have used force that guaranteed a lethal outcome regardless.

Can you imagine how alien the situation looked to the shooter? Is that something anyone would expect? The robot being used purely as a weapon is strange enough. DId he know he was going to be blown up by the police just before it happened? Even if his expectations were based on action movies the scene would seem so surreal

 

[akira28]

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.

well thanks for your opinion. i'll pin in to the fridge next to all your others, they're so adorable.
this wasn't an argument. I wanted to post some thoughts and read some thoughts and even though your thoughts were not worth very much to me, I still enjoyed the exchange, mostly with others.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'm not sure what there is to argue against. The sniper struck 12 cops. Sending in a robot was certainly the safest way to end the threat. Not like this sniper was one to be reasoned with.

 

[Media]

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 tend to be more naively hopeful than some I guess. If it becomes a precedent that is horrible, you can quote and shame me on that later date, I'll take my lumps.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

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.

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.

 

[Lead]

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.

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?

 

[7DollarHagane]

There certainly needs to be guidelines for the use of explosives in situations where an armed and dangerous suspect is holed up and officers are likely to be killed or harmed by taking direct action.

This is really no different than using one of those big armored swat vans to break down a wall in a house or building or a flash grenade and then shooting the suspect.

It's all just technology that enables the end goal, use of lethal force on a suspect using the same against civilians and law enforcement.

 

[Media]

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.

As I said above, I don't think anyone is going to be okay with police chucking bombs at bank robbers and stuff. In this situation, I can see and understand why they made that decision. If the situation were anything other than it was, I would be questioning it. That is why I was saying 'unique'.

If he had gotten away, went home, and the police bombed his house, yeah, that'd be fucked up.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

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.

I'm with you on one level but the reality is robots are expensive. For that reason alonr, I doubt this will be common place anytime soon.

 

[Orniletter]

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.

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.

 

[MarioHead3]

If that robot really is effectively a small tank, I don't see how the police could even reasonably use this whenever they wanted. Are they all just going to carry these around in their cars or something? I mean, a gun they can literally just carry around with them and it's pretty much just as deadly. This, not so much as far as I can tell. Plus it seems like it would prohibitively expensive.

Of course, someone can correct me if I'm totally off (which I often am).

 

[7DollarHagane]

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.

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.

 

[DarkKyo]

well thanks for your opinion. i'll pin in to the fridge next to all your others, they're so adorable.

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.

 

[Valkyr1983]

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?

Exactly

Creating controversy where none exists. 5 cops killed already, no sense risking more. This terrorist gave up his right to a fair trial by not surrendering

 

[akira28]

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.

can you autograph that on my cheek?

can you hold my drink?

 

[Lead]

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.

Explain to me how America managed to go past almost a 100 years without doing this stuff?

The American populace is not more heavily armed than before, and technology have moved a lot in regards to defense as well.

In the 1920's/1930's your average cop had no bulletproof vests at all, and civilians were at the time armed with fully automatic weapons, yet we didn't see them use explosives.

Moving towards police militarization is moving towards a police state.


Last time I saw police with explosives was by the Afghan police, let that sit for a while.

 

[wesleyshark]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the methods used to take this fucker out. I'm okay with it.

 

[Fat4all]

can you autograph that on my cheek?

can you hold my drink?

Can you contribute to the thread anymore?

 

[zaccheus]

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.

 

[Sayter]

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?

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.

 

[akira28]

Can you contribute to the thread anymore?

Maybe, but Kyo might have to get over it. And sign all those nice words to my left asscheek.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

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.

There are protocols and guidelines and training for all you have described. There is nothing about law enforcement using explosives on a remote device to kill a suspect.

I'm going to wait till the entire story is out about how this all went down. My gut tells me that the first use of that robot was to roll up in there and blow him up. And that bothers the absolute fuck out of me. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[MarioHead3]

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.

I'm quite certain this was used as a last resort. It seems like taking him in alive wasn't an option.

 

[Lead]

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.

You'd have to be ignorant of how firearms function on a base level to make this statement.

Knowing that I'm not going to bother further with you.

 

[Forkball]

"We had no other option but to use our bomb robot" is a rather insane sentence when you look at it.

 

[wesleyshark]

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.

Pretty sure taking him out fixed the problem right then and there.

 

[diablos991]

This is good. I'm honestly surprised out police haven't done it sooner.

 

[Plywood]

"What is my purpose?

Oh..."

 

[MarioHead3]

"We had no other option but to use our bomb robot" is a rather insane sentence when you look at it.

These were rather insane circumstances, to be fair.

 

[Orniletter]

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?

How do you not understand that this is in direct response to the US public owning boatloads of dealy weaponry and zero sensible gunlaws.

Edit. Just sack this conversation. There is no getting through to gun-nutjobs.

 

[akira28]

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.

essentially I agree but this is planet Earth you're standing on. Death has been viewed as the solution to a lot of our problems for a long time.

 

[7DollarHagane]

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.

Which police officer would you rather have entered a wide open concrete parking structure with this armed killer? Or would you prefer to lead this honorable charge you propose? This after 4 hours of attempted negotiation and attempted de-escalation and the bullets are still flying.

Im happy that a means was found to end this situation without more death. The suspects demeanor was such that he wasn't leaving alive. He would have killed any cops he could until he was shot dead.

There are some people in this thread so disconnected from reality or any common sense. It's really upsetting.

 

[Quixzlizx]

"If we let the police blow up a murderous psychopath who has spent a day being actively lethal and violent, we'll eventually have Predator drones leveling buildings to take out drug dealers" is about as logical of a slippery slope as "If we let gay people marry, soon people will be marrying their dogs."