Support NeoGAF

[Fury451]

Does the police normally have combat explosives like (lethal) hand grenades and such?

And if they're going that far, why not use toxic gas?

1. No.

2. Good question: there would be no reason not to.

Further militarization of standard (non-SWAT) police is bad for everyone.

As has been said in this thread, flashbangs and tear gas don't work like you might expect, and someone with military training would know what to do.

Not sure how I feel about using a the bot to kill the perpetrator, but it's likely more people would've been injured or killed if they attempted a raid. Sounds like the guy was expecting that, and not expecting to be taken alive regardless.

 

[Kin5290]

1. No.

2. Good question: there would be no reason not to.

Further militarization of standard (non-SWAT) police is bad for everyone.

As has been said in this thread, flashbangs and tear gas don't work like you might expect, and someone with military training would know what to do.

Not sure how I feel about using a the bot to kill the perpetrator, but it's likely more people would've been injured or killed if they attempted a raid. Sounds like the guy was expecting that, and not expecting to be taken alive regardless.

Seriously? Ask the military why they're not using nerve agents then. After all, bombs are the same thing as chemical weapons.

 

[Mick Swagger]

Rule number one always being "don't talk back to cops and do as they say".

If you grew up in a rural area, maybe. In the city? Not a chance.

There's a clear divide between those who are minorities and those who aren't when it comes to talking about the systemic racism engrained in the blood of those blue. Pro-Blue individuals are usually of the same cloth as the "All lives matter! Not just black lives!" Spouted off by upper middle class kids who do not understand the BLM movement and have never had to witness nor experience poverty, instituionalized racism, police brutality, etc. first hand. It's disgusting, really.

Just because you can empathize, does not mean you understand.

 

[Fury451]

Never saw a quote on this, except people constantly repeating that, mostly you really. Any source?

What I read was that he claimed some IEDs had been placed somewhere, and when they told him they didn't any he said they would eventually find them, not that he had any on himself. So that's a pretty big difference.

Chief Brown stated the suspect (at the time) himself claimed to have bombs all over the garage he was in as well as downtown in the press conference.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/08/dallas-police-shooting-chief-david-brown-negotiating-with-suspect-sot.ktvt/video/playlists/dallas-police-officer-shot/

One would assume based on available information that may include himself, if they were at least in the building he was in. In hindsight, it was a bluff obviously.

Seriously? As the military why they're not using nerve agents then. After all, bombs are the same thing as chemical weapons.

Not sure what you mean. Of course there's a difference, but someone can suffer permanent physical damage or death from CS gas as it is. Upping the dosage to ensure lethality isn't such a stretch, though it's pretty tinfoil hat as of now, but CS gas isn't even permitted for military use because of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Everyone keeps saying stuff like tear gas, rubber bullets and tazers are "non-lethal"; the proper term would be less-lethal or less than lethal. It can all still severely damage or kill you.

 

[old manatee]

Some people lack commen sense and place themselves around people, places, things that are known magents for law enforcement.


You got friends in a gang? Don't hang out with them
You know that corner is hot, don't hang out there
Your friend driving drunk, don't get in the car with them

These are like basic things our parents teach us at a young age to protect us. Rule number one always being "don't talk back to cops and do as they say"

You know your friends are about to get into a brawl with another school and people are known to carry weapons on them, don't be there because the cops will be called.
You know your friends are about to break into the jr highschool late at night to steal the ice cream from the cafeteria? Errr....wait across the street.

Some police officers kill people because they are black.

 

[Chirotera]

The idealism and lack of perspective in this thread is nauseating. Can any of you provide an answer to non-lethal options beyond "anything but a robot"? And the amount of excusing the guy gets for having shot up a city block is incredible. You point a firearm at innocents, you've lost your guarantee to life. Is that so hard to understand?

We are a country of laws. When a cop takes a life, they put the law into their own hands and decide that they are above it. They are no longer enforcing it, they are deciding it. If, after a trial, the death penalty was handed down then so be it.

If we can't guarantee that right to everyone, regardless of how horrible the actions they took were, then the right to it might as well not exist.

That said, there are situations when the police are justified in making that decision, when there is a clear public harm that could take place should they not act. That said, whenever they do make that decision, they too should have to face a trial where they can provide evidence that their actions were the correct ones and were thus justified. If they weren't, then they should be punished accordingly.

It's those last steps that never seem to take place, which effectively place the decision to kill into the hands that are not given judicial justification for that right. The police need to better justify their use of lethal force, that they haven't been able to do so in case after case after case, yet they've faced very little if any punishment for those failures, undermines the fabric of the laws we put into place to protect us.

It's incredibly complex, of course, so trying to put it in incredibly simplistic terms does little to help anyone nor does it advance the debate that needs to take place.

 

[dity]

I'm failing to understand the controversy here.

A man has killed 5 and wounded 12 others. They're in a stand off and say they have explosives rigged and they can be detonated.

I've been lurking this thread and been trying to think of alternatives to the robot, such as waiting until he got tired or throwing in some tear gas but the instant the shooter is at a clear disadvantage they could just trigger the detonator.

I've been also thinking of how they could alternatively used the robot, but jury-rigging it with a taser or something involves needing some way to pull the trigger, and also some aiming. The shooter could probably destroy it before then since it involves the robot getting up close and personal and within the shooter's probably line of sight.

It's unfortunate that they will not have to answer for their crimes, but I think the jury-rigged bomb robot was an ok way to bring an end to such a serious situation. Other suspects were aprehended, and the remaining suspect had enough equipment for a 5 hour shootout and had potentially set up bombs. It was dire.


This event might set precedent for future police operations as a potential last resort, but I think it was better than what could have happened if that incident was drawn out. It was a situation beyond talking.

 

[Tosyn_88]

The age of the police state, police brutality judge dread robocop has begun isn't it. The weapon industry will have a filled day with this. Everyone best prepared to see some of those Google robots with guns patrolling their neighbourhood. "citizen, you have five seconds to comply"

 

[7DollarHagane]

Use of lethal force was authorized. A bomb threat was made. Overcame two threats with one solution.

I don't think this is something that should be used unless there is credible threat of explosives or bombs being planted or detonated by the suspect.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I'm not saying any of the cops involved here deserve punishment or anything. It was a tricky situation and there likely weren't any good options. But this should definitely cause concern, and we should have a discussion about the implications for the future. This is essentially a precedent of lethal drone/explosives use without any procedural guidelines or oversight that I know of. Even without my deep distrust of police in this country, I would be uneasy about all of this. I mean, would people here be ok with cops being issued grenades or RPGs?

Eh, it's a tool already issued them...

I mean, I don't know if there's a procedural guideline for ramming a suspect with their car if they need to but they do it, I don't know if there's a guideline for hitting someone with your gun but they can do it, I don't know if there's a procedural guideline for hitting someone with your flashlight but they do it, what I mean is this, strip away all the bullshit and it comes down to this: We either trust them to use a tool or not. If we don't trust them with bomb disposal robots then they shouldn't have them. Period. Because everything under the sun a man or woman will be issued as part of their job will be used to harm or kill a suspect in the line of duty(justly or otherwise) somewhere at some point. It is somewhat ludicrous in my opinion to give them tools and yet restrict their usage to people thinking on the fly. Imagine in the future we have surveillance drones and someone's watching a scenario like this and see a gunman about to shoot and the drone operator decides to kamikaze his drone into the suspect to stun him while police move in. Was that the intended use of that drone? No. Would I have instead demanded the drone operator watch that gunman kill another person? Was there this same discussion the first time a policeman lost his weapon and had to fight back with his/her flashlight? Was this the same discussion the first time a policeman in a car was involved in a car chase and rammed a suspect shooting at them?

Bombs can cause a shit ton more collateral damage than a sick or a gun. C'mon now. If you believe cops are frequently reckless with their use of force than giving them access to lethal use of explosives is definitely more problematic than guns.

Pretty sure your average cop patrol car is not going to have a member of the bomb squad and a bomb disposal robot attached to it any time soon. They don't give C4 to all cops, all cops do not have access to a robot and quite honestly I trust a limited charge delivery device over a prolonged gunfight to actually cause less collateral damage. It's not like they're carrying a shit ton of explosives or are making their on bombs on the fly here. Explosives are a science a gunfight, well, that's a whole nother story.

I think the key here is that this wasn't something new, this was something they've always had they just used it in a different way. No-one's advocating giving them access to anything tomorrow that they didn't already have yesterday.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Eh, it's a tool already issued them...

I mean, I don't know if there's a procedural guideline for ramming a suspect with their car if they need to but they do it, I don't know if there's a guideline for hitting someone with your gun but they can do it, I don't know if there's a procedural guideline for hitting someone with your flashlight but they do it

The guidelines aren't so much about the means of force applied but the lethality or severity of the force applied. Avoiding unnessecary collateral damage to civilians and property should be taken into account as well.

Whatever form that takes to fit the situation isnt important. Its the end result and the situation that prompted the use of force.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I'm kinda wondering what it looks like.

In my head I'm picturing an RC car with a bomb taped to the back.

It's probably a re-purposed Johnny-5 esque tank track type thing you typically see in bomb disposal operations.

 

[PSYGN]

Robot too OP.

 

[TacticalHotdog]

It's probably a re-purposed Johnny-5 esque tank track type thing you typically see in bomb disposal operations.

A number of sources say that they used a MARCbot which is a relatively cheap (still ~$8000) bomb disposal robot. There are also some reports of US soldiers in Iraq using a MARCbot with a claymore mine duct taped to the front to take out an insurgent waiting to ambush them in an alleyway

Also, the robot apparently "survived"

 

[Sub_Level]

Also, the robot apparently "survived"

 

[MogCakes]

It's incredibly complex, of course, so trying to put it in incredibly simplistic terms does little to help anyone nor does it advance the debate that needs to take place.

You make good points. I don't have any disagreement with you there.