11–20 of 128 posts
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
IEDs: rather less so.
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?
I don't think shooting him would have been legal either. You only get to shoot a suspect when there's an imminent threat, and it sounds like there wasn't one. (If there was, they wouldn't have had time to send in the robot.)
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?
For one, threat level. A cop shooting the suspect has at least the argument of supposed self-defense from imminent harm. They sought him out from a safe place with the sole purpose of his destruction.
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
It's amazing that it's happened first not by the military in a war situation, but by domestic police forces against it's citizenry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
Tear gas, flashbangs, water cannons, a nice safe armored vehicle... All appropriate (ish) police tools. IEDs: rather less so.
This is the Dallas police department, they have equipment capable of dealing with this situation -- to include armored cars and ballistic shields.
I hope the legal process is explored in this case.
Wow. This feels incredibly wrong. I know it is just an extension of the militarization of American police, but should they be allowed to issue a death sentence like that? I argue no. Expend the time and resources to non-lethally incarcerate him.
I concur. There seems to be a lack of thinking and willingness to wait things out or backoff. Rather than backoff or retreat the police seem too trigger happy. The Baton Rouge shooting the police didn't want to wait for the suspect so they got aggressive and tried tackling him leading to a scuffle. The MN shooting, if the officer felt threatened he could have slowly backed up to his vehicle until backup arrives and only shoot if/when the suspect actually makes a truly life threatening move. (I know, easier said than done. But we need to de-escalate and disarm regular beat cops [slim chance of that happening now I suppose].)