Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#71

Post by whamlastxmas »

iandanforth wrote: post #28
eximius wrote: post #9

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.

This repurposing of a defensive, life saving robot into a lethal weapon also offends me deeply. If corporations had an ounce of human conscience the manufacturer would terminate their contacts with this department immediately.

North Dakota recently passed a law allowing police officers to weaponize UAVs with stun guns and less-lethal rounds. Maybe in the future we'll see them strap some C4 to the drone to take out suspects.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#72

Post by mc32 »

jonlucc wrote: post #69
mc32 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between sending in a robot or a SWAT team? Also, they could just repurpose an RC vehicle with similar results. And why not ask gun mfgs to stop selling guns to criminals as well as police? What separates a robot from a firearm in this case?

Intent. Police officers with firearms are only supposed to fire them to end immediate danger to themselves or others. Sending in a robot with a bomb is much more of an execution.

Right, but, if we take the police assessment of the situation (which does not change whether robot or swat) it was one which merited neutralization as the suspect, according to police, threatened to take out more (officers). So SWAt or robot would be either right or wrong, but right or wrong does not change because of the different agent.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#73

Post by LeifCarrotson »

anonymousguy wrote: post #51
eximius wrote: post #9

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.

Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and vocally claimed to plant bombs and kill more police. There is no greater justification for police to immediately terminate a life, whether that justification is legal or due to exigence. If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm, then…

Did they really think that was a credible threat, or that blowing him up would stop the bombs from going off? In his position, if he could remotely detonate the bombs, he probably already would have, between the time he said he was going to and when they sent in the IED. If he could not, it didn't matter, he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. If they were on a literal dead man switch, killing him would cause them to go off.

More importantly, it is NOT the jurisdiction of the police to pass judgement and penalties on the suspect. Deadly force is only legal when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses a significant, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Note that the threat is a future threat, irrespective of whether harm was caused in the past.

But I suspect that your reasoning becomes clouded when it's your friends and coworkers who have been shot. Giving the accused a lawyer and a chance to defend himself in court is his right, but that's hard to do when you've seen someone you love die.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#74

Post by LeifCarrotson »

24gttghh wrote: post #37
macintux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely wonder how the secret service is going to protect against armed drones.

Counter-drones that are also armed, with nets. Or net-launched bazookas. Or directed radio-jamming devices.

Bullets/flak work better than nets.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#75

Post by poof131 »

breck wrote: post #53

Like everyone else I don't have any details on this beyond what's been reported. But I for one think this -may- have been a great decision to end the standoff without risking the lives of any more officers. For those that are saying "there was no imminent threat", that is incorrect. One relevant data point, see the 2009 standoff in Oakland, where 2 SWAT officers died when they moved in on a cornered suspect ( https:/…

I agree. While using a lethal robot is scary, it is really no different than giving a police sniper the okay for a shot. Except in this case there was no possibility of a sniper shot.

This individual was likely well trained. He fires and maneuvers. He has a good stance and chooses targets. He is clearly an accurate shot. He is aggressive and circles his target. He is calm under fire. [1]

His skill level is damn scary and likely superior to many of the police he was up against. Makes me think of the Special Ops guys I worked with in Iraq. If he escaped somehow from the garage, he could have killed could more.

While this robot technique is a bit scary, if I was responsible for stopping him, I would probably have done the same thing. No way you can charge in to stop him. Not only is he well armed, he may have a bomb. You don’t rush entrenched people with assault rifles, it’s not Call of Duty. You use grenades, explosives, air-strikes, etc.

Perhaps a non-lethal option could be developed. This would be ideal. But this robot bomb may have been improvised on the spot by the police to deal with this incident. Without a non-lethal robot to shoot a tranquilizer, release gas, or stun the suspect, I see no other way to stop him.

[1] https://streamable.com/pgpb

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#76

Post by LeifCarrotson »

ncallaway wrote: post #64
eximius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are A THREAT but not an IMMINENT one.

He was armed, had shot officers in the immediately recent past and had threatened to do so again in the future. By absolutely every legal definition of imminent threat this person was one. Every active shooter is an imminent threat. If this goes in front of a judge it will be ruled that he was an imminent threat. There's really 0 question about that. I say this as someone who feels strongly that lethal force is used…

Imminent: likely to occur at any moment; impending; ready to take place.

Active: producing or involving movement; being in physical motion.

These terms only refer to the present and future, not the past. They do not apply to the cornered suspect.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#77

Post by cprayingmantis »

I watched the press conference, it was heavily implied that the man was threatening them with IEDs. Who's to say that they weren't sure if he had an explosive vest on? Listen I'm all for due process and bringing people in alive, but I am not for putting the lives of law enforcement in danger unless it's for the greater good.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#78

Post by hammock »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #71
iandanforth wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This repurposing of a defensive, life saving robot into a lethal weapon also offends me deeply. If corporations had an ounce of human conscience the manufacturer would terminate their contacts with this department immediately.

North Dakota recently passed a law allowing police officers to weaponize UAVs with stun guns and less-lethal rounds. Maybe in the future we'll see them strap some C4 to the drone to take out suspects.

>Maybe in the future we'll see them strap some C4 to the drone to take out suspects.

That's exactly what happened here.

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#79

Post by whamlastxmas »

hammock wrote: post #78
whamlastxmas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Dakota recently passed a law allowing police officers to weaponize UAVs with stun guns and less-lethal rounds. Maybe in the future we'll see them strap some C4 to the drone to take out suspects.

>Maybe in the future we'll see them strap some C4 to the drone to take out suspects. That's exactly what happened here.

Edited to say UAV specifically, since I hate the term "drone" since they're nearly never autonomous, and to clarify I meant the flying type.

Obviously a slow ground robot with C4 is a little disturbing, but having UAVs with C4 is a whole new level of concerning. Are we going to start seeing targeted bombings when the driver of a traffic stop is being uncooperative?

"The driver reached for his glove box and wasn't responding to police commands, so we launched a hellfire missile to help ensure officer safety"

(turns out driver was deaf and getting his insurance papers)

Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

#80

Post by anonymousguy »

callahad wrote: post #68
anonymousguy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and vocally claimed to plant bombs and kill more police. There is no greater justification for police to immediately terminate a life, whether that justification is legal or due to exigence. If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm, then…

> If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established: that killing the suspect was necessary to prevent further harm. It seems like most of the discussion here is questioning that point: if the suspect had been located and surrounded, was there a credible threat of further harm? If there was time to repurpose the bomb-di…

> Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established

The intention to commit further harm is evident from statements by the accused and the vile nature of the crimes. Given the potential for harm, that the negotiations failed, and threats of explosives this was the safest course of action. Whether or not the suspect was surrounded has little bearing on if the threat was reduced or increased.

> If there was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal ways to apprehend the suspect?

That is a flawed argument in that it guesses a quantity of time to modify a robot and time to neutralize an armed suspect are equivalent. It is also flawed in that it presumes there is a choice to be made. Another flaw is that doesn't account for the fact that the robot might already have been modified earlier in case negotiations failed, and if so then the robot is already modified and immediately ready while the suspect isn't.

Post reply on HN