If this catches on I am sure we'll see a shift in language from calling them "bomb disposal robots" to "threat disposal robots", or "danger mitigation robots", or something similar. The chilling bit is that this was a death sentence for a suspect of non-imminent threat, which opens a pretty big can of worms. (What if it was the wrong guy? What if there was a hostage near him? etc)
Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
81–90 of 128 posts
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#82Wow. 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…
They said he was wanted; he wasn't one of the shooters; they're yet to apologise or delete the tweet.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#83Earlier 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…
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 cau…
That is a huge guess. After 10 officers are shot I doubt the SWAT team was in a guessing mood.
> he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave.
This is perhaps the most commonly fallacy I have read in this thread. Immobility does not immediately equivocate to either a reduction or increase in potential threat. The guys on the ground have to make that determination based upon the evidence available in the moment. After 10 officers were shot I am sure the suspect vocalizing additional threats likely didn't help the SWAT team believe the risk was diminishing.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
He (or he + accomplices) already killed 5 people, and injured what, 7 more? And he was still armed. I'm not sure how you could argue that (a) he definitely wouldn't have killed more, and (b) the officers on location should have been certain enough about that fact to make it worth risking more lives.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> They do not apply to the cornered suspect. He (or he + accomplices) already killed 5 people, and injured what, 7 more? And he was still armed. I'm not sure how you could argue that (a) he definitely wouldn't have killed more, and (b) the officers on location should have been certain enough about that fact to make it worth risking more lives.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#86Earlier 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…
From the same event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police... They said he was wanted; he wasn't one of the shooters; they're yet to apologise or delete the tweet.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#87According to the story at the NY Times, during negotiations the suspect had said he wanted to kill white people, particularly police, that the end was near, and that he had bombs throughout the garage and surrounding area.
That last part is particularly weird to me: if they thought he could be telling the truth, wouldn't they want to keep him alive in case they could get him to talk about those bombs?
On the other hand, depending on where they are and how they are triggered, it could be that he is able to trigger them himself and is just waiting to try to get as many police surrounding him as possible before he suicides and takes them with him.
So whether it is best from a safety standpoint to just keep him surrounded and wait it out hoping he surrenders, or it is better to take him out (and do so in a way that would not give him time to do something like trigger a bomb) really would depend on what can be figured out about those bombs and his state of mind when they are talking to him.
Until there is an investigation, and publication of transcripts or recordings of the conversations between him and the negotiators, I don't think those not involved have enough information to figure out the situation.
I'm particularly curious about how much planning was behind the attack on the police and who the attackers were. In particular, was it (1) a spur of the moment thing, or (2) something that was planned, but the planning only started a couple days ago, or (3) something planned long ago and they were just waiting for a good opportunity to act, which the protests yesterday provided?
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cau…
> he probably already would have That is a huge guess. After 10 officers are shot I doubt the SWAT team was in a guessing mood. > he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. This is perhaps the most commonly fallacy I have read in this thread. Immobility does not immediately equivocate to either a reduction or increase in potential threat. The guys on the ground have to make that determination based upon the evi…
Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
http://recoverymodel.com/id14.html
> An imminent danger is an anticipated danger that is likely to happen, is impending, and is separated by space or time. This impending danger could be one hour, one day, or an unknown time away but is still imminent.
https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/danger.html
[Imminent Danger is defined here, but Imminent is used in a similar context to Imminent Threat] > any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures
http://thelawdictionary.org/imminent-danger/
> In relation to homicide in self-defense, this term means immediate danger, such as must be Instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against It calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.
The shooter had a firearm, had used it, and had communicated an intent to use it again in the near-future. If any police officer had walked into the shooters line of fire it would be reasonable to assume that they would be shot. Thus, it is a _textbook_ definition of imminent threat.
I know that the legal context often uses English words in manners that are very similar to English, but do not share the precise definition. Right now, you are mistakenly using the English definitions in a legal context. You need to use the legal definition. And if you put this in front of a judge they will tell you that this is a clear-cut example of an imminent threat.
Re: Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor
#90Wow. 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.
From the article: > Five officers were killed and seven others were injured, as well as two civilians. Even NBC is referring to non-police as "civilians" here which really drives the point home.
In some specialized contexts, non-civilians only include members of the military. An example of such a context would be some of the treaties that govern international armed conflicts.
Outside of those specialized contexts, the ordinary dictionary definition applies.
From the Oxford New American Dictionary:
civilian |səˈvilyən|
noun
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
From Merriam-Webster: 2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services
or not on a police or firefighting force