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

91–100 of 128 posts

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

#91

Post by lovich »

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.

This has already occurred with a police helicopter dropping a bomb. Wouldn't be much of a leap to do it with a drone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

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

#92

Post by lovich »

merpnderp wrote: post #41
Forge36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man. Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was however not immediately threatening anyone was refusing to cooperate. I think a question we should continue asking is at what point does Lethal force become acceptable?

The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.

If they had time for a bomb, why didn't they have time for tear gas though? I agree that something needed to be done, but the first answer shouldn't always be the lethal option

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

#93

Post by lorenzhs »

macintux wrote: post #31
jonknee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.

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

For small drones, there's a low-tech solution: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/1/10884586/drone-vs-eagle-dut...

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

#94

Post by anonymousguy »

maxerickson wrote: post #88
anonymousguy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How is their mood at all relevant? They are professionals whose job is to be on the right side of the line that divides appropriate use of force from inappropriate use of force. Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.

In situations like this mood is extremely relevant. Its what separates the disciplined professional from people who whine and second guess things.

What many people don't understand is that a wrong decision is better than no decision at all. The world isn't going to wait for you to call an assembly and have a cordial discussion about how to delicately make a possibly-suicidal suspect feel happy. It sure as hell isn't going to wait for to conduct an online survey to discover what makes people less sad. People are dying. The suspect is threatening to have explosives and claims to want to kill more people. The first order of business is to eliminate the threat. This is an active shooter incident. Once negotiations failed the only right decision is how to terminate the suspect. This is operational doctrine.

Stalling and feeling it out is a horribly bad decision to make and indicates a lack of professionalism for active shooter scenarios.

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

#95

Post by maxerickson »

anonymousguy wrote: post #94
maxerickson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is their mood at all relevant? They are professionals whose job is to be on the right side of the line that divides appropriate use of force from inappropriate use of force. Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.

In situations like this mood is extremely relevant. Its what separates the disciplined professional from people who whine and second guess things. What many people don't understand is that a wrong decision is better than no decision at all. The world isn't going to wait for you to call an assembly and have a cordial discussion about how to delicately make a possibly-suicidal suspect feel happy. It sure as hell isn't…

You didn't explain how mood should inform operational doctrine.

My claim is that it should not.

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

#96

Post by ceejayoz »

lovich wrote: post #92
merpnderp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.

If they had time for a bomb, why didn't they have time for tear gas though? I agree that something needed to be done, but the first answer shouldn't always be the lethal option

Tear gas obscures visibility. Given how little we know about the layout, it may be that that would've been far too much risk.

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

#97

Post by cthalupa »

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…

He was still shooting at police officers and their attempts at non-lethal measures such as flashbangs were not working.

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

#99

Post by cthalupa »

daedalus_j wrote: post #42
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he was an active shooter with a deadly weapon, not surrendering. If it had been a police sniper instead of a robot, that would have been no different and perhaps more familiar and expected?

A police sniper would very likely not be authorized to kill a barricaded shooter who wasn't actively in the process of threatening a civilian or officer. "Imminent threat" is an important standard. If they had time to rig up an IED to the robot, and drive the sucker in there, use the camera to make sure he didn't have any hostages (they did that right?), and THEN detonate the bomb, it doesn't sound like the threat wa…

He had been shooting at the SWAT team after negotiations broke down. How is that not actively threatening an officer?

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

#100

Post by nextweek2 »

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…

>thereby preventing further harm The original creation of the police was to create a deterrent, not to apprehend criminals. Prevention rather than cure.

When the police take a life we lose the ability to understand the detail of why that deterrent failed. The deterrent is more important that the cure.

Whilst the police have suspects, they don't have this one and everyone's motivations are slightly different. The death of this individual also creates a martyr for others on a similar path.

In my humble opinion they should have used a stun or smoke grenade.

Post reply on HN