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

101–110 of 128 posts

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

#101

Post by angersock »

maxerickson wrote: post #95
anonymousguy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misread "mood". "In a guessing mood" is another way of saying "Willing to take time to consider all options."

Operational doctrine here suggests that, with active shooter, you prioritize removing the shooter once negotiations have failed. The "probably would have" the poster is referencing is a what-if they didn't have time for.

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

#102

Post by angersock »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #48
mikeash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that question really needs to be asked. We already have a perfectly good answer: lethal force is acceptable when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives. The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer .

>when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives This is way too subjective.

In the general sense, perhaps.

This case though, with an armed suspect cornered during an active ambush who had been engaging in fire with the police, only a particularly obtuse person (or HN user) would deny the notion of "imminent threat".

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

#103

Post by angersock »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #74
24gttghh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bullets/flak work better than nets.

Maybe?

Then again, if you're using it indoors or in a stadium or whatever, you don't want to injure other people if your AA misses the drone. Nets are more reasonable and safer for bystanders. Oh, and lighter.

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

#105

Post by jonlucc »

mc32 wrote: post #72
jonlucc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But SWAT doesn't go in with the intent to kill (supposedly). They go in with intent to arrest or neutralize which may require killing, but could be shooting until the threat is neutralized and then calling medical help. A bomb has only one mode.

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

#106

Post by mc32 »

jonlucc wrote: post #105
mc32 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But SWAT doesn't go in with the intent to kill (supposedly). They go in with intent to arrest or neutralize which may require killing, but could be shooting until the threat is neutralized and then calling medical help. A bomb has only one mode.

In this case, the way it was framed, the intent and result have been the same.

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

#107

Post by xaqfox »

KON_Air wrote: post #52

I wonder how they made the robot blow people up, it doesn't seem like there are any factory made "Turn your expensive toy into sucidie bomber" kit. Jurry-rigging on the scene using moving parts to pull a pin of a grenade? Or did they use a last resort "let's blow it up when we clear the premises" kind of defusal kit? Or did they already had a custom kit with directional explosives? The robot in question, incase anyon…

It was probably one of the explosive charges that a bomb disposal officer would use to blow up backpacks or other suspect packages.

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

#108

Post by robwilliams »

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:/…

With all his talk about planting bombs, I'm sure they suspected that he was wearing a bomb vest to detonate when police moved in. I'm not sure how else they could have handled it.

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

#109

Post by merpnderp »

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

I'm more interested in what kind of bombs they have and what's the policy on use.

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

#110

Post by whamlastxmas »

lovich wrote: post #91
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.

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

Wow that entire situation is unbelievably fucked up. How have I not heard of this before? Police dropped dynamite on a house which results in 65 other houses catching fire, killing 11 innocents, while firefighters were ordered not to do anything. And of course no criminal charges for anyone involved.
Post reply on HN