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 would just force a reaction, likely with the assailant leaving the gas and shooting at the police. He would have been killed in returning gunfire but also may have managed to shoot more people. The outcome would have been the same and was decided by his failure to surrender.
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…
They had him surrounded. He was no danger to anyone. It's not like he died in the confusion of a shootout or something. They took their time to plan it, set up the bomb robot and a bomb, slowly drive it up to him and detonate. That's an execution.
Honestly I'm glad the guy is dead, and it's easy to let emotions of this influence opinions. But I'm scared for the precedent this sets. In the future, when a suspect is cornered and would normally try to be talked down by police, they'll just send in a bomb robot and blow him up. Maybe he won't even be armed, but the police don't know that. So he's an "imminent threat" and can legally be executed.
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.
NBC is using the word "civilian" correctly. 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…
It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. Irregardless of how common it is with cops, it's still inaccurate.
It makes just as much logical and legal sense to refer to programmers as non-civilians as it does to refer to civil law enforcement as non-civilians.
NBC is using the word "civilian" correctly. 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…
It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. Irregardless of how common it is with cops, it's still inaccurate. It makes just as much logical and legal sense to refer to programmers as non-civilians as it does to refer to civil law enforcement as non-civilians.
> It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group.
That's not the slang usage. That is the informal usage. And that is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the formal usage of the term civilian, which according to numerous dictionaries [1] means someone not a member of a military or police force.
Is it your contention that these major dictionaries all got it wrong?
[1] Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Random House
Finally finding like minds. I felt sick when heard how the two hour standoff in a parking garage with one person who police did not have a clear shot so neither did the suspect...wtf? The chief said they gave him 2 options, really? There are only two?
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…
You used the correct word ... suspect. I am not a lawyer but the police murdered this man. Regardless of what he did, the police are supposed to uphold the law, where was the law? There was no imminent danger?
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…
But isn't this the whole point of BLM? The fact that the police don't treat black people the same as others? This exacerbates the argument
> 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.
Did they attempt flash bangs? I haven't heard that?
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…
The point is that the police could have waited. They proactively murdered this man for no reason at that point in the situation. If this individual was white, Hispanic or even Muslim... they would have waited.
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 am so sorry that the presumed innocent lives were lost in Dallas. Those police certainly were not acting out at the time they were killed. I grieve for their families loss. However, I remember one other time that c4 was used. Again it was used after a cop was killed and against black people. That c4 was dropped on the organization Move, here in Philadelphia. That c4 Killed men, women and children when the cops dropped it on the move house. It looked like a war zone. The media keeps saying "no presidence".
That bothers because everyone should know how that young disturbed black man died. It was a horrible death. His parents are probably lucky to get even a little part of him to bury (a tooth). He did a horrible thing, but just as the officers families, his family didn't do that horrible thing. Now it's the David Brown show but the Dallas police chief can talk and twist and try to make us say "poor,poor" him till the cows come home but he will not be able to talk away the guilt of murdering that young man like that. They say he got justice, but, whose. I am pretty sure we have not seen those buildings in that area that they killed that young man because we would be appalled at the sight of distruction. That the tax payers will have to pay for to rebuild I have little doubt.
To me, their action in bombing that black man solidifies my belief that far far too many police believe they are above the law. They become judge and jury at will. Don't make them mad, now. Find the difference between Dallas not finding a less extreme means of dealing with that situation and police, policing the neighborhoods not finding a less extreme means of dealing with interactions with people of color...I just see people dead, dead, dead as a result.
I mourn the death of all innocents in this. BLACK LIVES MATTER (for whoever doesn't get it) ALSO.