I was trying to say an ar-15 type of gun, when I was in service I took a galil home
and went to a field with a friend and shot a few rounds Shooting at Dallas Protest - 5 police killed
- Thread starter Carolina Red
- Start date
and went to a field with a friend and shot a few rounds 2 Memphis police officers felt this would be funny or something... I just... I don't even.
http://wreg.com/2016/07/08/two-mpd-officers-off-the-job-due-to-social-media-post/
http://wreg.com/2016/07/08/two-mpd-officers-off-the-job-due-to-social-media-post/
Agreed.
Heartwarming to see acts of good will between police officers and civilians in my locality. Hope a national resolution regarding police-minority relations occurs.
Wrong. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
Only if you believe that mathematics was discovered rather than invented - a language in effect. Just because it is great at describing things doesn't automatically make it a universal truth.
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/papers/plato4.pdf
And even if you think it was discovered then you are still choosing to use base 10.
Last edited:
And so they should be. In most places the use of lethal force requires there to be imminent danger and in this case it sounds like that wasn't really the case.
The man had killed 5 police officers, wounded 6 more, and was telling negotiators he would kill more of them... I don't really see how much more imminent the danger could get.
The Viet Cong did pretty well too.
If you believe in due process then yes. I understand why they did it but once you have that capability then the potential for its misuse exists.
Aye. It is very difficult to subdue an armed population. That's even assuming you can get all members of the military to fire upon citizens they swore to protect.
Despite the problems the 2nd amendment causes today, it's rooted in a good cause, and still retains some legitimacy.
The potential for misuse of police power exists in all police forces. In this instance, however, the man was an active shooter who had already single handedly outfought the police force for most of the night. He really only left them with 2 choices... put more lives at risk to kill him, or put a robot at risk to kill him.
2 choices eh? mmkay...
You don't kill people for saying they are going to do something, especially when it isn't likely they can actually do what they say they are going to do. So lethal force should have been saved for when he was actually directly endangering someone's life - at the actual time lethal force was used. As far as I can tell from accounts he wasn't at the time they blew him up. Using a remote robot is presumably done to prevent anyone being in imminent danger so I'm not sure that it is ever possible to be used legally. As for the "he had kille 5 police officers" bit, the court system deals with past acts. The police shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner.
At least it will save on the costs of siege negotiators if that is no longer an option.
Go ahead. What were the other options available?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-pd-robot-kill-suspect-negotiations-failed/story?id=40463758
Most definitely. Hopefully the majority can pull together on these issues and we can weed out the problems on both sides.
Wait him out perhaps? He didn't have hostages.
Wait out a man saying he was about to detonate bombs throughout the building? You first.
No, she was a repubican.
Gee, I guess sending in a SWAT team would have been completely out of the question and impossible, despite it being what they've done in basically every equivalent case previously.
This isn't the first use of a bomb by police though btw. They've used them a couple of times going back to '85, and its caused controversy every time. Not helped by the 1985 Philadelphia case having killed 5 children in the process.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/osage-avenue-bombing-philadelphia-30-years
This isn't the first use of a bomb by police though btw. They've used them a couple of times going back to '85, and its caused controversy every time. Not helped by the 1985 Philadelphia case having killed 5 children in the process.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/osage-avenue-bombing-philadelphia-30-years
Indeed, and have you seen all the toys that SWAT teams have in their lockers? I guess we can do away with all that now and just blow up people who are mean and don't do what they're told.
I reckon they'd have negotiated with him if he was white.
They did negotiate with him.
He didn't have bombs. And if he did isn't setting an explosive off not very likley to set them off? So presumably nobody was close enough to be injured by any possible bomb?
The bottom line is they wanted to end it and didn't care how. Or rather did care and wanted him dead.
Right up until they blew him up.
? , no problem with it at all if it saves lives by the cops not having to storm a building and potentially shooting innocents. What's the difference in how they ended it? Due process I mean, shooting him or blowing him up? My friend lost her brother in law. By all accounts he was a good man.
He was an armed lunatic who'd already killed 5 of their comrades. You expected them to send him flowers?
No. But given that the situation was contained and there was no imminent threat I don't see where the legal justification for the use of lethal force was. Law enforcement following the law is importnt especially when these events are rooted in the way law enforcement act.
Well, this oughta solve everything!
My aunt and others attended a "prayer meeting for police offers" at a local PD in Texas.
First off, shouldn't god have listened for all the prayers that have been requested by friends and family for years? I mean surely god isn't gonna suddenly realize he forgot.
Secondly, is it legal to hold a "prayer meeting" at a government building with government employees on government time and funds?
My aunt and others attended a "prayer meeting for police offers" at a local PD in Texas.
First off, shouldn't god have listened for all the prayers that have been requested by friends and family for years? I mean surely god isn't gonna suddenly realize he forgot.
Secondly, is it legal to hold a "prayer meeting" at a government building with government employees on government time and funds?
It's possible. But what for?
The man is killing slaughtering human beings. Why should they bother risking another lives?
And in other circumstances a criminal of this level of atrocity will be shot on spot anyway regardless of ethnic/race/etc
If it's a minor convenient store robbery with hostage and no casualty then sending a bomb would be out of the line but in this case it's an appropriate response
So the criminal indiciated that there are explosives inside the builduing and this robot went inside and bombed the place; what would have happened if he actually had something like a bomb on him? So given that one must conclude that the police was more or less sure that they weren't about to burst the whole builduing which then triggers the question why they didn't gas him out - does the US law have something like proportionality?
They either didn't think he had a bomb or didn't care as nobody was close enough to be hurt by any resulting explosing. So no imminent threat and therefore no legal justification to kill him. Laws are there for a reason. You don't ignore the law for murderous scumbags as the law protects us all. Break the law often enough and it becomes routine and then we all lose our rights.
You're a smart bloke, so why would you post such a thing? Do you honestly believe that Wibble wanted the police to send flowers? I'm sure that you understand perfectly the other arguments put forward here yet you choose to post a trollish comment like that.
I'd expect better.
EOD robots typically carry small bombs to do controlled explosions on suspicious devices or bombs to disable it.
According to reports they strapped an explosive device to the robot. Maybe the small devices usually used to detonate bombs weren't big enough for this purpose. In any case there was obviously no concern that people outside were in imminent danger and this method was used for that very reason. So no legal justification for the use of lethal force.
Yes, but the picture by ABC News was more like the guy had explosives inside and was ready to use them if they threatend him in any way. If police really believed that to be the situation then they surely must have assumed that he's very likely to make use of said bomb which allows to conclude that they either didn't care or didn't think there was that big a risk.
Either way one must ask if this was a.) action suited to get rid of the problem, b.) if there wasn't equally effective but more lenient action (f.e. gas; shoot him non life-threatening) and c.) if it was appropraite action weighing in the different aspect such as the life of the victim (in this action), public interests (public security threat), third party interests (such as the life of the police force).
The police had been in contact with him, he was refusing to surrender, he had engaged in a gun battle with them, showing no signs of being willing to give up, nor does it seem were they able to shoot him to end the situation. So it doesn't seem like the police sent the robot in with the bomb for no reason at all.
I think the absence of a "Rules of Engagement" for police is a problem. I understand why the Dallas Police resorted to a bomb robot, they must have been desperate and they had excess bombs in storage. Shoot, I would have done the same thing. But that vacuum needs to be closed with explicit rules guiding when a bomb can be used to neutralize a threat.
Surely such rules already exist? @Skizzo
This obviously isn't a funny situation we're discussing but feck if I didn't just burst out laughing at that!
2 bailiffs have been killed in a courthouse shooting in Michigan today. Guy on his way to jail broke free, somehow acquired a gun, and started shooting.