[worry]

Those drones are military actions though. I understand the moral component of your argument, and the disgustingly accepted relativity of life's value, but police should not be behaving like the military even if you set aside those outrages committed w/ remote weapons. Cops aren't soldiers, period. What's the chain of accountability here anyway?

[polishgenius]

Kanyemander West, on 09 July 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

Those drones are military actions though. I understand the moral component of your argument, and the disgustingly accepted relativity of life's value, but police should not be behaving like the military even if you set aside those outrages committed w/ remote weapons. Cops aren't soldiers, period.

This goes beyond just the robot explosive thing. Cops in America seem to increasingly be acting as if they are soldiers in enemy territory and with that kind of mindset it's no wonder people are getting shot.

Of course, being targeted by snipers and suchlike isn't going to help that situation in any way whatsoever.

[Aptorian]

Sexy Gumbo, on 09 July 2016 - 09:13 PM, said:

I don't see a thing wrong with this outcome. Hell I hope they release vid of his facial expression if he saw the bot coming. He knew what was going to happen when he left his house. Why not send in a bot instead of a 6th or 7th or maybe even 10th death as he makes a stand off?

Why bother chasing down criminals if you could just drone bomb them? That would be much safer than risking police officers lives.

This is of course a special situation but it's the precedent it sets. If you send in a drone or similar machine operated by a human once, why not twice?

A machine does not negotiate, it doesn't take cues, it's not able to deescalate a situation or emphasize. It's just a camera and a person with a remote control. It becomes a problem when the government by proxy is using something as extreme as a drone - what is basically a killing machine - to take down people.

[Nicodimas]

Yes and No. It's a tough one for certain.

Yes, I think we can all say that we didn't want more cops to die, yes we didn't want to go through a trial and death penalty. Yes I am quite certain the whole situation was acted on emotion. They probably didn't have another viable option at the time.

No, because we are not megacity one and those aren't judges. There was no honor is this resolution and violation of the 5th amendment rights. Overall employing military tactics at the police level just strike me as wrong.

If they bombed him they could have just as easily have found a stunning weapon of some sort and SWATed him.

It sets a dangerous precendent and we will see this used in the future.

(When they do decide to come for the guns lethal drones would be the most effective way for the government to remove the weapons from the people)

[worry]

It's not a police officer's job to avoid dying at all costs. It's their job to uphold the law, even if that means dying in the process, the way a Secret Service agent may die protecting the president.

I'm not saying there's zero room for this being the right call, circumstantially; just that there's a very fine line and this decision (and it was a decision) requires intense scrutiny. But I also don't have faith that it will get that scrutiny.

[worry]

Nicodimas, on 09 July 2016 - 09:31 PM, said:

(When they do decide to come for the guns lethal drones would be the most effective way for the government to remove the weapons from the people)

Actually I've done a 180. More robots please!

[Nicodimas]

Kanyemander West, on 09 July 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 09 July 2016 - 09:31 PM, said:

(When they do decide to come for the guns lethal drones would be the most effective way for the government to remove the weapons from the people)

Actually I've done a 180. More robots please!

Hey lets suggest it to our local neighborhood government representive, they might actually roll with it and think it's a bright idea. Well thought out and high fives all around

[worry]

On the children left in the wake: http://www.nytimes.c...onal-price.html

[worry]

amphibian, on 09 July 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

The bomb robot had little explosives, which were used to detonate the big explosive where the shooter was.

Apparently it was actually ~1 lb of C4. It seems they meant to obliterate him. http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=40463758

Johnson had "plenty of options to give himself up peacefully," said Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings Friday afternoon. "He had a choice to come out and we would not harm him, or stay in and we would. He picked the latter."

Is that standard operating procedure? I wonder.

[Studlock]

A very sensible take and the current tension between black Americans and the police for from a black police chief of thirty-five years.

[amphibian]

Kanyemander West, on 09 July 2016 - 11:15 PM, said:

amphibian, on 09 July 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

The bomb robot had little explosives, which were used to detonate the big explosive where the shooter was.

Apparently it was actually ~1 lb of C4. It seems they meant to obliterate him. http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=40463758

Johnson had "plenty of options to give himself up peacefully," said Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings Friday afternoon. "He had a choice to come out and we would not harm him, or stay in and we would. He picked the latter."

Is that standard operating procedure? I wonder.

1 lb of average grade C4 is enough to open a metal door - it's not a large amount. There's also no planned shrapnel beyond environmental debris created/present.

[worry]

Well I know it's not a lot compared to other amounts of C4. 1 is the lowest whole number, so it's gonna be a smaller amount than most other amounts. But compared to 0 lbs of C4 -- compared to not blowing up a guy because you're tired of waiting -- it's a whole hell of a lot. Clarifying the amount was simply to say there's more information now, and it wasn't necessarily small charges meant to blow up what he already had on him; rather, they meant to explode him to death regardless of whether he had his own bomb. That decision -- to kill him in no uncertain terms -- is the vital takeaway.

That said, since this is online I'm not sure if you're even arguing with me above or just providing clarifying info of your own, so please forgive if I'm being too argumentative back. My point ultimately is that this wasn't a cautionary measure, but an aggressive one. A deliberate incontrovertible use of deadly force.

[amphibian]

I mentioned a while ago American police don't wait and this is probably more harmful than helpful in non-hostage situations.

The costs of waiting are considerable, what with overtime, media attention, and having to be vigilant while waiting. But I think it's worth not killing people. I dunno what the politicians and budget struggles are like though - those are the big barriers to police training and reorganization/reprogramming.

[worry]

amphibian, on 10 July 2016 - 08:50 PM, said:

I mentioned a while ago American police don't wait and this is probably more harmful than helpful in non-hostage situations.

The costs of waiting are considerable, what with overtime, media attention, and having to be vigilant while waiting. But I think it's worth not killing people. I dunno what the politicians and budget struggles are like though - those are the big barriers to police training and reorganization/reprogramming.

Oh yeah, I hear all that, and agree. I'm just thinking of it in terms of militarized police state normalization, civil rights (which I don't have to point out here I'm sure, but always prefer reiterating, belong to the 'guilty' as much as the 'innocent'), and accountability. I don't want to see breaches of core principles even in these crazy situations.

But then again, I know it's not always clean. What do you do when a person is a bomb?

[worry]

Have you taken an oath to uphold the Constitution?

[Silencer]

Sexy Gumbo, on 10 July 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

Decision still doesn't bother one bit. New info coming in: he asked for black interpreter, loled historically, asked how many he got, and taunted them to come get him to add more. Good ridden ce fuckstick... I'd have blown ya up to.

I think you're missing the point, BK. Even if - and this is a long bow to draw - the US is completely OK with this action to end the stand-off in this situation, the concern is the trend and precedent that is being set. It was OK this time, because the guy was a sick mass-murderer? What about next time the cops don't want to risk their lives and decide to blow up a guy who shot someone accidentally? What about when it's "too dangerous" to storm a building with a knife-nut in it? Or when it's not at all clear if those bank robbers have guns, but just to be safe, we'll blow them up remotely anyway?

Now, one can argue that is just hypothetical. It's a slippery slope argument, and could very well be fallacious. But is it? Considering the ongoing and rampant trend of militarisation of the various police departments in the US - from re-purposed anti-mine vehicles being driven on suburban streets, to cops being issued with full military loadouts when faced with peaceful protests, and even the fact that police apparently have ready access to battlefield remote bomb disposal units and full EOD suits(?!), perhaps it's not so unlikely that this is just another step in a well-established pattern.

Don't get me wrong - police officers shouldn't be shot, and they shouldn't be asked to expose themselves to unnecessary risks just to save a criminal's life. But, at the same time, putting their lives on the line is in the job description. And there is nothing to suggest this incident could not have been maintained as a stand-off until the perpetrator got tired/gave up/the validity of his bomb threats had been verified/or SWAT figured out how to storm the building "safely". Rushing to end the confrontation, especially in such an odd and brutal manner, is not how police are expected to act. It's not how police are meant to act. And it reeks of a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that this guy was a cop-killer - which brings into question every decision they made (were they angling to kill him? Is that what they wanted?).
And, considering I'm not fully read up on the situation, but how did we know that he didn't have hostages in there? Could've sent the whole building up and killed innocent people, with a brick of C4 improperly applied to other explosives. :S


So yeah, even putting aside the question of whether this was "OK" in this specific situation, it's much more complicated than that, in the context of America's police problem.

[Silencer]

Sexy Gumbo, on 11 July 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

Nah I grasp all that from moment of press conference. It's been much debated here at our house with family and friends.

And you still think it's 100% OK?

[worry]

Nicodimas, on 08 July 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

As a note, this is terrifying:

http://www.nydailyne...campaign=buffer

Here you go, Nico: http://thesource.com...sted-by-police/

[Aptorian]

Sexy Gumbo, on 11 July 2016 - 04:33 AM, said:

My son had been on PS for a few hrs now. Has there been any update to what RB stands for that he wrote in blood on the wall?

That's a hell of a sentence taken out of context.

[worry]

North Carolina just passed a law (as in the governor signed it) removing police body cam/dash cam footage from the public record. http://www.acluofnc....age-secret.html

Also, Clickhole nails the whole "advice to black people" thing: http://www.clickhole...people-sho-4607

This post has been edited by Kanyemander West: 12 July 2016 - 12:58 AM