Bomb Robot Takes Down Dallas Gunman, but Raises Enforcement Questions

[sanman]

The use of a bomb-disposal robot to trigger an explosive to kill the Dallas gunman has also triggered questions on what tactics are or aren't permissible by law enforcement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html


How far should police be allowed to go to deal with a clear and present danger?

IMHO, they were justified - and it helps that no bystanders were killed by the bomb explosion. On the other hand, if the police were to have used a bomb or some other highly unconventional method, and it resulted in significant casualties among bystanders, then I think we'd all probably criticize the police for going off the yellow brick road.

When everything turns out okay, then you face less questions. When something goes awry, then everybody's going to Monday-Morning-Quarterback you.


It sort of reminds me of the waterboarding debate - suppose you waterboarded some guy, but it turns out that doing so saved a whole bunch of lives?

 

[mike2810]

I support their decision to use the robot. One would hope they were 100% certain the person they targeted was the shooter. As the article stated, I don't see much difference that if a SWAT sharpshooter took him out from a distance. Enough bloodshed took placed that night.

 

[ecofarm]

Probably could have killed him with an airstrike and no collateral damage, alone in the garage. But that would have been rather messy. Kudos for creative problem solving. Of course the bomb was totally legit.

 

[nota bene]

Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate | The Star-Telegram

 

[ecofarm]

Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate | The Star-Telegram

"It opens a whole new set of questions of how to deal with these kinds of situations," Cohen said. "Where are the police going to draw the line when trying to decide between continuing to negotiate and doing something like this?"

Read more here: Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate | The Star-Telegram

The line is drawn when negotiation is terminated by the shooter. It's not like the cops said "I'm kinda tired, what say we get a pie and six pack and call it a night. Send in the drone bomb!" That's not how it went down.

 

[mike2810]

Gives new meaning to the word "Robocop":mrgreen:

imo, the action taken was reasonable and ensured public safety was restored in short order. The shooter could have given himself up. He decided not to.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Killer robot used by Dallas police opens ethical debate | The Star-Telegram

What, like the hunting ethics of "fair chase" the perpetrator must be given an oppurtunity to to match police officers in a fair fight?

 

[Grand Mal]

Probably could have killed him with an airstrike and no collateral damage, alone in the garage. But that would have been rather messy. Kudos for creative problem solving. Of course the bomb was totally legit.

It's bizarre. Are you really considering an airstrike in a major American city to deal with a murder suspect? Kudos for deciding it might be too messy.
Robot-delivered bombs. What the hell is going on in that country?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I really don't care how they killed an active shooter if collateral damage was unlikely. I don't know the planning that went into this particular action by the cops but until I see evidence otherwise it sure seems it was well thought out.

 

[sanman]

Maybe one day we'll see robots used in traffic stops. Robo-bike can flash its police lights to get you to pull over, and then maybe pull along side your driver's window to ask you for ID it can scan or photograph. Then you get your ticket in the mail. Robo-bike wouldn't have to screech in a high-pitched voice or be all jittery like Barney Fife (and that Minnesota cop).

"I told him not to reaccchh!" shrieked officer screechy - not exactly the cooler head in the situation. And look what screechy caused. If you're that afraid of pulling people over, then you shouldn't be performing such duties. Wearing a badge is not an automatic constitutional right - if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

It's ironic - my last job I was working as a robotics programmer, and we were designing a security robot that would be tele-operated and interact with people. It was designed to be cheap - it had a tablet for a head, sitting on a mast mounted on a motorized base.

 

[Hatuey]

What, like the hunting ethics of "fair chase" the perpetrator must be given an oppurtunity to to match police officers in a fair fight?

Isn't the argument made for second amendment rights?

 

[Dragonfly]

Isn't the argument made for second amendment rights?

Opens a can of worms regarding the usual "gun-nut" stance regarding a citizen's right to self-defense:

If the police can use robots and bombs, then I should have the right to have robots with bombs too. And perhaps some anti-robot landmines...and if you say I can't have those things you're infringing on my right to defend myself.

Brace yourself. It's bound to happen soon.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I have no qualms with LEO using lethal force against a violent mass-murderer who refuses to surrender.

The caveat is that such an action should be managed to remove/minimize the possibility of collateral damage ... which was accomplished in Dallas.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Isn't the argument made for second amendment rights?

Not at all.

 

[Hatuey]

Not at all.

Pretty sure people argue that they should have guns in order to even the field with that evil government waiting to run into their homes any second now.

 

[ecofarm]

Pretty sure people argue that they should have guns in order to even the field with that evil government waiting to run into their homes any second now.

Even the field with the government? False premise.

The 2nd delineates between weapons of private self defense and those of national defense (and thus in the realm of the state): militia (infantry) arms. Weapons of private self defense should not be infringed upon.

Are you gonna claim that's debatable? If so, you're just being belligerent for fun.

 

[ecofarm]

It's bizarre. Are you really considering an airstrike in a major American city to deal with a murder suspect?

Yes because my point clearly was not that collateral damage could be avoided with an airstrike let alone bomb. Given the ability to evacuate the garage, leaving the shooter there alone, the only way a bomb causes collateral is it drops adjacent buildings (and those are probably evacuated anyway). So, to clarify my point: there is no ****ing way a bomb could have caused collateral short of accidentally using an impossible amount of too much explosive.

Kudos for deciding it might be too messy.

Well, we didn't have the thermite in place, so we couldn't get steel to melting temp.

Robot-delivered bombs. What the hell is going on in that country?

Creative problem solving.

 

[PoS]

The use of a bomb-disposal robot to trigger an explosive to kill the Dallas gunman has also triggered questions on what tactics are or aren't permissible by law enforcement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html


How far should police be allowed to go to deal with a clear and present danger?

IMHO, they were justified - and it helps that no bystanders were killed by the bomb explosion. On the other hand, if the police were to have used a bomb or some other highly unconventional method, and it resulted in significant casualties among bystanders, then I think we'd all probably criticize the police for going off the yellow brick road.

When everything turns out okay, then you face less questions. When something goes awry, then everybody's going to Monday-Morning-Quarterback you.


It sort of reminds me of the waterboarding debate - suppose you waterboarded some guy, but it turns out that doing so saved a whole bunch of lives?

Seems if you kill a cop, all gloves are off. I remember a few years ago when a rogue LAPD cop started saying he would kill other cops, when they surrounded him in a cabin, the LAPD purposely set it on fire to burn him out alive.

 

[Quazimodo]

Seems if you kill a cop, all gloves are off. I remember a few years ago when a rogue LAPD cop started saying he would kill other cops, when they surrounded him in a cabin, the LAPD purposely set it on fire to burn him out alive.

OOPS!

 

[clownboy]

I too thought it was a weird move to use explosives directly upon the perp. Could have easily triggered a bunch of CS or pepper spray canisters.

This is what is coming on that front (includes a taser element as well):

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes because my point clearly was not that collateral damage could be avoided with an airstrike let alone bomb. Given the ability to evacuate the garage, leaving the shooter there alone, the only way a bomb causes collateral is it drops adjacent buildings (and those are probably evacuated anyway). So, to clarify my point: there is no ****ing way a bomb could have caused collateral short of accidentally using an impossible amount of too much explosive.

Never pass up an opportunity for collateral damage and friendly-fire casualties. Makes it all even more important, and it's 'way more exciting and photogenic than sitting down and waiting.

Well, we didn't have the thermite in place, so we couldn't get steel to melting temp.

Creative problem solving.

And really cool 'video at 11:00'.

 

[ecofarm]

And really cool 'video at 11:00'.

Did you see the flashing sign on the street, "Actors assemble here."?

 

[nota bene]

The line is drawn when negotiation is terminated by the shooter. It's not like the cops said "I'm kinda tired, what say we get a pie and six pack and call it a night. Send in the drone bomb!" That's not how it went down.

I think the use of the robot was appropriate here if the shooter made clear that he would not surrender.

 

[ecofarm]

I think the use of the robot was appropriate here if the shooter made clear that he would not surrender.

Why is that an if? You have info that we don't?

No one is supporting the willy nilly use of robot bombs.

 

[nota bene]

Do you have a transcript of the hours spent negotiating and what the shooter told the negotiators? I don't.