"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
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.
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?
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.
Isn't the argument made for second amendment rights?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?