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?
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.
My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.
My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.
Rubber bullets or a " gas grenade " against a shooter wearing body armor ?
Ya, this is what militarizing our police force looks like. Congrats.
The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?The police chose maximum force.
''Rubber bullets or a " gas grenade " against a shooter wearing body armor ?
The core concept is whether the use of force was warranted and whether it was proportional to the threat. In this case, both answers are "Yes". Accoding, it does not really matter what weapon the police used.
The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?
''
Yes.. it could be very effective. Body armor does not defeat a gas attack.
Nor does body armor defeat concussion and a spray of rubber bullets.
just to point out.. that if this fellow had been taken alive.. we would probably know a lot more about his connections, other possible threats out there waiting to strike (if he was not acting alone or planning alone or if he was a member of a group).
I am sorry.. please explain how causing a fatality is using something less than "maximum force".
The core concept is whether the use of force was warranted and whether it was proportional to the threat. In this case, both answers are "Yes". Accoding, it does not really matter what weapon the police used.
The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?
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?
So if the police force used a armed plane it would be acceptable to you since the use of force was warranted and it is proportional to the threat?
Yes. From what I understand, the robot used was a Remotec Andros Mark V-A1 armed with one pound of C4.1 # of C4
Haha, I so called this crap, the day after Dallas PD sent Micah Johnson to hell.
I predicted on DP that wittle wiberals would start complaining about the use of force, and next we'll see Johnson's family file a multi million dollar lawsuit because his civil rights wuz all violated n stuff.
I think he should be dead. And the force was acceptable. I am sorry you can't understand my point. My point is that police departments should not possess these tools. Please gather some reading comprehension prior to making such a false statement.
So if the police force used a armed plane it would be acceptable to you since the use of force was warranted and it is proportional to the threat?
Obama agrees with you.
Obama to ban military weapons sent to local police departments | MSNBC
He wants American police to be defenseless when terrorists and others appear with military weapons.
Have you seen the footage of the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery shootout?
Gas attack ? Lol...didn't realize olocal policce departments had access to " knock out gas ".
You've been watching too many movies. But they used concussion alright.
1 # of C4
Because it is less than fatalities. This is an example of a poorly conceived use of maximum force:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
In Dallas, the police, after negotiating for six hours, used the minimal force needed to stop the threat that the suspect posed. This minimal force ended in a single fatality.
Haha, I so called this crap, the day after Dallas PD sent Micah Johnson to hell.
I predicted on DP that wittle wiberals would start complaining about the use of force, and next we'll see Johnson's family file a multi million dollar lawsuit because his civil rights wuz all violated n stuff.
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.
My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.
Extra-judicial killing is murder, right?
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?