• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bomb Robot Takes Down Dallas Gunman, but Raises Enforcement Questions

It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns.

Oh wait... It takes a robot with a bomb to stop some bad guys with guns.

I guess the NRA is in sound byte panic mode eh?

A whole city full of cops and guns could not take out one bad guy with one gun.
 
sanman said:
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?
Click to expand...

It was an excellent idea, why put people in harms way when you can do it remotely. I Liked It.
 
I honestly see no problem with what they did. Enough cops had died, at least no SWAT died with my understanding. I am unsure why people are so distraught by this, other than to be politically correct. IMO at least.

Cops, and SWAT, did a good job.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who gets to define the limits of self defense? The citizenry or the government? If I have the money to buy explosives, why shouldn't I be able to?
 
Hatuey said:
Who gets to define the limits of self defense? The citizenry or the government? If I have the money to buy explosives, why shouldn't I be able to?
Click to expand...

Actually explosives are not illegal to buy.
 
Casper said:
Actually explosives are not illegal to buy.
Click to expand...

And I can arrange them in this manner... yes? Nobody is going to knock at my door?
 
Hatuey said:
And I can arrange them in this manner... yes? Nobody is going to knock at my door?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're trying to buy. You can buy black powder with no problem. Think Boston bombers. They used black powder. You can also buy the chemical components to make some pretty powerful explosives. However, without some expertise, you'd be foolish to attempt it. It can be quite touchy stuff, as many would-be bomb makers have demonstrated.
 
jaeger19 said:
Okay.. well using that definition the attack on Hiroshima was minimal force.

Which means you are using a useless definition.
Click to expand...

No, I am using a definition that accounts for the totality of the situation. In reference to Hiroshima, Hiroshima was also the minimal force needed to achieve the legitimate goal of ending WWII.
 
Cryptic said:
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"?
Click to expand...

The guy was blown up. Thats about as max as it gets.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

The suspect posed zero threat to anyone other than highly armed and armored police. And very little threat to them. As you say, they had him for six hours doing nothing. It seems more likely they wanted to punish him.
 
sanman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Already happens. Don't they have red light and speeding cameras where you live?
 
Painter said:
It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns.

Oh wait... It takes a robot with a bomb to stop some bad guys with guns.

I guess the NRA is in sound byte panic mode eh?

A whole city full of cops and guns could not take out one bad guy with one gun.
Click to expand...

I dont see where the NRA said anything.
 
sookster said:
I honestly see no problem with what they did. Enough cops had died, at least no SWAT died with my understanding. I am unsure why people are so distraught by this, other than to be politically correct. IMO at least.

Cops, and SWAT, did a good job.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope. The police already have a pattern of excessive force in this country. They just ramped it up.
 
jonny5 said:
I think this is over the line. There has to be a way to take someone down without killing them. Especially when you have them trapped. SWAT has armor, tactics, special weapons. This seems like excessive force.
Click to expand...
"Did you use unnecessary deadly force?"

"I used everything I had."

Next time they should send you in to negotiate peaceful surrender.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont see where the NRA said anything.
Click to expand...

"It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns" is the battle cry of the NRA.

Their #1 sound byte that I've been hearing for decades is now utter trash.
 
jonny5 said:
The suspect posed zero threat to anyone other than highly armed and armored police. And very little threat to them. As you say, they had him for six hours doing nothing. It seems more likely they wanted to punish him.
Click to expand...

The man's rifle was apparently capable of penetrating the body armour of the police. Likewise, there is no requirement that the police respond with equal force (If I rush a police officer with a club, the officer is not obligated to only use his baton). Rather, the police only need to use force proportional to the threat- which is exactly what they did.

jonny5 said:
The guy was blown up. Thats about as max as it gets.
Click to expand...
My guess is that he was killed by concussion. That aside, lethal force was clearly justified, and the amount used was the minimal needed to eliminate the threat with out risking additional lives.
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
Anaesthesia gas is not some magic stuff that takes down a badguy. Tear gas certainly won't, and neither would rubber bullets.

1-lb of C4 wasn't going to blow up the entire block, and the guy was isolated inside that parking garage. What they used was enough to get him, and in a reliable way. Presumably, the gunman wasn't visible to police snipers, otherwise they probably would have got him that more tried-and-true way, as they have in other cases.
Click to expand...


Every experienced CS gas.. ever been struck by rubber bullets? They certainly can " take down a bad guy"///

Particularly in an enclosed space.

And if it doesn't? You can then use c4.
 
Cryptic said:
No, I am using a definition that accounts for the totality of the situation. In reference to Hiroshima, Hiroshima was also the minimal force needed to achieve the legitimate goal of ending WWII.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. so an atom bomb is "minimal force".. a taser is "minimal force" and c4 is minimal force.

Not much of a definition then.
 
Cryptic said:
The man's rifle was apparently capable of penetrating the body armour of the police. Likewise, there is no requirement that the police respond with equal force (If I rush a police officer with a club, the officer is not obligated to only use his baton). Rather, the police only need to use force proportional to the threat- which is exactly what they did.


My guess is that he was killed by concussion. That aside, lethal force was clearly justified, and the amount used was the minimal needed to eliminate the threat with out risking additional lives.
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. if you claim the police need to use force "proportional to the threat".. then the officer is obligated to use a baton.. since that would be proportional to the threat.
 
Painter said:
"It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns" is the battle cry of the NRA.

Their #1 sound byte that I've been hearing for decades is now utter trash.
Click to expand...

how? Please explain
 
jaeger19 said:
Exactly.. so an atom bomb is "minimal force".. a taser is "minimal force" and c4 is minimal force.

Not much of a definition then.
Click to expand...

No, an atom bomb, tasers and C-4 are all potentially minimum force weapons- depending on the totality of the situation.
jaeger19 said:
Just to point out.. if you claim the police need to use force "proportional to the threat".. then the officer is obligated to use a baton.. since that would be proportional to the threat.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the other component: With out risking additional lives. That includes the lives of the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom