• 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

VanceMack said:
Thats right. You dont have to...so pay your taxes and shut the **** up and let those that are willing to do the job do it and dont be an armchair quarterback telling them how YOU would do it. Because you wouldnt. Wont. Dont.
Click to expand...

I pay taxes so I dont have to shut the **** up. They work for me. And Im responsible for their actions.
 
jonny5 said:
I pay taxes so I dont have to shut the **** up. They work for me. And Im responsible for their actions.
Click to expand...
Nooo...you are responsible to pay your taxes. Period. You dont have the sack to go stop an armed man that has just shot over a dozen people so you get to sit back and say thank you for doing the job you dont have the balls to do.
 
VanceMack said:
Nooo...you are responsible to pay your taxes. Period. You dont have the sack to go stop an armed man that has just shot over a dozen people so you get to sit back and say thank you for doing the job you dont have the balls to do.
Click to expand...

No, as a citizen I am responsible for the police. Stop making this personal.
 
jonny5 said:
No, as a citizen I am responsible for the police. Stop making this personal.
Click to expand...
You go ahead and feel free to sit there nice and safe on your couch and lick the cheeto dust from your fingertips. Im sure when they want your opinion they will come ask you.
 
VanceMack said:
You sure? Because it really looks like what you are saying (again) is "Waaaaah! Social injustice! Evil Cops! Oh, and look at me being boring as ****. Again." Again.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. pretty sure.

having been a reserve officer.. and having family members and friends that are police.. I doubt I would tolerate a translator that says "evil cops"..

Nope.. what the translation is.. "government can do no wrong".. "move along folks... nothing to see here"// "comply or get shot".
 
VanceMack said:
Nooo...you are responsible to pay your taxes. Period. You dont have the sack to go stop an armed man that has just shot over a dozen people so you get to sit back and say thank you for doing the job you dont have the balls to do.
Click to expand...

That's crap and you know it.

We are responsible for the police. Unless you believe as you apparently do.. that the government has no responsibility to its citizens and should act without regard for the citizens needs or desires.
 
VanceMack said:
You go ahead and feel free to sit there nice and safe on your couch and lick the cheeto dust from your fingertips. Im sure when they want your opinion they will come ask you.
Click to expand...

Stop with the ad hominems
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. pretty sure.

having been a reserve officer.. and having family members and friends that are police.. I doubt I would tolerate a translator that says "evil cops"..

Nope.. what the translation is.. "government can do no wrong".. "move along folks... nothing to see here"// "comply or get shot".
Click to expand...

Still busted. "Evil **** killing cops...bomb detonated. Threat ended".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jaeger19 said:
That's crap and you know it.

We are responsible for the police. Unless you believe as you apparently do.. that the government has no responsibility to its citizens and should act without regard for the citizens needs or desires.
Click to expand...

No...it's not crap. You and whatsisbucket over there want to play wannabe badass cops and go arm wrestle the guy....sign the **** up and do the job. The cops ended a threat and you and the other guy are ****ting yourselves over it. That's pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
No...it's not crap. You and whatsisbucket over there want to play wannabe badass cops and go arm wrestle the guy....sign the **** up and do the job. The cops ended a threat and you and the other guy are ****ting yourselves over it. That's pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I did sign up and do the job. The cops ended a threat with an improvised explosive that put themselves at risk. the public at risk and ended the life of a perp that could have yielded more information and prevented further massacres of police.

I would prefer that our government be responsible and give officers the tools and training to end threats without loss of life on either side. Particularly since I don't have a trust that the government is always in the right in determining who is a threat. Government should be responsible to the people .. not the other way around.
 
jaeger19 said:
I did sign up and do the job. The cops ended a threat with an improvised explosive that put themselves at risk. the public at risk and ended the life of a perp that could have yielded more information and prevented further massacres of police.

I would prefer that our government be responsible and give officers the tools and training to end threats without loss of life on either side. Particularly since I don't have a trust that the government is always in the right in determining who is a threat. Government should be responsible to the people .. not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Oh that's right...you were a reserve officer. That's JUST like being a cop dealing with a life or death incident.

You have the luxury of demanding more from the cops from your nice soft cushy easy chair. It's always easy putting someone else's life on the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Nooo...you are responsible to pay your taxes. Period. You dont have the sack to go stop an armed man that has just shot over a dozen people so you get to sit back and say thank you for doing the job you dont have the balls to do.
Click to expand...
More right-wing absolutism. Day in and day out, the same schtick.

You really couldn't come up with anything in between "let him go" and "use a bomb."
 
Deuce said:
More right-wing absolutism. Day in and day out, the same schtick.

You really couldn't come up with anything in between "let him go" and "use a bomb."
Click to expand...
What would a typical leftist response be? Oh yeah..."Herp! Derp Right Wing!!!" :Lamo

No Deuce...I want anyone critical of the cops actions to sack up, quit talking **** about things they dont have the guts to do themselves, and go take down the guy themselves. Then I want them to go door to door and disarm all the gangs. Finally...I want them to go give ISIS a great big hug and love them into peace.
 
jonny5 said:
Police abuse doesnt just have to be about race. Excessive force is a real problem. SWAT teams shooting peoples dogs while knocking down the wrong door on minor drug investigations. In this case, they did not use minimal force, they used an unusual method of maximum force on a contained suspect.
Click to expand...

I agree, and those instances where SWAT teams have gone on rampages need to be investigated and officers disciplined. This case, however, did not involve any wrong doors with shot dogs. Rather, a controlled explosion was used to kill a terrorist who refused to surrender and who stated that he would resist until killed. Given the totality of the situation, the use of force was minimal and justified.
 
I don't have a big problem with it...so long as they don't start getting carried away and use it for shoplifters and the like.

'Put the candy bar down...this is your last warning'.
 
What we had here was an armed mass-murderer that refused to put down his weapons and surrender. Law enforcement authorities engaged this criminal in negotiation for several hours. Not only did he refuse to peacefully surrender, but he vowed to kill again and intimated that he had planted explosive charges in his parking garage stronghold.

Bottom line, I have no problem with the police using lethal means here to force a resolution with no collateral casualties.
 
Cryptic said:
I agree, and those instances where SWAT teams have gone on rampages need to be investigated and officers disciplined. This case, however, did not involve any wrong doors with shot dogs. Rather, a controlled explosion was used to kill a terrorist who refused to surrender and who stated that he would resist until killed. Given the totality of the situation, the use of force was minimal and justified.
Click to expand...

You cant think of any other force they could have used? Like the one the always use? Rush in with guns and shoot him?
 
jonny5 said:
You cant think of any other force they could have used? Like the one the always use? Rush in with guns and shoot him?
Click to expand...

That would have been a good tactic if he had a hostage. But, as there was no hostage, there was no need to risk anymore officers. Rather, it was time to go for checkmate. An airstrike on the entire garage would be excessive. A focused explosion involving a pound of explosives was enough force to end the rampage.
 
VanceMack said:
What would a typical leftist response be? Oh yeah..."Herp! Derp Right Wing!!!" :Lamo

No Deuce...I want anyone critical of the cops actions to sack up, quit talking **** about things they dont have the guts to do themselves, and go take down the guy themselves. Then I want them to go door to door and disarm all the gangs. Finally...I want them to go give ISIS a great big hug and love them into peace.
Click to expand...

So, because I think bullets are a better idea than bombs for domestic law enforcement, I want to hug Isis.

Jesus ****ing Christ. Some people can't be helped.
 
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...

All gov't, state police forces should be disarmed. Only civilians should be permitted to operate firearms and explosives.

If the police need explosives, they must file a formal request w/local resident militias to obtain them.
 
Cryptic said:
That would have been a good tactic if he had a hostage. But, as there was no hostage, there was no need to risk anymore officers. Rather, it was time to go for checkmate. An airstrike on the entire garage would be excessive. A focused explosion involving a pound of explosives was enough force to end the rampage.
Click to expand...

You said it was minimum force.
 
Whatever. Using a robot rather than risking the lives of more officers was a sensible solution in this case.
 
Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper - Houston Chronicle

920x920.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom