Thoughts on Dallas PD's killer robot.

[JoeLiberty]

When the news broke that they had killed that terrorist SOB in Dallas, I was a little curious about the method used.

At a news conference at 7:30 a.m. Friday, Brown said "we saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate." Any other option, said the chief, "would have exposed our officers to grave danger."

That seemed a bit weird. I wondered 'Were they intending to kill him or did they accidentally with a flash-bang? Did they detonate one of the shooters devices?'
Seems like those questions have been answered and Dallas police chief David brown is defending his order to use an IED on a robot to kill the shooter.

*I approved it,* Brown said. *And I’ll do it again if presented with the same circumstances.*...Brown slammed critics, saying he doesn’t *give any quarter to critics who ask these types of questions from the comforts and safety away from the incident.*

The use of explosives caught my eye first and I couldn't find much in the way of precedent for that. The use of a murder-bot is also pretty concerning, as this is apparently the first time police have used one to kill. Are there not some serious questions about this type of use-of-force? I would not argue whether lethal force was warranted here, but I have real concerns about the method.
Active shooter holed up somewhere? Toss in a couple frag grenades.
High speed chase and shootout on the highway? Don't put officers in the line of fire, call in a Predator!

If these tactics are acceptable for the military, why would they not be acceptable for our militarized police?
Another thing to consider... I know sometimes robots are used to deliver messages, phones or food into situations with a negotiator. Did we just dick that up for hostage scenarios? A suspect would not be out of line to consider any robot a lethal threat. How can they be trusted now?
On a side note, I just shot up my Roomba... just to be on the safe side.

I get what Brown is saying about critics, and I would not second-guess his decision on that day. But going forward, don't we need more guidelines or at least some discussion before we legitimize drone strikes on our own citizens?

 

[Whitebread]

When the news broke that they had killed that terrorist SOB in Dallas, I was a little curious about the method used.

That seemed a bit weird. I wondered 'Were they intending to kill him or did they accidentally with a flash-bang? Did they detonate one of the shooters devices?'
Seems like those questions have been answered and Dallas police chief David brown is defending his order to use an IED on a robot to kill the shooter.


The use of explosives caught my eye first and I couldn't find much in the way of precedent for that. The use of a murder-bot is also pretty concerning, as this is apparently the first time police have used one to kill. Are there not some serious questions about this type of use-of-force? I would not argue whether lethal force was warranted here, but I have real concerns about the method.
Active shooter holed up somewhere? Toss in a couple frag grenades.
High speed chase and shootout on the highway? Don't put officers in the line of fire, call in a Predator!

If these tactics are acceptable for the military, why would they not be acceptable for our militarized police?
Another thing to consider... I know sometimes robots are used to deliver messages, phones or food into situations with a negotiator. Did we just dick that up for hostage scenarios? A suspect would not be out of line to consider any robot a lethal threat. How can they be trusted now?
On a side note, I just shot up my Roomba... just to be on the safe side.

I get what Brown is saying about critics, and I would not second-guess his decision on that day. But going forward, don't we need more guidelines or at least some discussion before we legitimize drone strikes on our own citizens?

I have to agree. I'm not wild about second guessing life and death decisions that have to be made in the moment, but the use of deadly force to end a stand off feels too much like Judge, Jury, and exicutioner to me. I'm not wild about cops having to breech an risk getting shot up either, but at the time this nut was fragged I dont think he was posing a direct threat. I think with enough creativity they could have nuturalized him as a threat, and not kill him. Yeah it would have been more then that waste of skin was worth, but I believe setting this kind of precident is a bad miss-step.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I have no problem with it at all in fact I love it!

 

[Barry J]

If deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what weapon is used. Would it have been ok to take him out with a sniper? I applaud the chief for making a hard decision and standing by it. Why bring up stupid what-ifs. Each case is decided on the merits of that case. In this case, it was right to blow him up to avoid any more casualties from the good guys.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I tend to agree, I think they should have waited him out. Dead men answer no questions. How quickly they took him out adds to the false flag argument. Were they afraid of him saying something? Just odd how all these terrorists never seem to be able to give any answers.

Good job on taking out the Roomba though! Never can be too careful!

 

[Gator 45/70]

Not the first time police have used military style weapons on bad guys.
Think Mark Essex 1973

Sure beats another dead LEO, Besides they gave the crazy sob a chance to give up.

Texas will kill a bad guy faster by any means necessary.

 

[Spleen]

I feel very uneasy about it.
During my time in the Infantry I would have loved a robotic explosives delivery system and would have not felt odd using it.
For a civilian police force to use it does feel odd to me.
I cannot put my finger on it but I just don't know about this usage.

My roomba and ipad are also acting suspect after hearing this news.
Maybe I should, oh no, ........... End of Transmission.

Typed to you on my ipad.

 

[Saintsfan6]

The perp clearly stated he wasn't going down without a fight and intended to harm more officers before the end of it all. I have zero problem with this. To those "judge, jury, executioner" folks, what's the difference from taking him out with a sharpshooter? He was still a threat, he was armed and expressed a continued desire to harm officers. He also claimed to have explosive devices, meaning even if officers breached and killed him, he could have still been a threat.

This is how I hope it played out.

Negotiator: we are sending in a phone, president Obama wants to speak with you directly.

Perp: sure, he is one of my heroes!

Robot rolls in peacefully with a bomb disguised as a satellite phone attached to its outstretched arm.

Perp reaches out and his last thoughts are "I'm about to get to talk to the president!"

BOOM!!

Negotiator: we got him!

 

[Whitebread]

If deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what weapon is used. Would it have been ok to take him out with a sniper? I applaud the chief for making a hard decision and standing by it. Why bring up stupid what-ifs. Each case is decided on the merits of that case. In this case, it was right to blow him up to avoid any more casualties from the good guys.

But that I think is the question at hand was deadly force nessicary at the moment in time in which it was used? I dont think he had anyone held hostage and it didn't sound like he had a clear line to pose a threat to others, but I wasn't there and won't pretend like I know all the details. If they had breeched, they would have likely killed him anyways, but it just doesnt feel right. I cant say I'm sad the dirtbag is dead, but it feels like a slippery slope to me.

 

[John_]

I think its a great tool in their toolbox for specialized needs. They had a shooter fairly well trained, using cover well. He had shot 10 officers already. So they use a remote controlled device to carry lets say a hand grenade, or an explosive charge and explode it remotely, taking out the dirt bag.
End result, bad guy incapacitated, no further officers exposed to potential gunfire. How can anyone object?

I'm sure their delivery device had live video feed. They saw what or who was fixing to go down. Great job Dallas PD!

 

[Suburbazine]

It was a fantastic idea and very viable. Was he a threat at the time? Hell yes, he claimed he had IEDs and was going to start blowing them up around Dallas, was not going to surrender and was going to kill more officers. So blowing him up with an IED is a fitting end.

I would have been tickled pink to do it, very high degree of reliability and very minimal risk to others...plus the robot can verify if any additional hazards exist while it's in there and before detonating. Not something you can do with HMX bricks on a wall or a grenade.

 

[Magdump]

They will prolly never tell what was used, but I'm thinking Claymore

 

[Barry J]

But that I think is the question at hand was deadly force nessicary at the moment in time in which it was used? I dont think he had anyone held hostage and it didn't sound like he had a clear line to pose a threat to others, but I wasn't there and won't pretend like I know all the details. If they had breeched, they would have likely killed him anyways, but it just doesnt feel right. I cant say I'm sad the dirtbag is dead, but it feels like a slippery slope to me.

Neither one of us was there. We don't know what threats he made or what he had at hand to cause more casualties. If he was threatening harm to more officers and had the means to do it, I have no problem with what happened. Until we know all the answers, I tend to believe the chief. Most everyone here wants to believe the beat cops acted correctly when they had to shoot a bad guy, why question the chief when he makes the decision to take someone out?

 

[Whitebread]

The perp clearly stated he wasn't going down without a fight and intended to harm more officers before the end of it all. I have zero problem with this. To those "judge, jury, executioner" folks, what's the difference from taking him out with a sharpshooter? He was still a threat, he was armed and expressed a continued desire to harm officers. He also claimed to have explosive devices, meaning even if officers breached and killed him, he could have still been a threat.

This is how I hope it played out.

Negotiator: we are sending in a phone, president Obama wants to speak with you directly.

Perp: sure, he is one of my heroes!

Robot rolls in peacefully with a bomb disguised as a satellite phone attached to its outstretched arm.

Perp reaches out and his last thoughts are "I'm about to get to talk to the president!"

BOOM!!

Negotiator: we got him!

Keep in mind I'm sticking with feels like because I dont know all the details if he did in fact claim or had explosives on him this was probably the solution because he had potential to harm others even if he just stayed where he was. At that point any tool to put him down would be suitable to me.

 

[Whitebread]

Neither one of us was there. We don't know what threats he made or what he had at hand to cause more casualties. If he was threatening harm to more officers and had the means to do it, I have no problem with what happened. Until we know all the answers, I tend to believe the chief. Most everyone here wants to believe the beat cops acted correctly when they had to shoot a bad guy, why question the chief when he makes the decision to take someone out?

Honestly it sounds more and more like the right thing to do. I have no problem with the method of killing and if the claims of ied's was in play there is no doubt they made the right call. But getting a robot and explosive in place (or sharpshooter) takes a little more time than a shoot/dont shoot senario. Its a deliberate intention to kill and I have no problems with either if a threat existed. To me "if we breech we might get shot" only becomes a threat when you breech, so ied's or threat of ied's being in play would seal his fate in my mind.

 

[dougstump]

#DroidLivesMatter

(But not as much as Police lives matter!)

 

[Gator 45/70]

They will prolly never tell what was used, but I'm thinking Claymore

1# of C-4 is what I'm hearing?

 

[Sniper56]

C4 or Claymore. does not matter. I agree they needed to remove the threat without risking more officers lives.

 

[US Infidel]

How is the robot doing? Is there a gofundme to rebuild it? What was its name. It needs to be remembered as a hero!!
They should put that stuff on pay per view..

 

[323MAR]

I loved it! He blew up real good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE3Q5xPtS3A