Thoughts on Dallas PD's killer robot.

[Vermiform]

I watched Chief Brown's press conference today and he said something to the effect of " I had no moral dilema whether to use the robot . I'd do it again " .

I really do like that guy!

Ditto!

 

[rcm192]

 

[machinedrummer]

Maybe the machines have taken control? Where is John Connor when you need him? Asta la pasta bay bee

 

[drmweaver2]

Ya know.. at first I didn't have any qualms about it. Bad guy => now dead guy and no more cops dead/injured. Job well done. Moving on...

However, after reading some of the comments here and elsewhere, I am less confident in my previous stance. You guys made me think - not always a comfortable thing for me.

I think the destabilizing/unbalancing issue for me is I WASN'T THERE at the time the decision was made. I'm not sure exactly what was said to/by the bad guy just prior to the decision to take him out via this method. IF it was my decision to make at that time, I would have to feel that he was still a major threat and there was no other option that was viable at that time...

I do not have issues with snipers taking a bad guy out from a distance...
Robot explosives???... Not sure exactly why but it doesn't quite leave me with the same warm and fuzzy feeling that a sniper job does at the end of the day. And I am a computer/AI supporter type of guy. Go figure.

 

[ta2d_cop]

Don't be mad because you just found out in 5 years you're getting replaced by a robot controlled by some fat ass like me in a comfy chair. That's right, embrace the reign of the keyboard commandos!

With the 6 foot table full of cakes, cookies, doughnuts, brownies, cupcakes, and every other sweet treat you can name at my office, consider me in training for the position!

 

[Blue Diamond]

I think part of the chiefs problem was what if it didn,t work. He just blew up a $152,000 robot. Who's going to pay for it? It might of ruined his carrer and his life.

Ya know.. at first I didn't have any qualms about it. Bad guy => now dead guy and no more cops dead/injured. Job well done. Moving on...

However, after reading some of the comments here and elsewhere, I am less confident in my previous stance. You guys made me think - not always a comfortable thing for me.

I think the destabilizing/unbalancing issue for me is I WASN'T THERE at the time the decision was made. I'm not sure exactly what was said to/by the bad guy just prior to the decision to take him out via this method. IF it was my decision to make at that time, I would have to feel that he was still a major threat and there was no other option that was viable at that time...

I do not have issues with snipers taking a bad guy out from a distance...
Robot explosives???... Not sure exactly why but it doesn't quite leave me with the same warm and fuzzy feeling that a sniper job does at the end of the day. And I am a computer/AI supporter type of guy. Go figure.

 

[Vermiform]

With the 6 foot table full of cakes, cookies, doughnuts, brownies, cupcakes, and every other sweet treat you can name at my office, consider me in training for the position!

Ha! You can be an honorary member!

Our motto is:

Carpe Crustum

Seize the Cake!!!

 

[JoeLiberty]

Most SWAT teams maintain lethal explosive capability, they just don't use it frequently. They maintain explosive breaching capabilities and all associated materials required, as employed in the Orlando terror attack last month.

What would the difference had been had they rigged an explosive breach to make entry and he just got caught in the blast prior to the entry team hooking him up with lead therapy? NOT A ****ING THING!

Would you have been ok with them running him over with the armored truck and killing him? Cops use cars as weapons in deadly force encounters regularly, and the courts have repeatedly said DEADLY FORCE is DEADLY FORCE, the tool is not the issue, as long as the justification for employing such force is found to be valid.

Out of curiosity, what other lethal explosive capability does SWAT have? I couldn't find much info. I know they have breaching charges and flash-bangs. And the bomb squad has c4 and detcord used to destroy other bombs. Obviously those things can be mis-used with lethal effect. But what do they have thats designed to stop a perp? I've never heard of a SWAT team using frag grenades, or claymores for example. Have you?

 

[AustinBR]

Guy shoots a bunch of cops, gets blown up, and people complain? I don't get it. I am all for meeting deadly force with excessive deadly force. Play stupid games and you win stupid prizes.

 

[paddle007]

I had questions about this also. Not so much morally but the legality of it and I am by no means a legal eagle.
Wasn't there some chatter not too long ago about the use of drones on US citizens. Were we not told that no drones would be used against a US citizen?
I assume there is legal language written giving LEO the right to take a life and the means is not spelled out?
No judging just wondering.

 

[JoeLiberty]

It's not about this guy in particular. Just for the record, that guy is the worst. He made his bed and now he's lying in it (permanenty). But it's not about him. It's about the next guy. And the next. Until we get used to hearing about drone strikes on US soil. It's ALL about the precedent. We are deciding today, if thats the path we want to go down. Maybe it is, idk.
Sounds like a number of people are down with lethal force by any means. As long as lethal force is justified, its dealers choice for the officer. Doesn't matter if you get stabbed, shot, blown up, or gassed. I'm not sure I buy that. Here's an idea, next time someones holed up, we fill the room with an oxygen displacing gas and watch the guy slowly suffocate on live Tv. What's the difference?

 

[Hermit]

It's not about this guy in particular. Just for the record, that guy is the worst. He made his bed and now he's lying in it (permanenty). But it's not about him. It's about the next guy. And the next. Until we get used to hearing about drone strikes on US soil. It's ALL about the precedent. We are deciding today, if thats the path we want to go down. Maybe it is, idk.
Sounds like a number of people are down with lethal force by any means. As long as lethal force is justified, its dealers choice for the officer. Doesn't matter if you get stabbed, shot, blown up, or gassed. I'm not sure I buy that. Here's an idea, next time someones holed up, we fill the room with an oxygen displacing gas and watch the guy slowly suffocate on live Tv. What's the difference?

There ya go...no mess to clean up.

 

[Kraut]

If a sniper shot is justifiable, but there is no clear line of sight, and a robot could maneuver safely to obtain line of sight, good to go? This situation is the same as that, only maneuvering to specifically locate a blast radius.

 

[JHenley17]

I think this was a pretty extreme situation. I won't worry until they start rolling them out in every standoff or warrant.

 

[bigtattoo79]

It's not about this guy in particular. Just for the record, that guy is the worst. He made his bed and now he's lying in it (permanenty). But it's not about him. It's about the next guy. And the next. Until we get used to hearing about drone strikes on US soil. It's ALL about the precedent. We are deciding today, if thats the path we want to go down. Maybe it is, idk.
Sounds like a number of people are down with lethal force by any means. As long as lethal force is justified, its dealers choice for the officer. Doesn't matter if you get stabbed, shot, blown up, or gassed. I'm not sure I buy that. Here's an idea, next time someones holed up, we fill the room with an oxygen displacing gas and watch the guy slowly suffocate on live Tv. What's the difference?

If deadly force is justified I'm fine with deadly force by any means that helps preserve the life of others! I'm also all about ending a standoff as quick as possible.

I guess the swat team could have asked if any of the protesters wanted to try talking him out before sending in the bomb.

 

[mike84z28]

Awesome job by the Dallas Chief ! This scum deserved nothing more than what he received.

 

[troy_mclure]

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

3/4lb =1/2 block c4.

 

[troy_mclure]

Out of curiosity, what other lethal explosive capability does SWAT have? I couldn't find much info. I know they have breaching charges and flash-bangs. And the bomb squad has c4 and detcord used to destroy other bombs. Obviously those things can be mis-used with lethal effect. But what do they have thats designed to stop a perp? I've never heard of a SWAT team using frag grenades, or claymores for example. Have you?

a breaching charge or c4 is plenty enough.

 

[Emperor]

There are no right or wrong answers in questioning this event. What absolutely must happen, is if and when these do become common (and they will one day), each usage and/or kill needs to be reviewed and adjudicated (if necessary), with the same standards that any deadly force by LE is handled. Only dumbasses will all of a sudden try to hold them to a higher standard of ending sieges lethally! We get too caught up with the way we kill people here.

It bewilders me that there are people in this country (not necessarily anyone in this thread), that have a problem with dispatching this scumbag with a R/C unit but have absolutely no issues whatsoever with severing the spine of a 7 or 8 month old fetus in the womb because they can or choose to.

Think about that for minute!

 

[drmweaver2]

If a sniper shot is justifiable, but there is no clear line of sight, and a robot could maneuver safely to obtain line of sight, good to go? This situation is the same as that, only maneuvering to specifically locate a blast radius.

ACtually, the robot moving under remote control is a single point of failure issue. Unless it's wired rather than radio-controlled. Think Ethernet security vs WiFI vulnerability.

IF it's radio-controlled, then the frequency could be captured/spoofed/taken over deliberately or jammed/interfered with (deliberately or not). That is one part of my "problem" with using robots to kill civilians.

I certainly don't want autonomous robots running around with kill authorizations in downtown USA.

Mentions of a "blast radius" are also part of the problem. There is an implied assumption, if you accept the robot-delivered bomb, that no innocents will be inside the blast radius 100% of the time. That's a daring assumption.

The chance of innocent death by sniper fire is far less, IMHO.