BLM shooting suspect killed by robot; do you support robots/drones use to kill suspects?

[AuH20]

[LibertyEagle]

Now, if your taillight's out,

You mean, he fit the description of a person who robbed a convenience store in the area. From what I can tell, the whole tail light story was complete nonsense.

I'm going to have a problem with anyone shooting you --- drone, citizen, or cop.

True, but if you pull your gun out, it rather changes the equation.

[phill4paul]

Maybe he knew what was going to happen to him and the letters "RB" that he wrote on the walls stood for "Robot Bomb."

[phill4paul]

My view. A robot cannot "fear for it's life." Therefore, it should not be used in a lethal manner. There is no reason these robots cannot be equipped to use non-lethal means of apprehension.

[TheTexan]

I'm in support of anything, that makes our brave hero Officers safer

[limequat]

I think Dallas has a lot of questions to answer.

Why did you have a bomb?
Who made the bomb?
Do you have more bombs?
What is your rules of engagement for detonating bombs?
Are your officers trained in lethal bombings?

I mean...$#@!, that doesn't even scratch the surface of the questions I have.

[Ender]

This. I have a problem with using drones/robots to kill, but it's not any more of a problem than I have using human beings to kill. Most of the time it's not going to be justified. Once in a blue moon it will be.

You can't have it both ways. If, in some of your minds, a well-armed citizen should/could have killed an active shooter, then it extends to a police officer or a drone. I don't assign them any special super powers. If the standard's met for you and your weapon, then anyone else and their weapon falls into the same category. Now, if your taillight's out, I'm going to have a problem with anyone shooting you --- drone, citizen, or cop.

Can't support this- it can turn into a nightmare for "suspects" and will infringe even more on rights.

Do we have any proof besides the MSM/PTB word that this was the shooter?

If a well-armed citizen is in the same store as an active shooter, that is one thing- to kill someone that we are told is the shooter by questionable sources is other. Now we will never know the details for sure. Sorta like the Boston bombers.

And where are the other reported shooters?

[TheTexan]

You mean, he fit the description of a person who robbed a convenience store in the area. From what I can tell, the whole tail light story was complete nonsense.



True, but if you pull your gun out, it rather changes the equation.

I completely agree, LE.

It's pretty obvious he did this to himself I'm not sure why only you and I see it

[Nirvikalpa]

It could have easily been innocent Mark Hughes, who cops lied to saying they had not only video evidence of him shooting, but that several witnesses stepped forward and said they saw him firing into the crowd. There were even videos of him walking around as the shooting was occurring, but that didn't stop the cops from trying to frame him and posting his picture on their twitter account - which was retweeted thousands of times.

Mob mentality is a very dangerous thing.

[Ender]

It could have easily been innocent Mark Hughes, who cops lied to saying they had not only video evidence of him shooting, but that several witnesses stepped forward and said they saw him firing into the crowd. There were even videos of him walking around as the shooting was occurring, but that didn't stop the cops from trying to frame him and posting his picture on their twitter account - which was retweeted thousands of times.

Mob mentality is a very dangerous thing.

Yep.

Article on this incidence:

Police Robot Killing?

By Mike Holmes

July 11, 2016
Email Print
FacebookTwitter
Share

Two days after the event I have not encountered any thoughtful discussion of the recent Dallas police sniper robot murder.

The suspect (though undoubtedly guilty of mass murder) was trapped in a garage and surrounded by what were likely dozens of Dallas police. All very personally angry and vengeful.

We are told (indirectly by murky police “sources”) that after negotiations “failed” the suspect was given an ultimatum: surrender or be killed.

I wonder what the legal rationale for that demand actually is?

“Surrender or die!”

This suspect wasn’t going anywhere. Had he made some attempt at escape or a suicidal charge, he would have been cut down by dozens of police rifle and pistol bullets.

Why not simply wait him out? He needed food, water and sleep. Those requirements mean that surrender or suicide would be inevitable.

Why not use CS or tear gas? I’m sure the Dallas police had plenty of that available. This suspect had no protection from that.

Yes, the police were hot, tired, angry and vengeful (especially that). But those circumstances don’t preclude non-lethal efforts at capture.

As it stands the only motives we have are what the Dallas PD says they were, via conversations with the suspect. Were these recorded? Why have we not heard the details by now? Surely there were lots of recorded radio chatter and perhaps even cell phone texting/calls. Did the Dallas police legitimately want a peaceful outcome?

While this suspect would have inevitably been killed by the State (in Texas, killing law enforcement guarantees you the needle), why wasn’t he captured and given a trial? Summary execution of suspects isn’t legal, is it?

What little I’ve read are brief news interviews with legal professors, most of whom parrot the police claim that this killing was for the “protection” of the officers. This isn’t credible since barricaded suspects who are surrounded can do no harm to anyone but themselves. He didn’t have explosives.

Instead, they sent in a robot with a bomb and detonated it. Unprecedented, even in militarized police America.

What will happen the next time police send in a robot to “talk” to a suspect? Might this now trigger a suspect to attack, kill hostages, or set off hidden explosives? Who will trust a police robot now?

“Well, we waited two hours, and that was enough” is hardly a legal doctrine for murder by law enforcement. Not when the public or police are not in danger.

Since robots may not always be available, will police in America start using grenades, bazookas, or small artillery to dispatch recalcitrant suspects in the future?

If a civilian family traps a red-handed murderer of family members in their garage, in a remote rural area where the police are hours away at night, does the family have the legal authority (post facto) to simply demand the suspect surrender or be killed? And then kill the suspect if they don’t give up after an hour or two? At the very least the grand jury would be empaneled for this.

What this appears to be is the classic (but oft-denied) double standard regarding law enforcement. If you hurt or kill them, you are literally “outlaw” and subject to immediate and fatal retaliation (by law enforcement) regardless. You have no rights. No surrender (unless granted) or trial. You are subject to police execution because they think you are guilty and your victim is one of “them”, not a “citizen.” In fact, this doesn’t happen often since few law enforcement personnel are willing to rely on this double standard themselves. But it is widely acknowledged to exist.

Is mere inconvenience to police, or accommodating the news cycle, a valid excuse for law enforcement murder of suspects? Even at the Waco massacre the FBI waited over a week before their military assault, which killed dozens of children and women non-combatants. In Dallas, the wait was only a few hours.

The despicable James Holmes, who murdered 20 people in a Denver-area movie theatre, was also trapped by police but was allowed to surrender. They didn’t rush in and shoot him to pieces or blow him up. He was given a trial and found guilty. Of course his victims were not law enforcement officers.

I have no sympathy with the now dead sniper. But isn’t the reason for this tragedy the fact that too many times the police act as judge, jury and executioner, claiming self-defense as a rationale? (And as in Dallas, the suspects are often black.) Isn’t that behavior the problem, not the solution?

Does America solve this problem by ignoring legal due process? We are about to find out.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/...ecution-robot/

[Ender]

I completely agree, LE.

It's pretty obvious he did this to himself I'm not sure why only you and I see it

Yeah- how dare that guy look like a convenience store robber- what was he thinking!

[heavenlyboy34]

Robots disarm bombs. This is useful technology in a situation like this or in a hostage situation.

This guy has given up his right to life. He shot 10 people. His choices are surrender instantly or die. There should be no negotiations in these situations. You come out immediately or you die. Those are your options.

Killing this guy is like killing that gorilla in the zoo. His life is meaningless compared to everyone else. If there is any remote chance he or the gorilla could cause harm then that isn't a risk worth taking.

Not sure if srs or trolling or sociopath...

[MelissaWV]

Can't support this- it can turn into a nightmare for "suspects" and will infringe even more on rights.

Do we have any proof besides the MSM/PTB word that this was the shooter?

If a well-armed citizen is in the same store as an active shooter, that is one thing- to kill someone that we are told is the shooter by questionable sources is other. Now we will never know the details for sure. Sorta like the Boston bombers.

And where are the other reported shooters?

Would we have proof besides the well-armed citizen's word that they were the shooter? If the shooting was not justified, if the guy ended up NOT being an imminent threat, then it is wrong to kill him regardless of whether it's a person pulling the trigger to their face or via proxy. The next logical step would be to have *very* good cameras on these robots (which they do in general, because that's how the operator is going to be able to navigate them in most instances) and have indisputable proof available to justify a kill.

[Ender]

Would we have proof besides the well-armed citizen's word that they were the shooter? If the shooting was not justified, if the guy ended up NOT being an imminent threat, then it is wrong to kill him regardless of whether it's a person pulling the trigger to their face or via proxy. The next logical step would be to have *very* good cameras on these robots (which they do in general, because that's how the operator is going to be able to navigate them in most instances) and have indisputable proof available to justify a kill.

All this is valid thinking- I just trust an armed citizen stopping a robbery over po-pos deciding who should die.

An armed society is a polite society.
-Robert A. Heinlein-

[MelissaWV]

Yeah- how dare that guy look like a convenience store robber- what was he thinking!

I keep seeing this, and the photo/still that's posted of the guy's gun (sitting over his seatbelt, which is still fashioned, but off to the side). It doesn't look like much of anything to me, and if the contention here is the police officer is so observant that, glancing at a moving vehicle, he noticed that the person in this car in the middle of the day (which means glare off the windows) had the same characteristics and was in the vicinity of where they were looking for this suspect, to the point he was sure enough that he just HAD to pull him over... I mean wow that cop deserves an award.

In the audio, the man, purportedly the officer, says “I’m going to stop a car,” the man says on the recording. “I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”

“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the man continues. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.”

Of course, the people championing this as a good reason to pull them over seem to not notice that the cop says the two occupants look like the suspects. Both of the suspects were male. They don't really look like the boyfriend, which I guess is irrelevant. The four-year-old must have been the getaway driver in the original robbery.

Police have released few details on the shooting, other than to say it originated in a traffic stop and they recovered a gun.

Oh, wait, it originated with a traffic stop? I could have sworn someone earlier said the taillight thing was made up BS on the part of the girlfriend. Weird. And yeah they recovered a gun... has anyone been disputing there was a gun?

[Brian4Liberty]

Yep.

Article on this incidence:

This suspect wasn’t going anywhere. Had he made some attempt at escape or a suicidal charge, he would have been cut down by dozens of police rifle and pistol bullets.
...
He didn’t have explosives.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/...ecution-robot/

No guarantees that the guy would be "cut down" before he inflicted more damage. And he supposedly claimed that he did have explosives. Apparently he did have explosives at his home. Did they find his home bomb making factory before they killed him?

[Brian4Liberty]

My view. A robot cannot "fear for it's life." Therefore, it should not be used in a lethal manner. There is no reason these robots cannot be equipped to use non-lethal means of apprehension.

True. Then again, weaponizing the robot is another slippery slope. The key talking point with domestic drones has always been "but they aren't weaponized."

[Ender]

No guarantees that the guy would be "cut down" before he inflicted more damage. And he supposedly claimed that he did have explosives. Apparently he did have explosives at his home. Did they find his home bomb making factory before they killed him?

Now, the question is: did they really kill him? Any body been identified?

[JK/SEA]

Now, the question is: did they really kill him? Any body been identified?

he's in surgery now getting a face transplant, and new identity.

[Ender]

he's in surgery now getting a face transplant, and new identity.

Ah..........