How is it ignorant? I'm calling you out. You go in one thread praising the second amendment and people having the right to use assault rifles. But you blast the police in this thread for using explosives.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
In An Apparent First, Police Used A Robot To Kill
- Thread starter Septimus Prime
- Start date
- Status
How is it ignorant? I'm calling you out. You go in one thread praising the second amendment and people having the right to use assault rifles. But you blast the police in this thread for using explosives.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Well said. The suspects actions necessitated this response. Blame the suspect if you need to be upset about how it went down.
Is your argument here that we should make sure police lives are at risk, to keep them honest or something?
I find that argument just as unpersuasive as I do about real drone strikes.
I think there are reasonable moral objections to make, but the fact that drones are safer for those on the driving end is in no way one of them.
Strangelove77
Member
Is there an estimation on how expensive that robot was?
Robots have been used to deploy flash bangs, smoke grenades, tear gas...surely one of those would have worked.
7DollarHagane
Banned
The robot was recovered. They placed the explosive and removed the robot before detonation from what I know.
There was the possibility of the suspect having explosives on his person, after a flash bang goes off what happens next?
The last thing they would want him to do at that point is move position and possibly endanger the lives of more people.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
Police shouldn't be blowing up anyone because there are no guidelines or protocols in place for it. There is a reason why police aren't issued RPG's and Hand Grenades. SWAT doesn't have them either. Explosives are supposed to be used primarily for getting rid of explosive devices. Not to use to kill a suspect.
Continue with the hyperbole though. It'll serve you well.
I'm ok with this. Better than sending in a person or a dog.
this gif response made my day sir, thank you.
wondering why he didn't just shoot the bot slowly coming his way?
wasn't he trapped? and I guess if their non lethals set off his bomb vest and triggered all his hidden ieds, that....would be bad. also.
7DollarHagane
Banned
If the police could know with 100% certainty that there were no explosive devices in the structure like the suspect was threatening, sure. But they didn't know that. They made a good call with what was known at the time.
Like I said before there was no guarantee that a bomb vest wasn't under the suspects body armor rigged to blow upon opening the vest. Even if he was shot they would have likely detonated something on the body to make sure no explosives were hidden.
MarioHead3
Banned
I'm sure that would have been the preferred option were it that they knew he didn't have explosives ready to be detonated.
I'll make an exception this one time.
You're saying keeping the AWB would've changed something. Let me present to you:
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 compliant AR-15:
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 compliant AK-47:
This is not even accounting for the fact that the tens of millions of rifles already out in the wild was still legal, the AWB of 1994 only banned production of new firearms with the old features like pistol grips and bayonet lugs and so on.
In other words, yes you're terribly ignorant of how firearms work on a basic level, so there's just too steep of a mountain to climb for me to talk with you in any way.
7DollarHagane
Banned
They also aren't supposed to be shot by maniacs with military training and hundreds of rifle rounds and body armor that are threatening to detonate IEDs.. There are no rules in an extreme situation like this.
He was trapped in a general position and dug in, but there was still places he could shift to inside the building. Not having any police or swat force in position and setting off a flash bang would likely just scramble his position.
If that were to happen, they would have to set up for his new position and account for what that might of entailed.
That could of made it easier for them to engage him with a sniper, but considering how well trained this guy was that's hard to know for sure.
Zoe
Member
Still gotta send people in after those are deployed. If he did have a gas mask as mentioned earlier, those probably wouldn't have been effective.
Agreed. We need those Star Trek AI Police-bots. America is ready.
The reason why police aren't issued RPGs and hand grenades is because it would never make sense to use them when compared with available alternatives. There isn't any functional difference between what happened here and an active shooter being taken out by a sniper, except this method kept other humans out of harm's way.
I bet sick lines like this one really impress the other 10th graders.
7DollarHagane
Banned
In the end he took the actions and made the credible threats that escalated the situation and caused the dfw police to respond this way. Theres no one to lay blame on except the suspect in this case.
If there weren't bomb threats, if he hadn't established his capability to kill and persisted against negotiation, maybe it would be different.
If there weren't bomb threats, if he hadn't established his capability to kill and persisted against negotiation, maybe it would be different.
The Faceless Master
Member
at the end of the day, i just simply do not believe that they would have used this tactic on a white male shooter.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
So they would volunteer to be target practice based on his whiteness?
I'll make an exception this one time.
You're saying keeping the AWB would've changed something. Let me present to you:
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 compliant AR-15:
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 compliant AK-47:
This is not even accounting for the fact that the tens of millions of rifles already out in the wild was still legal, the AWB of 1994 only banned production of new firearms with the old features like pistol grips and bayonet lugs and so on.
In other words, yes you're terribly ignorant of how firearms work on a basic level, so there's just too steep of a mountain to climb for me to talk with you in any way.
How is this in anyway ignorant to say how hypocritical you are? Those compliant weapons would still have forced the police to up their fire power. The weapons being used now by civilians who feel it's their right to own an assault rifle have forced the police to do exactly that.
The Faceless Master
Member
pretty much.
that's exactly what's been happening the past few centuries in this country.
Malcolm X in 1964:
Why does the police have to operate like they're an Army now when they've been able to operate as a police force for generations.
It's just wild that technology has advanced to the point where the police are wielding bomb robots.
2016: We had no choice but to use the bomb robot.
2026: We had no choice but to use our antimatter cannon.
2036: We had no choice but to render a rift in Spacetime and warp the suspect into the chaos dimension.
I disagree mainly because impending death has little to do with race. If your chance of dying(and the amount of deaths already occurred) is the same regardless of the race of the shooter then your tactics will likely be the same.
The Faceless Master
Member
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
By all means show me all the guidelines and protocols and training that involve using explosives on suspects when compared to Snipers in the SWAT team. I'll be waiting.
The outcome(dead suspect) might be the same but there is a huge difference or not it wouldn't be setting a new precedent.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think police have a lower threshold for black people before they consider them dangerous. I don't think that the cops handle armed and dangerous people with kid gloves because they're white. Police hit squads are a thing.
MarioHead3
Banned
The idea of this happening in 2036 is what gets me.
Malcolm X in 1964:
Why does the police have to operate like they're an Army now when they've been able to operate as a police force for generations.
Maybe because the worldwide awareness of people being killed by high powered semi automatic weapons in this country has jumped up by an astounding margin thanks to smart devices and social media. It's forced law enforcement to take a harder stance.
At the same time, how do you know it's not a possibility some swat guidelines? Have you sourced this, or are you just assuming it's always been off the table?
In the past white male shooters have been put down in similar situations when deemed too dangerous to approach.
The outcome is the same independent of race. Saying this new tactic is reserved for dark skinned people because it has only been used once is like saying that the US is biased towards only using nuclear weapons on the Japanese.
I said I was okay with what happened in these specific circumstances. It's not the ideal outcome, but it saved lives. If it had gone down differently I wouldn't be okay with it at all. I would assume most of the other posters that are okay with it feel similarly.
I am far more worried about police departments less disciplined and not as well trained as the Dallas PD using robots for more situations than necessary than anything else.
I'm honestly stunned at how many people are just "I'm completely okay with this" without even a second thought. People are acting as if the officers had no choice, but seeing as how this is the first time this tactic has ever been used on US soil they clearly had more choices. And it has to matter how the police/SWAT handle these situations, I think a lot of us would be a little bit worried if they launched 20 RPGs simultaneously at the suspect because they "had no choice".
Whether or not they were right in using the tactic is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that we need to be clear on the procedure for when a tactic like this can and can't be used so that other, shittier police departments don't abuse it. I can easily see tactics similar to this being used in less severe situations, and disproportionately towards minorities.
It's a precedent that we need to keep an eye on.
I'm honestly stunned at how many people are just "I'm completely okay with this" without even a second thought. People are acting as if the officers had no choice, but seeing as how this is the first time this tactic has ever been used on US soil they clearly had more choices. And it has to matter how the police/SWAT handle these situations, I think a lot of us would be a little bit worried if they launched 20 RPGs simultaneously at the suspect because they "had no choice".
Whether or not they were right in using the tactic is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that we need to be clear on the procedure for when a tactic like this can and can't be used so that other, shittier police departments don't abuse it. I can easily see tactics similar to this being used in less severe situations, and disproportionately towards minorities.
It's a precedent that we need to keep an eye on.
Do you know why the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 wasn't renewed?
I've seen this argument a lot (really for nearly 2 decades now).. "gun bans did nothing!"
So how do pro-gun people reconcile that with the conspiracy theory that liberals are out to take their guns away?
Seems... illogical.... to chuckle at how poorly the government has actually regulated guns out of one corner of your mouth while shoutting they have been trying to take yer guns from the other corner.
Your everyday police will not have the authority to use explosives via remote controlled vehicle. Also, these things are massively expensive and a perpetrator shooting one up is thousands of dollars gone.
And no, SWAT are not everyday police, or more specifically, not in everyday police mode, and given the circumstances in which this happened, would not be authorized to do so at any level of threat short of terrorism such as last night and the specific conditions of the combat zone that led to it. There is validity in scrutinizing this because it's a precedent, but fearmongering about a slippery slope seems both irrational and disingenuous to me.
Further, the idealism that an armed shooter can always be taken alive is foolish, naive, stupid even. Please stop living in a bubble.
That all said, the distrust in the police to make levelheaded decisions or even be competent that some of you are displaying is indicative of the rift that exists between law enforcement and the public.
And no, SWAT are not everyday police, or more specifically, not in everyday police mode, and given the circumstances in which this happened, would not be authorized to do so at any level of threat short of terrorism such as last night and the specific conditions of the combat zone that led to it. There is validity in scrutinizing this because it's a precedent, but fearmongering about a slippery slope seems both irrational and disingenuous to me.
Further, the idealism that an armed shooter can always be taken alive is foolish, naive, stupid even. Please stop living in a bubble.
That all said, the distrust in the police to make levelheaded decisions or even be competent that some of you are displaying is indicative of the rift that exists between law enforcement and the public.
The Faceless Master
Member
MrCunningham
Member
The US Army has been using drones to kill people for quite a while now, which are nothing more than airborne robots. It was a matter of time before it trickled down to the police.
AWB did nothing other than give democrats something to campaign on during local elections when people asked them what the hell they've been doing in washington for the last few years.
It does nothing but prove how partisan gaf can be when people sit on here and call for it to come back, ignorantly assuming it means anything because some senators who want some free brownie points in the '16 elections start talking about it.
If you want real reform talk about that. AWB is pure nonsense devised purely for political hand-wringing. Dems can go home and say they've achieved so much on gun reform, while republicans get to go home and tell people how those dumb liberals got taken to the woodshed with an empty bill. Win-win for everyone! Except you know, all those people who keep dying on the streets daily from handguns.
The "conspiracy theory" came out of a direct quote from Dianne Feinstein, who's ineptitude poisoned the well on the gun conversation for at least a decade.
GhostWriter24
Member
If the United States is to cling to our already withering Constitution, we must respect EVERYONE'S right to a fair trial, no matter how monstrous the action.
Blowing someone up is not justice, it's an immediate death penalty. It's barbaric.
Blowing someone up is not justice, it's an immediate death penalty. It's barbaric.
well maybe he shouldnt have shot a bunch of people and threatened to blow up bombs jee whiz i think that forfeits his right to a fair trial given the circumstances
Fine Rambo, next time a mass shooter says he has a bomb you go detain the subject.
What? I thought this was the first time a robot was used to blow up an active threat?
Also I hope you aren't considering the two nukes used on Japan as two separate acts/decisions, they were used within a few days of each other as part of the same message. There's no need to split hairs if you know what I meant.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked