Support NeoGAF

[DrForester]

I'm very conflicted on this one. I am very much against police escalation, but I really can't think of what choice they had.

Guy was shooting at police, he said he had a bomb. I would assume they had no method of using their own snipers to take him out, due to his location (I heard it was a parking garage).

Him saying he has a bomb seems to remove the option to wait him out.

 

[DiscoJer]

Since when were police issued explosives to kill people?
Seems totally fucked up and no doubt a breach of operations but people will turn a blind eye because of the nature of this case.

It's not unheard of. Back in the 1980s, the police in Philadelphia dropped a bomb out of a helicopter onto a house occupied by an armed protest group

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...till-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing

http://mashable.com/2016/01/10/1985-move-bombing/#B8AINPAUZkqN

Killed 11 people inside, including 5 children.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

What I want to know is what oversight allowed this to be an option. I really don't want this to set a precedent. Also need to know why they thought this was the only option if they cornered him in a parking garage

Judging from my vast experience in FPS games, I would guess that he was corned, but it also might have prevented him from being flanked, or sniped through a open window, or perhaps the garage didn't have much vehicles in it to provide some cover. It might have made the cops sitting ducks.

I'm not sure what rifle rounds can do to ballistic shields or if the cops have any at all.

 

[Somnid]

Doesn't seem like it'll be very long until courts have to decide if gun-wielding robots are protected by the second amendment. And also not long until the first civilian murders by robot, my guess using airborne drones filled with explosives. I understand that technology happens but we need to set the cultural unacceptability of these sort of arms races, and not repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.

 

[ramparter]

I can't find a link to verify it, but I heard a radio report today that the robot placed the explosive and then backed off out of harm's way before it was detonated.

I was thinking that such a robot would cost some good money, you wouldnt just send it destroy itself.

 

[Lead]

I was thinking that such a robot would cost some good money, you wouldnt just send it destroy itself.

In war you'll easily spend a couple hundred thousand dollars just take out a single target.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Certainly raises concerns for the future, but seems like the right call in this instance. Vigilance towards precedent is respectable, but so is safety for our fellow officers.

Most of us haven't a clue what the standoff actually looked like, it's not our place to say for certain, though we can speculate.

The sitaution will need to be reviewed by professionals who have an eye for this and know what they are talking about.

 

[Mr.Monitor]

Creepy definitely, but if it minimizes risk I suppose it's a good thing on a situational level. If this does set a new precedent I feel like it's a double edged sword. On one hand robot assisted policing might minimize danger on the officer's end and thus allow them to make more controlled and calculated decisions, but obviously it's a tool some cops should not be trusted with and will most likely be abused. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of detaching cops from their work a-la drones. Only serves to further escalate the position police hold over the average citizen.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I'm not sure why there is so much controversy over this. Dead is dead, what difference does it make if they shoot him in the head or blow him up?

Probably a complete detachment from the situation.

I bet it's easier to bomb from a drone miles and miles away from the action. The same goes for a stand off. It's a slippery slope.

But it's also a difficult thing to say it shouldn't be used. Oversight is needed but I would say the Police lack a lot of oversight and checks and balances.

 

[JBourne]

While I'm glad it was resolved without any more innocent life, I'm not at all comfortable with cops blowing people up. I understand why they felt it was necessary, but the more I think about it the worse I feel about it.

Micah brought about his own death. It was the only ending he provided. I get why they chose to use a remote controlled device to do so. I just can't accept cops blowing people up.

 

[maniac-kun]

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.

If you kill and wound cops or any other people and show no sign of surrendering you lost that right. If they stop you with a bullet or explosion dosnt matter.

 

[rjc571]

Instead of a bomb, they couldn't have rigged it with knockout gas or something? Might've been nice to bring the guy in alive and continued pumping him for information instead of forever having to wonder whether he was acting alone or if there was another shooter who got away.

 

[Oersted]

It does look like USA needs now laws how to deal with dronestrikes within the country.

 

[Weckum]

If you kill and wound cops or any other people and show no sign of surrendering you lost that right. If they stop you with a bullet or explosion dosnt matter.

Actually, no you don't. You still have the right to a fair trial. That people get shot in firefights, I get, but in the end everyone should have the right to a fair trial.

 

[Kin5290]

Instead of a bomb, they couldn't have rigged it with knockout gas or something? Might've been nice to bring the guy in alive and continued pumping him for information instead of forever having to wonder whether he was acting alone or if there was another shooter who got away.

There's no such thing as a "knockout gas" that is safe. Just like any kind of anesthetic, you need to calibrate the dosage perfectly according to the recipient's body weight or fatal effects can easily occur, and that's assuming that delivery of the gas is perfect (after all, the suspect was a large garage with a large volume of air).

And, of course, it's hard to determine how much a man weighs when he is hiding behind cover with a high velocity rifle and waiting to shoot anyone who sticks his or her head around the corner.

To give an example, the Russian security services pumped the building full of an unknown knockout gas during the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002, which resulted in the deaths of 130 civilians inside the theater, 129 of them from inhaling the gas.

 

[Kurdel]

Imagine the hearing the robot approaching, thinking maybe it has a phone to negotiate surrender.

Nope, it's a fucking bomb.

 

[Opto]

I think the real reason I don't like this is that the early half of this week (and like, all of american history) showed I can barely trust cops with guns. Giving them bomb bots? ehhhhhhh

Instead of a bomb, they couldn't have rigged it with knockout gas or something? Might've been nice to bring the guy in alive and continued pumping him for information instead of forever having to wonder whether he was acting alone or if there was another shooter who got away.

knownout gas isn't a thing. tear gas or smoke grenades would reduce visibility, making the situation more dangerous, and the tear gas would probably agitate him into a death run.

 

[Weckum]

There's no such thing as a "knockout gas" that is safe. Just like any kind of anesthetic, you need to calibrate the dosage perfectly according to the recipient's body weight or fatal effects can easily occur, and that's assuming that delivery of the gas is perfect (after all, the suspect was a large garage with a large volume of air).

And, of course, it's hard to determine how much a man weighs when he is hiding behind cover with a high velocity rifle and waiting to shoot anyone who sticks his or her head around the corner.

To give an example, the Russian security services pumped the building full of an unknown knockout gas during the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002, which resulted in the deaths of 130 civilians inside the theater, 129 of them from inhaling the gas.

What about a flashbang?

 

[Geist-]

It's not unheard of. Back in the 1980s, the police in Philadelphia dropped a bomb out of a helicopter onto a house occupied by an armed protest group

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...till-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-move-bombing

http://mashable.com/2016/01/10/1985-move-bombing/#B8AINPAUZkqN

Killed 11 people inside, including 5 children.

Came in here to post this. The precedent has been set guys, the delivery system isn't a big deal.

 

[reckless]

What about a flashbang?

To do what? Run up and shoot him?

The guy can still shoot even after a flash bang and they weren't sure if he had a bomb or not.

 

[Somnid]

If you kill and wound cops or any other people and show no sign of surrendering you lost that right. If they stop you with a bullet or explosion dosnt matter.

This kind of rights slippage is exactly why all these people are getting killed by police. Anyone who looks a certain way might be a potential cop killer.

 

[luchadork]

i'm completely ignorant but couldnt there be some sort of non-lethal taze option? i'm pretty sure if you can build an exploding robot, you can build a tazing robot. either way, completely horrific situation for everyone involved. i cant imagine living in a country with shit like this going on. very sad.

 

[pigeon]

I think the real reason I don't like this is that the early half of this week (and like, all of american history) showed I can barely trust cops with guns. Giving them bomb bots? ehhhhhhh

knownout gas isn't a thing. tear gas or smoke grenades would reduce visibility, making the situation more dangerous, and the tear gas would probably agitate him into a death run.

This is an understandable argument, but I'm kind of like, you can really only be dead once. The cop can't kill you illegally any worse with a drone than he already can with his sidearm or with, like, his beating stick. So I'm not sure the force escalation changes that equation.

I think I generally agree with the argument that it wasn't necessarily the SWAT team's job to define rules of engagement out of the blue for a brand new tactic and we should at least have clear guidelines, written before the fact, if we're going to have things like this done. It's not the Wild West.

 

[Clefargle]

Only if you don't count drones

 

[Kin5290]

What about a flashbang?

The guy is hiding behind cover and can hear you throw a grenade? Plus, I haven't seen if any information on the final encounter has been released, but a flashbang's effects are only temporary and we don't know what the geometry of the standoff was.

Also, the guy threatened that he had explosives, so for the cops it wouldn't be totally beyond the realm of possibility for him to have a bomb that would be triggered when the SWAT team came close enough. That was probably taken into consideration during planning.

i'm completely ignorant but couldnt there be some sort of non-lethal taze option? i'm pretty sure if you can build an exploding robot, you can build a tazing robot. either way, completely horrific situation for everyone involved. i cant imagine living in a country with shit like this going on. very sad.

1) Tasers are useless against reasonably heavy jackets, never mind body armor.
2) I highly doubt that the EOD bot was equipped with the software to manipulate, aim, and fire a gun-like thing like a Taser. If it was, then they would probably have just mounted a gun onto it.
.

 

[Alx]

From the way the situation is described, it doesn't seem like that course of action was necessary. Directly killing a "suspect" is necessary when he is an imminent threat to someone, not when he is cornered in a parking. Five hours is a long time, but there are known occasions of far longer sieges, time plays in favour of the police in that situation.
Also I don't really like police force using explosives as an assault weapon. What next, offensive grenades ?

 

[Opto]

This is an understandable argument, but I'm kind of like, you can really only be dead once. The cop can't kill you illegally any worse with a drone than he already can with his sidearm or with, like, his beating stick. So I'm not sure the force escalation changes that equation.

I think I generally agree with the argument that it wasn't necessarily the SWAT team's job to define rules of engagement out of the blue for a brand new tactic and we should at least have clear guidelines, written before the fact, if we're going to have things like this done. It's not the Wild West.

I'd have a better chance of surviving police brutality with a nightstick over a gun, and a gun over a bomb.

 

[Kurdel]

The guy is hiding behind cover and can hear you throw a grenade? Plus, I haven't seen if any information on the final encounter has been released, but a flashbang's effects are only temporary and we don't know what the geometry of the standoff was.

Also, the guy threatened that he had explosives, so for the cops it wouldn't be totally beyond the realm of possibility for him to have a bomb that would be triggered when the SWAT team came close enough. That was probably taken into consideration during planning.

The logical conclusion being " Sometimes the police has to bomb you" is ridiculous and a severe lack of imagination.

What next, offensive grenades ?

A lot of posters here would find no issue with that.

 

[brian577]

The logical conclusion being " Sometimes the police has to bomb you" is ridiculous and a severe lack of imagination.

Enlighten us. What would you do?

 

[Kin5290]

Enlighten us. What would you do?

Saturday morning SWAT commanding is truly something.

 

[zoukka]

Enlighten us. What would you do?

What has police done before? It was my understanding that this was the first time they bombed with a robot, but surely similar sieges have happened hundreds of times.

 

[GhostWriter24]

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.

If you kill and wound cops or any other people and show no sign of surrendering you lost that right. If they stop you with a bullet or explosion dosnt matter.

Like I said, monstrous. But our sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..."

This man was an extreme case, but it obviously sets a precedent on a very wide, public level.

 

[Kurdel]

Enlighten us. What would you do?

Anything but using a fucking robot to deliver explosives.

 

[brian577]

What has police done before? It was my understanding that this was the first time they bombed with a robot, but surely similar sieges have happened hundreds of times.

Do we have another example of a individual threatening to remotely detonate explosive in a major city?

 

[Kin5290]

Anything but using a fucking robot to deliver explosives.

This is not an answer.

Seriously, I'd love to hear your alternative.

 

[Kurdel]

Do we have another example of a individual threatening to remotely detonate explosive in a major city?

We do have extensive proof of police freaking out under pressure and making dumb decisions, that's for sure.

 

[Sayter]

This could be next for law enforcement.

 

[brian577]

We do have extensive proof of police freaking out under pressure and making dumb decisions, that's for sure.

Not an answer. It was a bluff, but would you be prepared to take that chance?

 

[zoukka]

Do we have another example of a individual threatening to remotely detonate explosive in a major city?

I have to imagine people in these situations come up with all kinds of threats to stay alive/prolong the situation.

Like I'n not blaming the cops, this way they minimalized risk. But like many, I am curious whether incidents like this could loosen up the "code" of how police wage war against crime. Urban areas and bombs are a crazy combination.

 

[Kurdel]

Not an answer. It was a bluff, but would you be prepared to take that chance?

This is not an answer.

Seriously, I'd love to hear your alternative.

Contain the situation. Open a dialog. A quick execution doesn't remove the threat of bombs in the city. Wait for smart people to arrive at the scene.

 

[Kin5290]

Contain the situation. Open a dialog. A quick execution doesn't remove the threat of bombs in the city. Wait for smart people to arrive at the scene.

All of that had already happened, and still the suspect remained hostile and violent. So what's your next step?

 

[brian577]

I have to imagine people in these situations come up with all kinds of threats to stay alive/prolong the situation.

Like I'n not blaming the cops, this way they minimalized risk. But like many, I am curious whether incidents like this could loosen up the "code" of how police wage war against crime. Urban areas and bombs are a crazy combination.

There definitely needs to be a protocol in place. But in the heat of the moment, and not a lot of options, I don't begrudge them for going "off the books" to end the crisis.

 

[pigeon]

Like I said, monstrous. But our sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..."

This man was an extreme case, but it obviously sets a precedent on a very wide, public level.

But again, you've chosen the level on which it doesn't.

If you go round up a bunch of hostages in a public building you'll soon notice a few men settling in on nearby roofs. Those guys aren't there just to birdwatch, they're there to kill you with high-powered rifles.

This is already part of our society. It's super normalized that people who present an ongoing serious danger and aren't willing to come along and face justice quietly get killed without further process.

This might be wrong -- that's certainly an argument to be made. But this robot didn't raise the issue. SWAT snipers have been around for a very long time.

 

[Kurdel]

All of that had already happened, and still the suspect remained hostile and violent. So what's your next step?

Has 4 hours already passed? Better strap the bomb the robot then because we can't have the feds handling this.

 

[Weckum]

The guy is hiding behind cover and can hear you throw a grenade? Plus, I haven't seen if any information on the final encounter has been released, but a flashbang's effects are only temporary and we don't know what the geometry of the standoff was.

Also, the guy threatened that he had explosives, so for the cops it wouldn't be totally beyond the realm of possibility for him to have a bomb that would be triggered when the SWAT team came close enough. That was probably taken into consideration during planning.


1) Tasers are useless against reasonably heavy jackets, never mind body armor.
2) I highly doubt that the EOD bot was equipped with the software to manipulate, aim, and fire a gun-like thing like a Taser. If it was, then they would probably have just mounted a gun onto it.
.

I'm not saying the course of action taken wasn't justified, but just that using these kind of tactics is tricky and a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Maybe a dog would've worked out just as well.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not saying the course of action taken wasn't justified, but just that using these kind of tactics is tricky and a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Maybe a dog would've worked out just as well.

You can't strap bombs to a dog. They won't even let you kill dogs fictionally in movies, you think the police could get away with tying a bomb to one?

People place a high value on the lives of dogs in our society. Often more than the lives of people!

 

[Battlezone]

Like I said, monstrous. But our sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..."

This man was an extreme case, but it obviously sets a precedent on a very wide, public level.

Agreed. This sets a dangerous precedent to an already over militarized police force. Nobody should be happy with this-we are supposed to be better than this.

Listen, police managed to capture Dylann Roof alive and take him to fucking Burger King, so no, I don't buy that the police had no other option here.

Christ, we can barely trust police to control themselves with guns, and now you want to give them BOMBS?!

I am utterly baffled by the responses here.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I wonder why:

- knockout gas
- tear gas
- glue bomb or immobilizing agent
- anything that disables him

Couldn't have been used? I mean I'm assuming the robot got close enough to detonate, so it's armored enough to survive to get near him.

But whatever.

 

[Weckum]

You can't strap bombs to a dog. They won't even let you kill dogs fictionally in movies, you think the police could get away with tying a bomb to one?

People place a high value on the lives of dogs in our society. Often more than the lives of people!

Wait, I'm not saying strap a bomb to a dog and blow them up, lol.

I'm saying using a dog to take down the perp. Dogs are fast, hard to hit etc.

 

[Kin5290]

I'm not saying the course of action taken wasn't justified, but just that using these kind of tactics is tricky and a slippery slope if we're not careful.

Maybe a dog would've worked out just as well.

Good god, can you imagine the headlines? "Dallas PD sends K-9 dog into fatal frontal assault on gunman". We'd definitely have a thread for that.

Has 4 hours already passed? Better strap the bomb the robot then because we can't have the feds handling this.

Throwing shade at what the police did do isn't an answer either. Never mind that it's unclear what the feds could actually do. It's not like federal agents would be any better at doing SWAT jobs due to being federal agents. They're investigators, not SWAT.