Setting a precedent. Police use bomb robot to kill suspect.

Dallas police used bomb robot to kill shooting suspect.

Police in Dallas used a bomb disposal robot to kill a suspect after last night’s deadly shooting during a protest.

In a press conference, Dallas police chief David Brown said that the robot was deployed after negotiations with the suspect failed. "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was," said Brown. "Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger.

The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb.

Police have used remote-controlled bomb disposal robots for other purposes; San Jose police talked a man out of suicide last year after delivering a phone and pizza to him via one.

But this is the first known case where a department has described using one as a weapon, defense technology expert Peter Singer posted on Twitter, although he notes it's been used this way informally by US troops and insurgents.

Still, beyond the unmanned drones used in bombing strikes, it’s one of the first known times that a robot has been intentionally used to kill a human outside the battlefield."

I'm not sure what to make of this but as with other war time weapons, theyve made their way back to the US.

The suspect shoots at police, the police shoot back but then theres a pause.

At which point do they decide its ok to simply kill the person, especially if the shooting has subsided?

What is their legal and moral responsibility in this situation?

Does this set a precedent for the future?

And what about situations that are less clear cut?

There was an incident back in 1985 when the Philadelphia police bombed MOVE members:

a reply to: gladtobehere

Next it'll be robot-warriors unleashed on the general populace

a reply to: gladtobehere
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Does this set a precedent for the future?

Next it'll be robot-warriors unleashed on the general populace

Unbelievable... you guys plan on murdering cops, holding up in a parking garage, and making bomb threats anytime soon?

No?

Well then I would worry about robots coming to your door.

When weapons of war are used against the populace ...

What's next? A drone strike?

originally posted by: MarkOfTheV
a reply to: gladtobehere
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Does this set a precedent for the future?

Next it'll be robot-warriors unleashed on the general populace

Unbelievable... you guys plan on murdering cops, holding up in a parking garage, and making bomb threats anytime soon?

No?

Well then I would worry about robots coming to your door.

Drones are already used world-wide to kill people (some innocent may I add), there was no reasons needed there, well apart from the ones made up to justify it

they should have use knockout gas to capture him alive and find out information about others who are planning the same thing. Very stupid move in my opinion.

I thought it was reported last night he died from a self inflicted gunshot wound? Or is this the other one?

originally posted by: carewemust
they should have use knockout gas to capture him alive and find out information about others who are planning the same thing. Very stupid move in my opinion.

Unless that move points to "an escalation in hostilities" ...

Did they know FOR CERTAIN that there were no civilians in the blast radius?

Worse, did they care?

techcrunch.com...

The Dallas police force used a bomb defusing robot equipped with an explosive device to kill a shooting suspect, police chief David Brown revealed today at a press conference. An explosive was affixed to the extension arm on the robot, Brown said at the press conference, in order to neutralize the suspect, later identified as Micah Xavier Johnson, 25. The incident involved the shooting of 12 officers, five of whom were killed, during a protest in Dallas organized in response to the recent police shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. It does appear to be the first known example of a police department using an explosive in an offensive capacity to actually kill a suspect, but bomb defusing robots have been weaponized in the past by police forces, in one instance resulting in a mobile home burning down. Police have previously used bomb-squad robots to deploy non-lethal means of neutralizing suspects, as in the 2014 cause of Stephen Fought, a suspect suffering from schizophrenia who had secured himself inside of a motel room and was refusing to come out. The Albuquerque police’s bomb squad in that instance was used to deploy “chemical munitions” according to an official police department report at the time. In the case mentioned above that resulted in the mobile home fire, police in Tennessee used a teargas grenade “dropped in the living room by a bot squad robot,” which was designed for outdoor use and which accidentally resulted in a fire that engulfed the entire trailer. The suspect was not at home, police later determined, so no injuries resulted from the incident.

so i guess they have done this before just not used a bomb to do it,still not the best of precidents to go around willy nilly using bombs to take out suspects

a reply to: Gryphon66

Technically speaking.. this WAS a drone strike.

And it's set a very ugly precedent.. regardless of the excuses/risk.. due process is dead.

originally posted by: carewemust
they should have use knockout gas to capture him alive and find out information about others who are planning the same thing. Very stupid move in my opinion.

Well it's not that simple. I would think the main reason not to do that would be that he might just 'come out shooting' like Butch and Sundance.

Maybe some future drone(s) could have tazed him and baled him up like a package, but that's a little down the road still.

And I guess the military uses flash bang grenades for situations like that?

a reply to: 11andrew34

guy was in body Armour that could effect a tazers usefulness same goes for the ones armed with less then lethal munitions ,and the standard bomb squad shotgun armed drone probably couldn't get through his armour either. i wonder if this could or will be challenged in court

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Personally, I'm not sold on Judge Dredd-ing the US, not just yet anyway.

I realize that what I'm discussing is not an easy concept to consider (especially when emotions are running so high) but it is a very important one.

A suspect is exactly that, a suspect, even if he's suspected of committing a crime as heinous as this one.

There is something (at-least for now) called due process.

I'm not going to agree that its ok for a cop to "legally" kill someone if they allegedly shoot at cop or kill a cop. So long as (and especially if) there are other options available.

I'll find it absolutely bizarre if this goes unquestioned and isnt at-least debated.


a reply to: carewemust

Yah I would imagine that there are other options available.

If not, there needs to be.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Of course it set precedent.

Now it is acceptable practice and is considered to be on the table and fair to use.

Soon enough they'll just send a drone to get your license on a traffic stop, or just shut your vehicle off remotely, maybe even have you get a sticker on your car with a reader on the police vehicle, or just on a pole along the road, and the ticket prints out from a dispenser in your dash, or the funds come directly out of your bank account associated with your license.

Hell, maybe have the vehicle mounted with transponder to sense speed and "auto-cite" you, you know, like those self check out lanes at the market?.

Charge more and eliminate labor completely....

Prophetic it seems to be....

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Personally, I'm not sold on Judge Dredd-ing the US, not just yet anyway.

A suspect is exactly that, a suspect.

There is something (at-least for now) called due process.

I'm not going to agree that its ok for a cop to "legally" kill someone if they allegedly shoot at cop or kill a cop.

I think it's safe to say that this guy was far past the point of being just a "suspect".

This would not be the first time the police thought about using an explosive device to stop a suspect. One incident comes to mind, the Killdozer. If I remember, they actually considered sending army attack helicopters to take it out just prior to it getting stuck.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I really don't like the idea of the police bombing citizens.

I don't know much about the legality of it all. I know that the federal government has been donating old military equipment to police forces, and there has been a quite push to militarize our police forces. But a bomb? Seems like this would be classified as a domestic military operation that should have been done by the National Guard, not State Troupers, which is who I assume made that call and did the bombing dirty work.

IDK, I'm pretty sure US law forbids military aggression against citizens in domestic situations unless Martial Law had been declared.

Feel free to educate me where I'm mistaken.

ETA: That bomb, in the picture, looks pretty big? Wouldn't a grenade have done the job?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Most likely.

Coming soon to neighborhoods all over the land.

Traitorous busturd oligarchy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
When weapons of war are used against the populace ...

What's next? A drone strike?

Agreed.
A dangerous precedent has been set.

Reminds me of an old skit. Different rules for cops and criminals. You want the cops to act in a restrained way WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY SHOOTING AT THEM. This wasn't a routine traffic stop.

So the old battles were won by a coin toss. The winner of the coin toss got to set the rules of engagement. During the Revolutionary War the Colonists won the coin toss, so here were their rules:

The Colonists could wear anything they wanted to, shoot from behind trees and rocks, then run away. The British, on the other hand, were required to wear red and march in a straight line.