Dallas shooting!

Anyway, have the last say. I've spent too much time on this one.

I have no love for the guy, and will weep no tears over him. But I find the C4 thing to be unwise at best, even if it was expedient.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...and states the 4th amendment is the prevailing measuring stick.

What about the 8th?

Is C4 on the use of force continuum? Is there a policy that allows it?

Does the ATF permit the use of explosives for "rendering harmless" in that use permit DPD has?

Otherwise, you can use Graham to justify a mini-gun strike from a police helo during misdemeanors. There is obviously a bright line somewhere - otherwise why not just send the robot in with a Molotov and burn the guy to death? Or a WP grenade? Or a chainsaw?

If it's "GvC gives us a free hand to do whatever we want to any extent we want no matter what we choose to do in all circumstances- you commit a crime and we can toss a child through a wood chipper for jaywalking" then I propose that amazing lack of boundary either isn't real and is being glossed over ATM, or it needs immediate resolution.

And "well, we wouldn't do that" just met its white crow. They just did.

Deadly force is deadly force is deadly force. The method of delivery of said force is, legally speaking, essentially irrelevant. If deadly force is justified, then it's justified. No court has ever said "if deadly force is authorized, you may shoot the suspect but not hit him with a car."

What about the 8th? I cited the relevant case law.

a reply to: Bedlam

And yet even as a soldier, you were permitted to use your rifle, sidearm, a knife, close air support of both rotary and fixed wing varieties, mortars, artillery, armor, explosives.

At no point during multiple tours did I ever have an ROE that said "if you're in a gunfight, you can shoot them but you can't stab them."

a reply to: Bedlam

And your jaywalking example seems to throw the "reasonable force" issue right out the window in an effort to make your point.

Deadly force is not a reasonable response to jaywalking. Deadly force is a reasonable response to deadly force.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bedlam

And yet even as a soldier, you were permitted to use your rifle, sidearm, a knife, close air support of both rotary and fixed wing varieties, mortars, artillery, armor, explosives.

At no point during multiple tours did I ever have an ROE that said "if you're in a gunfight, you can shoot them but you can't stab them."

However, you're not allowed to chuck them down stairwells or off buildings. Nor can you tie them up and immolate them, lately you can't use WP grenades duct taped to claymores either. You aren't SUPPOSED to use 50 cals to shoot people. Flamethrowers are out for the moment, too, I think. Dust charges from a shotgun at PBR, are, I think, off the list.

There's a list of approved ways to do people, most knives and guns are ok, as are explosives. But not everything is lawful.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Deadly force is not a reasonable response to jaywalking. Deadly force is a reasonable response to deadly force.

And is C4 a reasonable response to someone trapped in a building who can't shoot you from there? You say yes, I say no. As a soldier, it would have been okeydokey. But I don't know if it's a LEOs prerogative.

I do know I'm going to FOIA DPD's certified statement of intended use for their plastic. If they didn't weasel word it properly, it's a Federal offense. I won't be able to prosecute it. But I'll sure make it public.

And again, I think the guy was a lost cause, and was going to die one way or the other, and I won't shed one tear. He's an embarrassment to me as a NG guy gone bad.

I just don't like the idea of LEOs 'getting creative' when they decide who dies. Shooting back to defend is one thing. Herding the guy into a trap, and then executing him is where it starts looking hinky.

Ok, I'm done. And I don't have a beef with any of you guys. I just think the action the DPD chose stinks.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Thus, the court.
Of course, after the fact it doesn't help the person in question much.

Even as a soldier I couldn't kill people in 'inappropriate ways'. At least not and get caught at it. Which we won't discuss.

If LOAC, ROE and the GC set limits on how you can kill people, I'm a bit queasy with the idea of 'LEOs can 'get creative' with how to kill uncooperative civilians'. Why not some poison gas, for instance? Let's send a message to the evildoers of the world by running the bot in there with a bit of Sarin, or maybe a major vesicant and we can tape the skin sloughing off his face and his eyeballs deflating whilst he kicks around and coughs his lungs out.

Could scare the hell him, everyone start putting on hazmat suits with air tanks....bring in some flashing red lights and those alarm horns.
"last chance mutha.....give it up!"

Or cut a hole around him from the floor below, like the cartoons.

nypost.com...

a reply to: Bedlam

You can't claim he wasn't in a position to fire on the police. That hasn't been mentioned anywhere.

a reply to: Bedlam

Again, deadly force is deadly force.

So no, he couldn't shoot people three blocks away from wherever he was holed up. Which is not the same as saying as he was no longer a threat to those in his immediate area.

If things had gone down the way you say they did, it would stink. Unfortunately you and a few others seem to continually ignore or toss out the actions of the shooter as if they played no part in things. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, but that's a pretty flawed starting point.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bedlam

Again, deadly force is deadly force.

So no, he couldn't shoot people three blocks away from wherever he was holed up. Which is not the same as saying as he was no longer a threat to those in his immediate area.

If things had gone down the way you say they did, it would stink. Unfortunately you and a few others seem to continually ignore or toss out the actions of the shooter as if they played no part in things. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, but that's a pretty flawed starting point.

There were students hiding in that college so, yes, he was actually still a threat.

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Bedlam

But the shooting WASN'T over. He refused to negotiate, said he wanted to kill more people and then more gunfire was exchanged. So they felt it necessary to take him out.

This was all stated in the press conference by Chief Brown.

So they only account of the last words of the dead man is that of the person/people who killed him.....It's right what they say, the winners get to right the history..We'll never know what went on, what was said or what wasn't. That would only lead to more questions. The same way that Oswald being alive would have lead to more questions. Only one man really knows the whats and the whys and the who's of that day, and he's dead.

I think this bears repeating. Every time there is an eye witness account of a police action that results in a civilian death, we hear the cops screeching...."But you've heard only one side of the story." Well, in this case, the DPD made sure only one side would be told and yet we are supposed to take that one side as the gospel. This despite the fact that no evidence has been produced to back up what has become the official narrative. Until the voice recordings of him threatening to kill others and exchanging shots with the police are produced, the story remains totally one-sided. The question of why none of the people trapped in the area, including reporters, ever heard any gunshots during the time he was holed up in the building, remains unanswered because one side of the story was forever silenced.
Now it isn't just the president who can blow up citizens on a whim, your local PD has also been granted that power.

a reply to: Bedlam

I'd really love for you to show me the law that states you can't use any method available for protecting yourself from grievous bodily harm or death...

Of course you can't tie someone up and immolate them, because that wouldn't be justifiable homicide, but if they are shooting at you, you can set them on fire if that is a method available and necessary to protect yourself or others from grievous bodily harm or death.

Jaden

a reply to: diggindirt

No the suspect made sure of that when he went on a killing spree and then refused to surrender peacefully.

a reply to: Masterjaden

He can't because there is not one. The only restrictions I am familiar with, and other LEO's can confirm this, are in place by the individual departments. As an example all of the department's i'm familiar with prohibits officers from using a handgun that the department does not have a certified armorer for. They also prohibit the use of off duty / personal sidearms unless the officer qualifies with that weapon in the same manner as a department issued weapon. Using a non issued / non qualified weapon is a breach of policy and as such the department / city / county can disassociate themselves from the officer should civil issues arise from its use.

Restrictions are in place in terms of how weapons are set up - IE no laser sights are allowed on duty weapons. Trigger pulls have a set standard and cannot be less than whats established (trigger pull for those who are unfamiliar is the number of pounds that must be applied to the trigger to discharge the weapon).

Restrictions on weapon types and authorized use are also present. Certain rifles / fully automatic weapons are restricted to specialized units, like SWAT / ERT.

Restrictions are in place with regards to how weapons / items can be used. As an example a couple departments do not allow their officers to use a flashlight for anything other than a flashlight.

There is no law (some exceptions) / Supreme court rulings that restrict weapons. The exceptions are federal laws / state laws that ban the used of chemicals / biological / nuclear weapons / material.

Above all law enforcement does not shoot to kill - They shoot to stop the threat and that standard must be done in a manner that can be supported by facts / officer employing the method.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

No the suspect made sure of that when he went on a killing spree and then refused to surrender peacefully.

Wow, didn't realize you were there. Thanks for the info.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

No the suspect made sure of that when he went on a killing spree and then refused to surrender peacefully.

Wow, didn't realize you were there. Thanks for the info.

You're welcome...

a reply to: diggindirt

The local PD has had that power ever since they got an EOD tech and a robot. It's never happened until now. No real need to stoke the fear that this is some newfangled technology that just deployed.

The shooter had several chances to surrender. Hell, there's video of him running up on an officer and killing him instead of dropping his rifle and surrendering.

I've never understood the folks that demand to see video and hear audio of every last little thing. As if somehow getting that clears anything up. Every. Single. Time video is released, those same people find fault with the video and manufacture a whole new slew of questions.

Hell, y'all can't even agree on what color pants the jackass is wearing.

a reply to: Shamrock6
I understand your need to defend your brothers in blue. I understand that you want to believe that they always tell the truth. But I'm really weary of being told to listen to both sides of the story when a video or audio recording comes out that puts them in a bad light. The truth is that we have only one side of this story and the information given by the officials in this case has changed in pretty drastic ways since that midnight press conference. I also understand that the cops were highly emotional at the time, having just seen several of their colleagues shot down like dogs in the street. But I'm also pretty tired of being castigated for listening to only one side of the story---then turning around and having only side of the story thrust at me after the other side has been permanently silenced.
I also think that they did themselves and law enforcement in general no favors by committing this act and creating yet more controversy. Now they expect the public to accept hearsay evidence like "he said" and be okay with that because it is a police officer speaking. What they've done, in the heat of their emotions, is add fuel to the fires raging against them.

a reply to: diggindirt

And I understand that you just joined the crowd of folks with faulty memory, who in an effort to throw anything I say out the window because it's inconvenient for them they conveniently forget those instances when I'm quite vocal in my opposition to something that law enforcement has done somewhere.

Lemme know when you're not using that as the basis of the attempt to counter what I've said, and we can try again.