Chuck, I agree with you. How they handled that situation didn't seem like the right way to handle it but at this point we don't know all the facts. Like you said, he could have said he had RF detonation abilities. But, during the press conference, the police commissioner said it was done to avoid injury to the officers in trying to get him out of there. But isn't that what SWAT teams do? Isn't that why we have them? Otherwise, the police could just go around blowing up buildings with the suspect.
The other problem is, you lose the ability to interrogate him later. Just because he says he is a lone wolf, doesn't make it so. Could others have been involved? Was someone guiding him? We'll never know because of how it played out. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the logic of that, but it appears they had him cornered. > And I realize he was supposedly saying things like he had deployed IEDs > and perhaps they thought he had RF detonation abilities etc. > > Where do you draw the line between the cops neutralizing a threat and the > cops giving all the full benefit of the law? > I guess confusion and disagreement as to where that line is - is what got > us here in the first place. > > *From:* Bill Prince <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 9, 2016 9:06 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Philosophical question - WRT Dallas > > > I don't know the whole story, nor does anyone else on this list. > > My impression was that the guy wasn't really talking, and he'd already > shot a dozen officers (at least 3 or 4 fatally). At that point, I feel that > any means necessary to prevent more damage. > > Call it the nuclear option if you will. > > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 7/9/2016 7:40 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > > Why blow up a perp? > Why not keep talking? > Better to have him caged for the rest of his life IMHO. > > >
