I read somewhere that a police dept used a robot to deploy an incapacitating gas, that sounds like a potentially good solution, at least try that before the bomb, especially if the robot has a camera. Surprised the guy didn’t shoot the robot.
The news is starting to resemble a Judge Dredd movie. Not sure I want real life to be like a movie. From: Mathew Howard Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 10:26 AM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Philosophical question - WRT Dallas Yeah, that's a good point... if he did have a bomb strapped to himself, blowing him up was probably the best thing to do. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: My initial thoughts were that the police should probably not be blowing people up with bombs. Then, I thought about it some more and I think it may have been a genius move. Their negotiator had been talking with him. It sounded to me like he was heavily armed, there was no way that they were going to take him alive, and he was claiming to be strapped with bombs. He made it clear that he intended to continue killing white cops. If he really did have a bomb strapped to him there is no way to take him alive. They had to make a decision between losing more lives attempting to do so, or blowing the guy up with a robot bomb. Clearly, he was going to kill more cops. Robot bomb is highly unconventional, but it definitely put a stop to the killings. We are living in a time where people regularly strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. I'm not sure how you deal with that. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:16 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: 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 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.
