10 ms·

Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor

65 points by uptown 10y ago

simonsarris 10y ago
If this catches on I am sure we'll see a shift in language from calling them "bomb disposal robots" to "threat disposal robots", or "danger mitigation robots", or something similar. The chilling bit is that this was a death sentence for a suspect of non-imminent threat, which opens a pretty big can of worms. (What if it was the wrong guy? What if there was a hostage near him? etc)
- merpnderp 10y ago
  It's not clear at all that he posed a non-imminent threat. He had a weapon, had just been using it to kill people, and at any moment could have started trying to kill people again. The cops shouldn't have to risk their lives in this situation.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The language in the police department's announcement that I heard on the radio was really curious. I can't find a transcript so I'm going by memory, but it was something like, "The suspect was deceased by a robot carrying a bomb." It was really passive and euphemistic language. I thought it was weird that they couldn't just say straght-up "our officers killed him." I'd have no problem with that statement if the killing was justified, but they seemed to want to soften it as much as possible.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  What if his taillight was broken? (Seriously, is the original shooting now escalating into a civil war in a matter of days? Looks like that.)
- markyc 10y ago
  exactly.. if this catches on, how long until police blow up innocent people? (they're already shooting them at an alarming rate)
jbapple 10y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
Houshalter 10y ago
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
- PietdeVries 10y ago
  Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The point is, were those their only two choices? It sure sounded like the situation was in hand and they could have just waited.
  - daedalus_j 10y ago
    Tear gas, flashbangs, water cannons, a nice safe armored vehicle... All appropriate (ish) police tools. IEDs: rather less so.
    - was_boring 10y ago
      Exactly. If they can have a robot with a bomb, then they can have a robot with tear gas + flashbang. This is the Dallas police department, they have equipment capable of dealing with this situation -- to include armored cars and ballistic shields. I hope the legal process is explored in this case.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      They had one of those super armored trucks (Bearcat) there on location. It even has a little turret on top designed for safely shooting out of. They can withstand multiple .50 rounds to the same location. What's the point of spending millions in purchasing and maintenance on these if you're not going to use them?
iqisracist 10y ago
That is really cool!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eximius 10y ago
Wow. This feels incredibly wrong. I know it is just an extension of the militarization of American police, but should they be allowed to issue a death sentence like that? I argue no. Expend the time and resources to non-lethally incarcerate him.
- jrs235 10y ago
  >This feels incredibly wrong. I concur. There seems to be a lack of thinking and willingness to wait things out or backoff. Rather than backoff or retreat the police seem too trigger happy. The Baton Rouge shooting the police didn't want to wait for the suspect so they got aggressive and tried tackling him leading to a scuffle. The MN shooting, if the officer felt threatened he could have slowly backed up to his vehicle until backup arrives and only shoot if/when the suspect actually makes a truly life threatening move. (I know, easier said than done. But we need to de-escalate and disarm regular beat cops [slim chance of that happening now I suppose].)
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  Judge, jury and executioner. All in a highly charged and emotional moment. I guess this also destroys evidence?
- Forge36 10y ago
  I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man. Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was however not immediately threatening anyone was refusing to cooperate. I think a question we should continue asking is at what point does Lethal force become acceptable?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't think that question really needs to be asked. We already have a perfectly good answer: lethal force is acceptable when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives. The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer.
mccoyspace 10y ago
While aerial lethal robotic forces have been used for years, this is the first time I've heard of ground-based lethal robots. It's amazing that it's happened first not by the military in a war situation, but by domestic police forces against it's citizenry.
- jonknee 10y ago
  It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.
  - macintux 10y ago
    I genuinely wonder how the secret service is going to protect against armed drones.
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      Counter-drones that are also armed, with nets. Or net-launched bazookas. Or directed radio-jamming devices.
      - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
        Bullets/flak work better than nets.
        angersock 10y ago
        Maybe? Then again, if you're using it indoors or in a stadium or whatever, you don't want to injure other people if your AA misses the drone. Nets are more reasonable and safer for bystanders. Oh, and lighter.
    - wapapaloobop 10y ago
      With anti-drone drones.
    - 10y ago
tzs 10y ago
According to the story at the NY Times, during negotiations the suspect had said he wanted to kill white people, particularly police, that the end was near, and that he had bombs throughout the garage and surrounding area.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That last part is particularly weird to me: if they thought he could be telling the truth, wouldn't they want to keep him alive in case they could get him to talk about those bombs?
  - tzs 10y ago
    He would likely be someone who could tell them a lot of useful information about the bombs, such as where they are and how they are triggered. That would be very useful to help figure out what areas to evacuate and how to disarm the bombs. On the other hand, depending on where they are and how they are triggered, it could be that he is able to trigger them himself and is just waiting to try to get as many police surrounding him as possible before he suicides and takes them with him. So whether it is best from a safety standpoint to just keep him surrounded and wait it out hoping he surrenders, or it is better to take him out (and do so in a way that would not give him time to do something like trigger a bomb) really would depend on what can be figured out about those bombs and his state of mind when they are talking to him. Until there is an investigation, and publication of transcripts or recordings of the conversations between him and the negotiators, I don't think those not involved have enough information to figure out the situation. I'm particularly curious about how much planning was behind the attack on the police and who the attackers were. In particular, was it (1) a spur of the moment thing, or (2) something that was planned, but the planning only started a couple days ago, or (3) something planned long ago and they were just waiting for a good opportunity to act, which the protests yesterday provided?
noonespecial 10y ago
If it seems oddly excessive, this might be the point. Cops are always "enthusiastic" in their response to cop-killers. I think they intentionally sought out a way to end the standoff with a little extra extravagance. An IRL sharks with frikin lasers moment. The entire thing, from the shooting of the unarmed man by police to this end seems to be one long chain of ridiculous over-reactions. I sense a theme.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Remember that rogue cop a few years back that killed a few other cops and tried to flee the country? In their efforts to find them, eight cops open fired on a truck with two women inside. Over 100 rounds fired, and the women thankfully survived despite multiple gunshot wounds. And of course millions of dollars were awarded to those women and none of the officers were fired as a result. And remember how that situation ended? The cop killer holed up in a cabin in the woods by himself surrounded by hundreds of cops. They decided to burn the place down with the cop killer in it. Only a few cops are actively over-aggressive and hot headed, but that nearly every other cop stands by as they let the suspect burn alive (or over a hundred rounds fired at a truck without any probable cause) says all that needs to be said.
mc32 10y ago
The reports so far is that talks had broken down and the suspect threatened officers. At that point they could have waited longer, which could have lead to either more fruitful talks or a stalemate. At that point they could send in a SWAT or a robot to take the guy out. Both result in a dead suspect. One could result in injury or more to officers, if suspect had other weapons explosives and wasn't going to surrender. The other you send in the robot to take the suspect out. The only difference is that one you have people with triggers, the other you have a remote person with a button. The result is the same. When we begin using robotic fighters in wars, the same question will arise. And we'll make the same decision. We'll send the robots instead of human soldiers to minimize danger to our people, rather than give equal footing to the person or people not us. I must say, I didn't expect this to happen so soon, but on the other hand, it was a practical decision --with lots of open questions, as well as precedence.
danso 10y ago
I predict a lot of unwarranted attention will be devoted to the fact that a "robot" (i.e. The robots are killing us!) was used, even though it was remote controlled and functionally not much different than if officers had lobbed an explosive grenade at the suspect. To me, it's more interesting that lethal force was used in a non-hostage situation -- did the suspect threaten to detonate his own bombs (which would make this more like a hostage situation)? Though I suppose concern over the use of robots is warranted...in the same way that drones have allowed for the conduct of a proxy war...would police have gone for the lethal option if it required officers to be put in harm's way?
KON_Air 10y ago
I wonder how they made the robot blow people up, it doesn't seem like there are any factory made "Turn your expensive toy into sucidie bomber" kit. Jurry-rigging on the scene using moving parts to pull a pin of a grenade? Or did they use a last resort "let's blow it up when we clear the premises" kind of defusal kit? Or did they already had a custom kit with directional explosives? The robot in question, incase anyone cares about the robot; https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/dragon-runner/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/dragon-...
- mikeash 10y ago
  There's a brief mention in the article of non-lethal measures being used in previous cases. I wonder if maybe they tried to do the same here, but it went wrong. For example, maybe the explosive was only intended to incapacitate, but was accidentally too powerful, or the suspect was too close, or some other factor caused it to be lethal instead.
- xaqfox 10y ago
  It was probably one of the explosive charges that a bomb disposal officer would use to blow up backpacks or other suspect packages.
breck 10y ago
Like everyone else I don't have any details on this beyond what's been reported. But I for one think this -may- have been a great decision to end the standoff without risking the lives of any more officers. For those that are saying "there was no imminent threat", that is incorrect. One relevant data point, see the 2009 standoff in Oakland, where 2 SWAT officers died when they moved in on a cornered suspect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_poli...). This seems to me like a good application of technology in this extremely rare type of situation.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The SWAT team had to move in on that suspect because the police felt the suspect was a threat to the lives of other people in the building, so they couldn't wait him out. That doesn't seem to have been the case here, since the suspect was in a parking garage.
- poof131 10y ago
  I agree. While using a lethal robot is scary, it is really no different than giving a police sniper the okay for a shot. Except in this case there was no possibility of a sniper shot. This individual was likely well trained. He fires and maneuvers. He has a good stance and chooses targets. He is clearly an accurate shot. He is aggressive and circles his target. He is calm under fire. [1] His skill level is damn scary and likely superior to many of the police he was up against. Makes me think of the Special Ops guys I worked with in Iraq. If he escaped somehow from the garage, he could have killed could more. While this robot technique is a bit scary, if I was responsible for stopping him, I would probably have done the same thing. No way you can charge in to stop him. Not only is he well armed, he may have a bomb. You don’t rush entrenched people with assault rifles, it’s not Call of Duty. You use grenades, explosives, air-strikes, etc. Perhaps a non-lethal option could be developed. This would be ideal. But this robot bomb may have been improvised on the spot by the police to deal with this incident. Without a non-lethal robot to shoot a tranquilizer, release gas, or stun the suspect, I see no other way to stop him. [1] https://streamable.com/pgpb https://streamable.com/pgpb
known 10y ago
Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects; http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34529611 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34529611 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
cprayingmantis 10y ago
I watched the press conference, it was heavily implied that the man was threatening them with IEDs. Who's to say that they weren't sure if he had an explosive vest on? Listen I'm all for due process and bringing people in alive, but I am not for putting the lives of law enforcement in danger unless it's for the greater good.
ceejayoz 10y ago
Does the EOD tech running the robot get paid leave like a shooting investigation? Is it an officer-involved bombing? I'm guessing this situation needs a bunch of new procedures and definitions now.
haslhuny 10y ago
Finally finding like minds. I felt sick when heard how the two hour standoff in a parking garage with one person who police did not have a clear shot so neither did the suspect...wtf? The chief said they gave him 2 options, really? There are only two?
2sad2bbad 10y ago
The Dallas police keep emphasizing it is the first time they used a robot to kill someone in order to avoid talking about the elephant in the room. I accept that it may be the first time they used a robot as a delivery vehicle of the C4 (highly explosive bomb material). I do not appreciate, however, them not admitting to the previous bombing of the organization known as "Move", here in Philadelphia. They dropped the C4 bomb from the air. Dallas and Philly would make it two times, that I know about. I suspect that before they allow that area where they killed that black man in Dallas to be seen by the public , they will have all kinds of construction crews in to clean up the destruction for the cover-up. I suspect the news media and law enforcement agencies and the like are complaicent in the cover-up, possibly for peace sake. I don't feel peace can be accomplished with half truths, though. I do not know of C4 even being used on the terrorists in the United States! A robot, a helicopter...no matter how it was delivered, C4 was only used 2 times and it was used on black men, black women, and black children. Here in Philadelphia you could smell the houses burning for miles. I really do appreciate ethical police. I mourn the loss of all innocent parties. I hope everyone makes it home to their loved ones. However, I hope we can soon be done with this David Brown show. He is not special. I don't think anyone who could authorize a kill by the use of C4, outside of a war zone, no matter how it is delivered, is not special at all... or brave; (Nor was the shooter special or brave.) Speaking of "poor poor" David Brown, I will say this about any job that deals with the public, everybody is not suited for every job. If some police feel the job they signed up for puts too many demands on them within the community they serve for a mere 44,000 or so a year, perhaps that is not the fit for that person and they should quit as soon as possible. Many other people have left better jobs for less.

65 points by uptown 10y ago

If this catches on I am sure we'll see a shift in language from calling them "bomb disposal robots" to "threat disposal robots", or "danger mitigation robots", or something similar. The chilling bit is that this was a death sentence for a suspect of non-imminent threat, which opens a pretty big can of worms. (What if it was the wrong guy? What if there was a hostage near him? etc)

merpnderp 10y ago
It's not clear at all that he posed a non-imminent threat. He had a weapon, had just been using it to kill people, and at any moment could have started trying to kill people again. The cops shouldn't have to risk their lives in this situation.
mikeash 10y ago
The language in the police department's announcement that I heard on the radio was really curious. I can't find a transcript so I'm going by memory, but it was something like, "The suspect was deceased by a robot carrying a bomb." It was really passive and euphemistic language. I thought it was weird that they couldn't just say straght-up "our officers killed him." I'd have no problem with that statement if the killing was justified, but they seemed to want to soften it as much as possible.
Piskvorrr 10y ago
What if his taillight was broken? (Seriously, is the original shooting now escalating into a civil war in a matter of days? Looks like that.)
markyc 10y ago
exactly.. if this catches on, how long until police blow up innocent people? (they're already shooting them at an alarming rate)

jbapple 10y ago

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

Houshalter 10y ago

Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.

PietdeVries 10y ago
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a robot, what would you pick?
- mikeash 10y ago
  The point is, were those their only two choices? It sure sounded like the situation was in hand and they could have just waited.
- daedalus_j 10y ago
  Tear gas, flashbangs, water cannons, a nice safe armored vehicle... All appropriate (ish) police tools. IEDs: rather less so.
  - was_boring 10y ago
    Exactly. If they can have a robot with a bomb, then they can have a robot with tear gas + flashbang. This is the Dallas police department, they have equipment capable of dealing with this situation -- to include armored cars and ballistic shields. I hope the legal process is explored in this case.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    They had one of those super armored trucks (Bearcat) there on location. It even has a little turret on top designed for safely shooting out of. They can withstand multiple .50 rounds to the same location. What's the point of spending millions in purchasing and maintenance on these if you're not going to use them?

iqisracist 10y ago

That is really cool!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

eximius 10y ago

Wow. This feels incredibly wrong. I know it is just an extension of the militarization of American police, but should they be allowed to issue a death sentence like that? I argue no. Expend the time and resources to non-lethally incarcerate him.

jrs235 10y ago
>This feels incredibly wrong. I concur. There seems to be a lack of thinking and willingness to wait things out or backoff. Rather than backoff or retreat the police seem too trigger happy. The Baton Rouge shooting the police didn't want to wait for the suspect so they got aggressive and tried tackling him leading to a scuffle. The MN shooting, if the officer felt threatened he could have slowly backed up to his vehicle until backup arrives and only shoot if/when the suspect actually makes a truly life threatening move. (I know, easier said than done. But we need to de-escalate and disarm regular beat cops [slim chance of that happening now I suppose].)
monk_e_boy 10y ago
Judge, jury and executioner. All in a highly charged and emotional moment. I guess this also destroys evidence?
Forge36 10y ago
I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man. Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was however not immediately threatening anyone was refusing to cooperate. I think a question we should continue asking is at what point does Lethal force become acceptable?
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't think that question really needs to be asked. We already have a perfectly good answer: lethal force is acceptable when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives. The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer.

mccoyspace 10y ago

While aerial lethal robotic forces have been used for years, this is the first time I've heard of ground-based lethal robots. It's amazing that it's happened first not by the military in a war situation, but by domestic police forces against it's citizenry.

jonknee 10y ago
It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.
- macintux 10y ago
  I genuinely wonder how the secret service is going to protect against armed drones.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    Counter-drones that are also armed, with nets. Or net-launched bazookas. Or directed radio-jamming devices.
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      Bullets/flak work better than nets.
      - angersock 10y ago
        Maybe? Then again, if you're using it indoors or in a stadium or whatever, you don't want to injure other people if your AA misses the drone. Nets are more reasonable and safer for bystanders. Oh, and lighter.
  - wapapaloobop 10y ago
    With anti-drone drones.
  - 10y ago

tzs 10y ago

According to the story at the NY Times, during negotiations the suspect had said he wanted to kill white people, particularly police, that the end was near, and that he had bombs throughout the garage and surrounding area.

mikeash 10y ago
That last part is particularly weird to me: if they thought he could be telling the truth, wouldn't they want to keep him alive in case they could get him to talk about those bombs?
- tzs 10y ago
  He would likely be someone who could tell them a lot of useful information about the bombs, such as where they are and how they are triggered. That would be very useful to help figure out what areas to evacuate and how to disarm the bombs. On the other hand, depending on where they are and how they are triggered, it could be that he is able to trigger them himself and is just waiting to try to get as many police surrounding him as possible before he suicides and takes them with him. So whether it is best from a safety standpoint to just keep him surrounded and wait it out hoping he surrenders, or it is better to take him out (and do so in a way that would not give him time to do something like trigger a bomb) really would depend on what can be figured out about those bombs and his state of mind when they are talking to him. Until there is an investigation, and publication of transcripts or recordings of the conversations between him and the negotiators, I don't think those not involved have enough information to figure out the situation. I'm particularly curious about how much planning was behind the attack on the police and who the attackers were. In particular, was it (1) a spur of the moment thing, or (2) something that was planned, but the planning only started a couple days ago, or (3) something planned long ago and they were just waiting for a good opportunity to act, which the protests yesterday provided?

noonespecial 10y ago

If it seems oddly excessive, this might be the point. Cops are always "enthusiastic" in their response to cop-killers. I think they intentionally sought out a way to end the standoff with a little extra extravagance. An IRL sharks with frikin lasers moment. The entire thing, from the shooting of the unarmed man by police to this end seems to be one long chain of ridiculous over-reactions. I sense a theme.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Remember that rogue cop a few years back that killed a few other cops and tried to flee the country? In their efforts to find them, eight cops open fired on a truck with two women inside. Over 100 rounds fired, and the women thankfully survived despite multiple gunshot wounds. And of course millions of dollars were awarded to those women and none of the officers were fired as a result. And remember how that situation ended? The cop killer holed up in a cabin in the woods by himself surrounded by hundreds of cops. They decided to burn the place down with the cop killer in it. Only a few cops are actively over-aggressive and hot headed, but that nearly every other cop stands by as they let the suspect burn alive (or over a hundred rounds fired at a truck without any probable cause) says all that needs to be said.

mc32 10y ago

The reports so far is that talks had broken down and the suspect threatened officers. At that point they could have waited longer, which could have lead to either more fruitful talks or a stalemate. At that point they could send in a SWAT or a robot to take the guy out. Both result in a dead suspect. One could result in injury or more to officers, if suspect had other weapons explosives and wasn't going to surrender. The other you send in the robot to take the suspect out. The only difference is that one you have people with triggers, the other you have a remote person with a button. The result is the same. When we begin using robotic fighters in wars, the same question will arise. And we'll make the same decision. We'll send the robots instead of human soldiers to minimize danger to our people, rather than give equal footing to the person or people not us. I must say, I didn't expect this to happen so soon, but on the other hand, it was a practical decision --with lots of open questions, as well as precedence.

danso 10y ago

I predict a lot of unwarranted attention will be devoted to the fact that a "robot" (i.e. The robots are killing us!) was used, even though it was remote controlled and functionally not much different than if officers had lobbed an explosive grenade at the suspect. To me, it's more interesting that lethal force was used in a non-hostage situation -- did the suspect threaten to detonate his own bombs (which would make this more like a hostage situation)? Though I suppose concern over the use of robots is warranted...in the same way that drones have allowed for the conduct of a proxy war...would police have gone for the lethal option if it required officers to be put in harm's way?

KON_Air 10y ago

I wonder how they made the robot blow people up, it doesn't seem like there are any factory made "Turn your expensive toy into sucidie bomber" kit. Jurry-rigging on the scene using moving parts to pull a pin of a grenade? Or did they use a last resort "let's blow it up when we clear the premises" kind of defusal kit? Or did they already had a custom kit with directional explosives? The robot in question, incase anyone cares about the robot; https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/dragon-runner/ https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-systems/dragon-...

mikeash 10y ago
There's a brief mention in the article of non-lethal measures being used in previous cases. I wonder if maybe they tried to do the same here, but it went wrong. For example, maybe the explosive was only intended to incapacitate, but was accidentally too powerful, or the suspect was too close, or some other factor caused it to be lethal instead.
xaqfox 10y ago
It was probably one of the explosive charges that a bomb disposal officer would use to blow up backpacks or other suspect packages.

breck 10y ago

Like everyone else I don't have any details on this beyond what's been reported. But I for one think this -may- have been a great decision to end the standoff without risking the lives of any more officers. For those that are saying "there was no imminent threat", that is incorrect. One relevant data point, see the 2009 standoff in Oakland, where 2 SWAT officers died when they moved in on a cornered suspect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_poli...). This seems to me like a good application of technology in this extremely rare type of situation.

mikeash 10y ago
The SWAT team had to move in on that suspect because the police felt the suspect was a threat to the lives of other people in the building, so they couldn't wait him out. That doesn't seem to have been the case here, since the suspect was in a parking garage.
poof131 10y ago
I agree. While using a lethal robot is scary, it is really no different than giving a police sniper the okay for a shot. Except in this case there was no possibility of a sniper shot. This individual was likely well trained. He fires and maneuvers. He has a good stance and chooses targets. He is clearly an accurate shot. He is aggressive and circles his target. He is calm under fire. [1] His skill level is damn scary and likely superior to many of the police he was up against. Makes me think of the Special Ops guys I worked with in Iraq. If he escaped somehow from the garage, he could have killed could more. While this robot technique is a bit scary, if I was responsible for stopping him, I would probably have done the same thing. No way you can charge in to stop him. Not only is he well armed, he may have a bomb. You don’t rush entrenched people with assault rifles, it’s not Call of Duty. You use grenades, explosives, air-strikes, etc. Perhaps a non-lethal option could be developed. This would be ideal. But this robot bomb may have been improvised on the spot by the police to deal with this incident. Without a non-lethal robot to shoot a tranquilizer, release gas, or stun the suspect, I see no other way to stop him. [1] https://streamable.com/pgpb https://streamable.com/pgpb

known 10y ago

Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects; http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34529611 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34529611 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

cprayingmantis 10y ago

I watched the press conference, it was heavily implied that the man was threatening them with IEDs. Who's to say that they weren't sure if he had an explosive vest on? Listen I'm all for due process and bringing people in alive, but I am not for putting the lives of law enforcement in danger unless it's for the greater good.

ceejayoz 10y ago

Does the EOD tech running the robot get paid leave like a shooting investigation? Is it an officer-involved bombing? I'm guessing this situation needs a bunch of new procedures and definitions now.

haslhuny 10y ago

Finally finding like minds. I felt sick when heard how the two hour standoff in a parking garage with one person who police did not have a clear shot so neither did the suspect...wtf? The chief said they gave him 2 options, really? There are only two?

2sad2bbad 10y ago

The Dallas police keep emphasizing it is the first time they used a robot to kill someone in order to avoid talking about the elephant in the room. I accept that it may be the first time they used a robot as a delivery vehicle of the C4 (highly explosive bomb material). I do not appreciate, however, them not admitting to the previous bombing of the organization known as "Move", here in Philadelphia. They dropped the C4 bomb from the air. Dallas and Philly would make it two times, that I know about. I suspect that before they allow that area where they killed that black man in Dallas to be seen by the public , they will have all kinds of construction crews in to clean up the destruction for the cover-up. I suspect the news media and law enforcement agencies and the like are complaicent in the cover-up, possibly for peace sake. I don't feel peace can be accomplished with half truths, though. I do not know of C4 even being used on the terrorists in the United States! A robot, a helicopter...no matter how it was delivered, C4 was only used 2 times and it was used on black men, black women, and black children. Here in Philadelphia you could smell the houses burning for miles. I really do appreciate ethical police. I mourn the loss of all innocent parties. I hope everyone makes it home to their loved ones. However, I hope we can soon be done with this David Brown show. He is not special. I don't think anyone who could authorize a kill by the use of C4, outside of a war zone, no matter how it is delivered, is not special at all... or brave; (Nor was the shooter special or brave.) Speaking of "poor poor" David Brown, I will say this about any job that deals with the public, everybody is not suited for every job. If some police feel the job they signed up for puts too many demands on them within the community they serve for a mere 44,000 or so a year, perhaps that is not the fit for that person and they should quit as soon as possible. Many other people have left better jobs for less.