6 ms·

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?
- eximius 10y ago
  Robot. But they sent the robot in with a bomb instead of, say, literally anything else.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I mean why send in anyone? He was trapped. Eventually he would have surrendered, or come out where the police could shoot him. Sending in a bomb seems excessive.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  That's kind of the point though. It's supposed to be difficult for police to kill people prior to their trials.
- dTal 10y ago
  If you have a robot you can send in with things, you have far more options than "send it in with a bomb". Tranquilizer darts? Chemical agents ("knockout gas")? Although the fact that they refer to it as their "bomb robot" suggests it's single purpose, which is idiotic - it's not clear if it's a bomb disposal robot they repurposed or some wacky military-industrial-complex contraption. Either way, I can't think of any scenario where I'm comfortable with police having bombs.
  - ArtDev 10y ago
    It is mentioned elsewhere that the Denver police used a robot with a non-lethal bomb in a similar situation.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't think shooting him would have been legal either. You only get to shoot a suspect when there's an imminent threat, and it sounds like there wasn't one. (If there was, they wouldn't have had time to send in the robot.)
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    Someone who has shot multiple officers and is currently armed IS an imminent threat by any and every legal definition.
    - eximius 10y ago
      They are A THREAT but not an IMMINENT one.
      - ncallaway 10y ago
        He was armed, had shot officers in the immediately recent past and had threatened to do so again in the future. By absolutely every legal definition of imminent threat this person was one. Every active shooter is an imminent threat. If this goes in front of a judge it will be ruled that he was an imminent threat. There's really 0 question about that. I say this as someone who feels strongly that lethal force is used far too often, and that there is a massive racial disparity in that use of force.
        LeifCarrotson 10y ago
        Imminent: likely to occur at any moment; impending; ready to take place. Active: producing or involving movement; being in physical motion. These terms only refer to the present and future, not the past. They do not apply to the cornered suspect.
secstate 10y ago
God I hope that's not legal. It seems like if it's not a hostage situation, you wait it out. The police department effectively decided to summarily execute the perpetrator, which is a bit Judge Dred, if we're being honest here. Not having been in the situation means I'm armchair quarterbacking the situation, but I hope there is a least some legal guidelines one when this is okay coming out of this.
TaylorGood 10y ago
Dorner. The house he was in they lit on fire..

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?
eximius 10y ago
Robot. But they sent the robot in with a bomb instead of, say, literally anything else.
Houshalter 10y ago
I mean why send in anyone? He was trapped. Eventually he would have surrendered, or come out where the police could shoot him. Sending in a bomb seems excessive.
ethanbond 10y ago
That's kind of the point though. It's supposed to be difficult for police to kill people prior to their trials.
dTal 10y ago
If you have a robot you can send in with things, you have far more options than "send it in with a bomb". Tranquilizer darts? Chemical agents ("knockout gas")? Although the fact that they refer to it as their "bomb robot" suggests it's single purpose, which is idiotic - it's not clear if it's a bomb disposal robot they repurposed or some wacky military-industrial-complex contraption. Either way, I can't think of any scenario where I'm comfortable with police having bombs.
- ArtDev 10y ago
  It is mentioned elsewhere that the Denver police used a robot with a non-lethal bomb in a similar situation.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Legal? vs say shooting him? Why would it be different?

mikeash 10y ago
I don't think shooting him would have been legal either. You only get to shoot a suspect when there's an imminent threat, and it sounds like there wasn't one. (If there was, they wouldn't have had time to send in the robot.)
- ncallaway 10y ago
  Someone who has shot multiple officers and is currently armed IS an imminent threat by any and every legal definition.
  - eximius 10y ago
    They are A THREAT but not an IMMINENT one.
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      He was armed, had shot officers in the immediately recent past and had threatened to do so again in the future. By absolutely every legal definition of imminent threat this person was one. Every active shooter is an imminent threat. If this goes in front of a judge it will be ruled that he was an imminent threat. There's really 0 question about that. I say this as someone who feels strongly that lethal force is used far too often, and that there is a massive racial disparity in that use of force.
      - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
        Imminent: likely to occur at any moment; impending; ready to take place. Active: producing or involving movement; being in physical motion. These terms only refer to the present and future, not the past. They do not apply to the cornered suspect.

secstate 10y ago

God I hope that's not legal. It seems like if it's not a hostage situation, you wait it out. The police department effectively decided to summarily execute the perpetrator, which is a bit Judge Dred, if we're being honest here. Not having been in the situation means I'm armchair quarterbacking the situation, but I hope there is a least some legal guidelines one when this is okay coming out of this.

TaylorGood 10y ago

Dorner. The house he was in they lit on fire..