5 ms·

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

• 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.
    • whamlastxmas 10y ago
      >when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives This is way too subjective.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        Welcome to the world, where everything worthwhile is filled with ambiguity and subjectivity.
      • angersock 10y ago
        In the general sense, perhaps. This case though, with an armed suspect cornered during an active ambush who had been engaging in fire with the police, only a particularly obtuse person (or HN user) would deny the notion of "imminent threat".
  • merpnderp 10y ago
    The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.
    • lovich 10y ago
      If they had time for a bomb, why didn't they have time for tear gas though? I agree that something needed to be done, but the first answer shouldn't always be the lethal option
      • merpnderp 10y ago
        I'm more interested in what kind of bombs they have and what's the policy on use.
      • ceejayoz 10y ago
        Tear gas obscures visibility. Given how little we know about the layout, it may be that that would've been far too much risk.
      • Kephael 10y ago
        Tear gas would just force a reaction, likely with the assailant leaving the gas and shooting at the police. He would have been killed in returning gunfire but also may have managed to shoot more people. The outcome would have been the same and was decided by his failure to surrender.
• iandanforth 10y ago
  This repurposing of a defensive, life saving robot into a lethal weapon also offends me deeply. If corporations had an ounce of human conscience the manufacturer would terminate their contacts with this department immediately.
  • mc32 10y ago
    What's the difference between sending in a robot or a SWAT team? Also, they could just repurpose an RC vehicle with similar results. And why not ask gun mfgs to stop selling guns to criminals as well as police? What separates a robot from a firearm in this case?
    • jonlucc 10y ago
      Intent. Police officers with firearms are only supposed to fire them to end immediate danger to themselves or others. Sending in a robot with a bomb is much more of an execution.
      • mc32 10y ago
        Right, but, if we take the police assessment of the situation (which does not change whether robot or swat) it was one which merited neutralization as the suspect, according to police, threatened to take out more (officers). So SWAt or robot would be either right or wrong, but right or wrong does not change because of the different agent.
        • jonlucc 10y ago
          But SWAT doesn't go in with the intent to kill (supposedly). They go in with intent to arrest or neutralize which may require killing, but could be shooting until the threat is neutralized and then calling medical help. A bomb has only one mode.
          • mc32 10y ago
            In this case, the way it was framed, the intent and result have been the same.
• staunch 10y ago
  From the article: > Five officers were killed and seven others were injured, as well as two civilians. Even NBC is referring to non-police as "civilians" here which really drives the point home.
  • tzs 10y ago
    NBC is using the word "civilian" correctly. In some specialized contexts, non-civilians only include members of the military. An example of such a context would be some of the treaties that govern international armed conflicts. Outside of those specialized contexts, the ordinary dictionary definition applies. From the Oxford New American Dictionary: civilian |səˈvilyən| noun a person not in the armed services or the police force. From Merriam-Webster: 2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
    • staunch 10y ago
      It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. Irregardless of how common it is with cops, it's still inaccurate. It makes just as much logical and legal sense to refer to programmers as non-civilians as it does to refer to civil law enforcement as non-civilians.
      • tzs 10y ago
        > It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. That's not the slang usage. That is the informal usage. And that is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the formal usage of the term civilian, which according to numerous dictionaries [1] means someone not a member of a military or police force. Is it your contention that these major dictionaries all got it wrong? [1] Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Random House
        • 10y ago
• anonymousguy 10y ago
  Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and vocally claimed to plant bombs and kill more police. There is no greater justification for police to immediately terminate a life, whether that justification is legal or due to exigence. If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm, then so be it and congratulations.
  • callahad 10y ago
    > If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established: that killing the suspect was necessary to prevent further harm. It seems like most of the discussion here is questioning that point: if the suspect had been located and surrounded, was there a credible threat of further harm? If there was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal ways to apprehend the suspect?
    • cthalupa 10y ago
      He was still shooting at police officers and their attempts at non-lethal measures such as flashbangs were not working.
      • haslhuny 10y ago
        Did they attempt flash bangs? I haven't heard that?
    • anonymousguy 10y ago
      > Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established The intention to commit further harm is evident from statements by the accused and the vile nature of the crimes. Given the potential for harm, that the negotiations failed, and threats of explosives this was the safest course of action. Whether or not the suspect was surrounded has little bearing on if the threat was reduced or increased. > If there was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal ways to apprehend the suspect? That is a flawed argument in that it guesses a quantity of time to modify a robot and time to neutralize an armed suspect are equivalent. It is also flawed in that it presumes there is a choice to be made. Another flaw is that doesn't account for the fact that the robot might already have been modified earlier in case negotiations failed, and if so then the robot is already modified and immediately ready while the suspect isn't.
• 2sad2bbad 10y ago
  I am so sorry that the presumed innocent lives were lost in Dallas. Those police certainly were not acting out at the time they were killed. I grieve for their families loss. However, I remember one other time that c4 was used. Again it was used after a cop was killed and against black people. That c4 was dropped on the organization Move, here in Philadelphia. That c4 Killed men, women and children when the cops dropped it on the move house. It looked like a war zone. The media keeps saying "no presidence". That bothers because everyone should know how that young disturbed black man died. It was a horrible death. His parents are probably lucky to get even a little part of him to bury (a tooth). He did a horrible thing, but just as the officers families, his family didn't do that horrible thing. Now it's the David Brown show but the Dallas police chief can talk and twist and try to make us say "poor,poor" him till the cows come home but he will not be able to talk away the guilt of murdering that young man like that. They say he got justice, but, whose. I am pretty sure we have not seen those buildings in that area that they killed that young man because we would be appalled at the sight of distruction. That the tax payers will have to pay for to rebuild I have little doubt. To me, their action in bombing that black man solidifies my belief that far far too many police believe they are above the law. They become judge and jury at will. Don't make them mad, now. Find the difference between Dallas not finding a less extreme means of dealing with that situation and police, policing the neighborhoods not finding a less extreme means of dealing with interactions with people of color...I just see people dead, dead, dead as a result. I mourn the death of all innocents in this. BLACK LIVES MATTER (for whoever doesn't get it) ALSO.