7 ms·

Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and vocally claimed

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.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
Did they really think that was a credible threat, or that blowing him up would stop the bombs from going off? In his position, if he could remotely detonate the bombs, he probably already would have, between the time he said he was going to and when they sent in the IED. If he could not, it didn't matter, he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. If they were on a literal dead man switch, killing him would cause them to go off. More importantly, it is NOT the jurisdiction of the police to pass judgement and penalties on the suspect. Deadly force is only legal when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses a significant, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Note that the threat is a future threat, irrespective of whether harm was caused in the past. But I suspect that your reasoning becomes clouded when it's your friends and coworkers who have been shot. Giving the accused a lawyer and a chance to defend himself in court is his right, but that's hard to do when you've seen someone you love die.
- anonymousguy 10y ago
  > he probably already would have That is a huge guess. After 10 officers are shot I doubt the SWAT team was in a guessing mood. > he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. This is perhaps the most commonly fallacy I have read in this thread. Immobility does not immediately equivocate to either a reduction or increase in potential threat. The guys on the ground have to make that determination based upon the evidence available in the moment. After 10 officers were shot I am sure the suspect vocalizing additional threats likely didn't help the SWAT team believe the risk was diminishing.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    How is their mood at all relevant? They are professionals whose job is to be on the right side of the line that divides appropriate use of force from inappropriate use of force. Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.
    - anonymousguy 10y ago
DanBC 10y ago
From the same event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police-shooting-how-one-protester-went-from-most-wanted-to-innocent-man http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police... They said he was wanted; he wasn't one of the shooters; they're yet to apologise or delete the tweet.
- anonymousguy 10y ago
  What does that have to do with my comment?
nextweek2 10y ago
>thereby preventing further harm The original creation of the police was to create a deterrent, not to apprehend criminals. Prevention rather than cure. When the police take a life we lose the ability to understand the detail of why that deterrent failed. The deterrent is more important that the cure. Whilst the police have suspects, they don't have this one and everyone's motivations are slightly different. The death of this individual also creates a martyr for others on a similar path. In my humble opinion they should have used a stun or smoke grenade.
haslhuny 10y ago
You used the correct word ... suspect. I am not a lawyer but the police murdered this man. Regardless of what he did, the police are supposed to uphold the law, where was the law? There was no imminent danger?

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.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

Did they really think that was a credible threat, or that blowing him up would stop the bombs from going off? In his position, if he could remotely detonate the bombs, he probably already would have, between the time he said he was going to and when they sent in the IED. If he could not, it didn't matter, he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. If they were on a literal dead man switch, killing him would cause them to go off. More importantly, it is NOT the jurisdiction of the police to pass judgement and penalties on the suspect. Deadly force is only legal when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses a significant, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Note that the threat is a future threat, irrespective of whether harm was caused in the past. But I suspect that your reasoning becomes clouded when it's your friends and coworkers who have been shot. Giving the accused a lawyer and a chance to defend himself in court is his right, but that's hard to do when you've seen someone you love die.

anonymousguy 10y ago
> he probably already would have That is a huge guess. After 10 officers are shot I doubt the SWAT team was in a guessing mood. > he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. This is perhaps the most commonly fallacy I have read in this thread. Immobility does not immediately equivocate to either a reduction or increase in potential threat. The guys on the ground have to make that determination based upon the evidence available in the moment. After 10 officers were shot I am sure the suspect vocalizing additional threats likely didn't help the SWAT team believe the risk was diminishing.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  How is their mood at all relevant? They are professionals whose job is to be on the right side of the line that divides appropriate use of force from inappropriate use of force. Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.
  - anonymousguy 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago

From the same event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police-shooting-how-one-protester-went-from-most-wanted-to-innocent-man http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police... They said he was wanted; he wasn't one of the shooters; they're yet to apologise or delete the tweet.

anonymousguy 10y ago
What does that have to do with my comment?

nextweek2 10y ago

>thereby preventing further harm The original creation of the police was to create a deterrent, not to apprehend criminals. Prevention rather than cure. When the police take a life we lose the ability to understand the detail of why that deterrent failed. The deterrent is more important that the cure. Whilst the police have suspects, they don't have this one and everyone's motivations are slightly different. The death of this individual also creates a martyr for others on a similar path. In my humble opinion they should have used a stun or smoke grenade.

haslhuny 10y ago

You used the correct word ... suspect. I am not a lawyer but the police murdered this man. Regardless of what he did, the police are supposed to uphold the law, where was the law? There was no imminent danger?