5 ms·
> 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 ki
by 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 agoHe was still shooting at police officers and their attempts at non-lethal measures such as flashbangs were not working.
- haslhuny 10y agoDid 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.