4 ms·

I haven't yet been able to understand why using this explosive-carrying robot was "necessary" in this situation. It seems that they had the suspect cornered in

I haven't yet been able to understand why using this explosive-carrying robot was "necessary" in this situation. It seems that they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage and, to me, that would seem like a good opportunity for some sort of non-lethal option. What am I missing here?

eximius 10y ago
I'm sure someone will come up with a reason, but I doubt it will be more motivating than the expectation that police shouldn't issue death sentences - to me, at least.
- afarrell 10y ago
  If you object to the police using deadly force in this instance, do you also object to them trying to shoot the suspect?
  - eximius 10y ago
    If he is a credible and imminent threat (where imminent is immediate, requires similarly immediate action to protect oneself), then I wholly support neutralizing the threat. I think that police are increasingly reaching for lethal force without exhausting nonlethal options. I also think that, in this instance, he was a credible but nonimminent threat. So in that sense, yes I would object to shooting him. A nonlethal response to continue containing the suspect, even at some risk to themselves, would have been more in line with the duty I believe police officers have. Minimizing the risk to themselves will not maximize the fulfillment of their duty (which is obviously true because the extreme is them never leaving the station, etc). I do not claim to know what the right balance is. However, I would argue that as public servants, their duty inherently necessitates taking on some level of risk in order to uphold our values of justice. Our values of justice require that they not kill suspects they are tired of dealing with - they must stand trial.
afarrell 10y ago
The fact that exercising non-lethal options against a currently active shooter exposes you to greater risk of being shot. You are of course free to argue that the police made the wrong call in the probabilistic tradeoff between their lives and the life of the shooter. Given the circumstances of facing a trained active shooter who has killed and continues to try to kill officers, I would think that > 99% of cops would find the argument that you must preserve his life at the (high) risk to officers' lives incredibly insulting. > they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage Being cornered doesn't stop someone from shooting a gun. It especially doesn't stop someone who has a gas mask. It isn't unreasonable to suspect someone has a gas mask if he is firing at crowd-control officers in the sort of pop-pop-pause pattern reminiscent of the military. Being cornered also doesn't stop someone from detonating a suicide vest. EDIT: I would be interested to know how this comment doesn't contribute to the discussion, given the comment it is replying to.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  But you don't get to kill someone just because they have barricaded themselves somewhere and threaten kill anyone who enters. They have to actually pose an ongoing uncontainable threat, i.e., a reasonable chance of escaping and going on to kill others. Otherwise, the police are obliged to wait things out, perhaps for several days, for the suspect to give up because of hunger/thirst. I have no idea what the actual situation was, but it worries me that neither the reporters nor the police seem concerned with whether the suspect could have been contained. The rules governing the use of force are important.
  - koenigdavidmj 10y ago
    Uncontainable is not part of their standards anywhere to my knowledge, and shutting down downtown for a week is not acceptable.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Deadly force is only allowed when it is the only reasonable way to prevent grave danger to others, and a contained lunatic is not such a threat. And the idea that police could or should execute people for obstructing downtown is bizarre. EDIT: Even in the wake of the Columbine shooting, when police departments who had trained conservatively for hostage situations realized they needed to be more aggressive when dealing with active shooters (e.g., terrorists and suicidal killers), the Police Executive Research Forum emphasizes this isn't an excuse to go killing contained threats: > Many [police department] policies note that Active Shooter protocols should not be used as a response to “barricaded gunman” situations. And some policies note that active shooter incidents are dynamic, and that an incident may go in and out of active shooter status in ways that could alter the police response. For example, a situation may begin as an active shooter incident, but if the shooter barricades himself in a room where he no longer has access to potential victims, and the police can secure that room and contain the shooter, the police response should shift accordingly. http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Serie...

eximius 10y ago

I'm sure someone will come up with a reason, but I doubt it will be more motivating than the expectation that police shouldn't issue death sentences - to me, at least.

afarrell 10y ago
If you object to the police using deadly force in this instance, do you also object to them trying to shoot the suspect?
- eximius 10y ago
  If he is a credible and imminent threat (where imminent is immediate, requires similarly immediate action to protect oneself), then I wholly support neutralizing the threat. I think that police are increasingly reaching for lethal force without exhausting nonlethal options. I also think that, in this instance, he was a credible but nonimminent threat. So in that sense, yes I would object to shooting him. A nonlethal response to continue containing the suspect, even at some risk to themselves, would have been more in line with the duty I believe police officers have. Minimizing the risk to themselves will not maximize the fulfillment of their duty (which is obviously true because the extreme is them never leaving the station, etc). I do not claim to know what the right balance is. However, I would argue that as public servants, their duty inherently necessitates taking on some level of risk in order to uphold our values of justice. Our values of justice require that they not kill suspects they are tired of dealing with - they must stand trial.

afarrell 10y ago

The fact that exercising non-lethal options against a currently active shooter exposes you to greater risk of being shot. You are of course free to argue that the police made the wrong call in the probabilistic tradeoff between their lives and the life of the shooter. Given the circumstances of facing a trained active shooter who has killed and continues to try to kill officers, I would think that > 99% of cops would find the argument that you must preserve his life at the (high) risk to officers' lives incredibly insulting. > they had the suspect cornered in a parking garage Being cornered doesn't stop someone from shooting a gun. It especially doesn't stop someone who has a gas mask. It isn't unreasonable to suspect someone has a gas mask if he is firing at crowd-control officers in the sort of pop-pop-pause pattern reminiscent of the military. Being cornered also doesn't stop someone from detonating a suicide vest. EDIT: I would be interested to know how this comment doesn't contribute to the discussion, given the comment it is replying to.

jessriedel 10y ago
But you don't get to kill someone just because they have barricaded themselves somewhere and threaten kill anyone who enters. They have to actually pose an ongoing uncontainable threat, i.e., a reasonable chance of escaping and going on to kill others. Otherwise, the police are obliged to wait things out, perhaps for several days, for the suspect to give up because of hunger/thirst. I have no idea what the actual situation was, but it worries me that neither the reporters nor the police seem concerned with whether the suspect could have been contained. The rules governing the use of force are important.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  Uncontainable is not part of their standards anywhere to my knowledge, and shutting down downtown for a week is not acceptable.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Deadly force is only allowed when it is the only reasonable way to prevent grave danger to others, and a contained lunatic is not such a threat. And the idea that police could or should execute people for obstructing downtown is bizarre. EDIT: Even in the wake of the Columbine shooting, when police departments who had trained conservatively for hostage situations realized they needed to be more aggressive when dealing with active shooters (e.g., terrorists and suicidal killers), the Police Executive Research Forum emphasizes this isn't an excuse to go killing contained threats: > Many [police department] policies note that Active Shooter protocols should not be used as a response to “barricaded gunman” situations. And some policies note that active shooter incidents are dynamic, and that an incident may go in and out of active shooter status in ways that could alter the police response. For example, a situation may begin as an active shooter incident, but if the shooter barricades himself in a room where he no longer has access to potential victims, and the police can secure that room and contain the shooter, the police response should shift accordingly. http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Serie...