4 ms·

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 t

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...
    - ant6n 10y ago
      I'd go further, it's only reasonably to prevent grave and _imminent_ danger to others. The situation is kind of ironic, because it was vaguely associated with the protest against how police tends to kill people because they can't be bothered to find non-lethal ways to solve problems.
      - afarrell 10y ago
        > Can't be bothered Part of the problem in this broader conversation is a lack of knowledge by laypersons about what less-lethal options are available and their potential lethality. The most egregious example of this is when people (not on HN) suggest that cops should shoot suspects in the legs as a less-lethal option, as if the femoral artery doesn't exist.
        jessriedel 10y ago
RockyMcNuts 10y ago
surely it's a well-reasoned tactical decision and not, "we're not letting this filthy cop-killer come out alive," because no one in our well-trained, civilized police forces thinks like that, right?
- afarrell 10y ago
  An argument could be made that seeing one's colleagues get shot by someone biased the cops' perceptions of "is this person still an ongoing threat?"
Retra 10y ago
That's a risk you can marginalize fairly easily. You know you're sending in the robot in advance of the shooter, so you could easily consider preparing an explosive back-up option in case the nonlethal option fails. >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. The officers' do not have the right to execute people just because they are too stupid, too careless, or too insulted to act with honor. You can't pretend to know a persons justification for their actions. The shooter may have had mental problems. The shooter may even have been coerced. You don't know the magnitude of their mistake because you didn't have a trial in which they could try to justify their actions. And though it is unlikely, it is still presumptive to assume there is no reasonable justification for the shooter's actions. > 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. It is definitely unreasonable. That's basically like a just-so story; a ad-hoc justification pretending a thing you want to be true is true just because you can imagine a way in which it could be. How someone is firing a firearm has very very little to do with whether they have access to a gas mask, and there are a trillion ways in which this kind of assumption can be wrong, and most of them are blatantly obvious.
- afarrell 10y ago
  > The officers' do not have the right to execute people... I agree. If we establish that the officers perceived that they have control of the situation, then this paragraph becomes relevant. My current understanding is that they thought that they were facing a trained, prepared, still-active threat whom they were close (but not complete) to containing. > it is still presumptive to assume there is no reasonable justification for the shooter's actions. I don't think one could possibly build any sort of law-enforcement organization whose members believe there is reasonable justification for being pre-meditatively shot.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
hanklazard 10y ago
I wouldn't say that an active shooter should be kept alive at all costs, it just seems that if robots exist that can deliver an explosive device to the shooter, a robot could also deliver a tranquilizer dart to the shooter. In addition to ethical implications, keeping your suspect alive also has practical advantages for information-gathering purposes. As it stands now, we'll have to settle for interviews with friends/family, social media autopsy, etc. As I said in my original comment, I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it. Agreed. The distinction isn't between robots and guns per se. It's that lethal force is only allowed when someone poses a grave and imminent threat, and it's hard to imagine such a situation where a slow robot is useful.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    The slowness of the robot is a good point to bring up and a pretty strong counterargument because it indicates that the robot was only useful in a situation where the police perceived[1] that they had control of the situation. [1] remember, if we're talking about what procedure police should follow, we have to think about the perceptions that they are responding to.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  1) Tranquilizer darts aren't magic. Without calibrated dosage, the effects can range from nearly nothing to fatal. [1] 2) Tranquilizer darts work against unprotected skin, not heavy clothing and certainly not against body armor. 3) Where would one get a robot armed with a tranquilizer dart launcher? They're not exactly off the shelf items. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-when-shooting-someone-as-a-way-to-control-the-situation-without-definite-consequences https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-wh...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

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...
  - ant6n 10y ago
    I'd go further, it's only reasonably to prevent grave and _imminent_ danger to others. The situation is kind of ironic, because it was vaguely associated with the protest against how police tends to kill people because they can't be bothered to find non-lethal ways to solve problems.
    - afarrell 10y ago
      > Can't be bothered Part of the problem in this broader conversation is a lack of knowledge by laypersons about what less-lethal options are available and their potential lethality. The most egregious example of this is when people (not on HN) suggest that cops should shoot suspects in the legs as a less-lethal option, as if the femoral artery doesn't exist.
      - jessriedel 10y ago

RockyMcNuts 10y ago

surely it's a well-reasoned tactical decision and not, "we're not letting this filthy cop-killer come out alive," because no one in our well-trained, civilized police forces thinks like that, right?

afarrell 10y ago
An argument could be made that seeing one's colleagues get shot by someone biased the cops' perceptions of "is this person still an ongoing threat?"

Retra 10y ago

That's a risk you can marginalize fairly easily. You know you're sending in the robot in advance of the shooter, so you could easily consider preparing an explosive back-up option in case the nonlethal option fails. >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. The officers' do not have the right to execute people just because they are too stupid, too careless, or too insulted to act with honor. You can't pretend to know a persons justification for their actions. The shooter may have had mental problems. The shooter may even have been coerced. You don't know the magnitude of their mistake because you didn't have a trial in which they could try to justify their actions. And though it is unlikely, it is still presumptive to assume there is no reasonable justification for the shooter's actions. > 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. It is definitely unreasonable. That's basically like a just-so story; a ad-hoc justification pretending a thing you want to be true is true just because you can imagine a way in which it could be. How someone is firing a firearm has very very little to do with whether they have access to a gas mask, and there are a trillion ways in which this kind of assumption can be wrong, and most of them are blatantly obvious.

afarrell 10y ago
> The officers' do not have the right to execute people... I agree. If we establish that the officers perceived that they have control of the situation, then this paragraph becomes relevant. My current understanding is that they thought that they were facing a trained, prepared, still-active threat whom they were close (but not complete) to containing. > it is still presumptive to assume there is no reasonable justification for the shooter's actions. I don't think one could possibly build any sort of law-enforcement organization whose members believe there is reasonable justification for being pre-meditatively shot.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

hanklazard 10y ago

I wouldn't say that an active shooter should be kept alive at all costs, it just seems that if robots exist that can deliver an explosive device to the shooter, a robot could also deliver a tranquilizer dart to the shooter. In addition to ethical implications, keeping your suspect alive also has practical advantages for information-gathering purposes. As it stands now, we'll have to settle for interviews with friends/family, social media autopsy, etc. As I said in my original comment, I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it.

jessriedel 10y ago
> I just don't understand how the situation got to the point of "we have no choice but to blow him up with our robot." I certainly realize that there are circumstances in which that would be the best option--news accounts that I've read so far just don't seem to justify it. Agreed. The distinction isn't between robots and guns per se. It's that lethal force is only allowed when someone poses a grave and imminent threat, and it's hard to imagine such a situation where a slow robot is useful.
- afarrell 10y ago
  The slowness of the robot is a good point to bring up and a pretty strong counterargument because it indicates that the robot was only useful in a situation where the police perceived[1] that they had control of the situation. [1] remember, if we're talking about what procedure police should follow, we have to think about the perceptions that they are responding to.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
1) Tranquilizer darts aren't magic. Without calibrated dosage, the effects can range from nearly nothing to fatal. [1] 2) Tranquilizer darts work against unprotected skin, not heavy clothing and certainly not against body armor. 3) Where would one get a robot armed with a tranquilizer dart launcher? They're not exactly off the shelf items. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-when-shooting-someone-as-a-way-to-control-the-situation-without-definite-consequences https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-cops-use-tranquilizer-guns-wh...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]