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 explo

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.