6 ms·

They already did in 2016. [1] They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb. [1] https

They already did in 2016. [1] They lied to the shooter, who they had cornered, and told him the robot was delivering a phone. In fact it was a bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bomb-robot-explosive-killed-suspect-dallas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/08/police-bo...

ericmcer 4y ago
He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Not to mention the guy was trained military with an express desire to murder police--who knows what the police would be walking into.
- jimlongton 4y ago
  It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1] In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.
throwaway894345 4y ago
I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists. I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.

ericmcer 4y ago

He killed 5 cops and wounded 7 others at that point, maybe they were being slightly vengeful, but I also understand not wanting to send in more dudes.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Not to mention the guy was trained military with an express desire to murder police--who knows what the police would be walking into.
jimlongton 4y ago
It was clearly an extra-judicial execution, just like Christopher Dorner. They cornered someone they really wanted dead and ignored every convention and law to kill them. In the case of Dorner their thirst for vengeance led them to shoot and murder multiple unrelated people. [1] In a democracy with rule of law, the police have to be held to a higher standard. If not, they are just an armed gang with a licence to kill. It also undermines any concept of negotiation or surrender. The next person will go out guns blazing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  This seems pretty absurd. The guy was in the middle of a mass murder--interruption via lethal force seems appropriate. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we can apprehend every mass murderer without trading off innocent lives. I certainly wouldn't want more people to die so we can say that we tried negotiating with the shooter. I strongly prefer this outcome to Uvalde.

throwaway894345 4y ago

I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists. I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.