Bots, bombs, and use of force.

[Hawkmoon]

Let's fire up the wayback machine -- how do we feel about the cops torching the cabin Chris Dorner was hiding in?

I don't see any difference. In both cases, the perp was a cop killer, so the cops were out to avenge their brother officers. In both cases, they had the perp trapped. In both cases they just got tired of waiting him out, so they resorted to execution by cop.

I'm just not seeing the circumstances as being all that "extreme" or "desperate." The guy was trapped -- cornered. He wasn't going anywhere without getting shot. They could have just sat there and waited him out. But that wouldn't have avenged the dead badges, so more extreme measures were called for.

Bad precedent. VERY bad.

[HankB]

Here's a question - was the bad guy completely contained, or did he have a vantage point available which would allow him to snipe at some appreciable fraction of the Dallas downtown area?

If he was in a dead end, windowless corridor, waiting him out or hitting him with a lot of tear gas would have been a good tactic. On the other hand, if he had a window or some other means of shooting at the streets, windows in other buildings, etc., taking him out promptly by the lowest risk means available - even a bomb equipped killbot - was the right call.

[AJ Dual]

We're doomed.

When even the folks at APS are so afraid that they will assent to the militarization of civilian law enforcement you know liberty is toast.

I can't believe you guys are OK with civilian law enforcement blowing up and burning down *expletive deleted*it, especially with the express purpose of killing somebody!

I have a lot of the same reservations and concerns. However, IMO, the whole thing is bitching about the end result "symptoms" of the problem. Nobody wants to look (at least really hard) at the actual root causes, which generally lies with our legislatures and courts. Those fights are a long boring tedious slog, and it's so much easier to point to succinct dramatic incidents instead. BLM is doing it, the "civil liberty" types here are doing it, and even the statist authoritarian "thin blue line" is doing it.

All of this is picayune complaining at how much water went under the bridge, when everyone on all sides has spent years ignoring the leaky dam that burst upstream.

The really crappy thing about all of this is that Dallas was about the worst city and police department to pick on to "protest" in this manner. For the most part, they were the one large city department that was doing it right. They deemphasized petty traffic enforcement that generally amounts to "warrant fishing" on the poor. Added transparency to use of force incidents. Attacked the "thin blue line" mentality that made the police close ranks to protect misconduct. And were training their officers in use-of-force and force continuum bi-monthly, so they could be more confident, and less likely to resort to deadly force out of fear or uncertainty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/07/08/what-dallas-pd-does-right-and-why-doing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/

And as to BLM itself, the deaths and use of force incidents are also just a flashpoint that it's easy for people to rally around. The mistrust and disdain for the police goes much deeper. And this article/opinion piece from RedState, obviously NOT a bleeding heart outlet got me thinking.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/07/08/uncomfortable-reason-came-dallas-yesterday/

And to expound on that... take Ferguson MO, something like 60%+ of the residents there have some sort of warrant on them, or are in, on, or out of compliance with probation.

What... the... hell...

They can't ALL be criminals that have actually taken part in mens rea crime. One can assume the majority of them must be prohibitum malum non-violent offenses, or even just a snowballing cycle of fines, tickets, and bench warrants that started with civil infractions. And I'll note that it's the Democrats/Left that predominantly governs almost every majority black/poor urban area in the United States. Intentionally or not, many of these places have set up a system where they divert state and federal welfare money as a revenue stream from their citizens through courts, fines, and arrests.

I can easily see how such a situation would make the residents want nothing to do with the police and give information about the "real crime", of which they're usually the victims of. If someone has a 60% chance of getting arrested just by giving their name to a police officer, even more than the "stop snitching" meme, why would any of them come forward to help the police about the "real crime" they suffer? Or why in the roughly 1/2 of use of force or police deaths that were "justified" that BLM is complaining about, they've got no willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the police?

And to actually address this reality, I could easily seeing it be something that bi-partisan reforms that both the Left from a "social justice" standpoint could support, and that the Right from a "limited government" mentality they could back. But it's messy, it's complicated, and it takes time. Or it takes a large chunk of the public to get busy complaining about things that aren't as dramatic as police involved deaths, or arguing if a manually operated bomb-disposal robot blowing up a barricaded shooter heralds a new era of extrajudicial drone assassination.

This is what has me hacked off and somewhat dismissive about this thread and the "bomb debate".

The whole damn thing is just the outcome of years, decades, generations of "us vs. them" thinking, on the part of the BLM protestors, the police, the politicians/government, and the voters at large. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

AJ, I'm not sure how the extensive issues in the background that may (or may not have) contributed to the use of this kind of force to "apprehend" a suspect (and yes, just because we know he did it, he still never had his day in court) makes what they did okay.

It's not that I think you are wrong, it's just not an excuse for using that kind of force.

[Mannlicher]

you had an active shooter.  He had killed 5, wounded a number of others.   There evidently was not a clear line of attack to stop him.  Bomb seems like a great idea.
It is ludicrous to turn this into anything other than what it was.  Any of the upset folks here want to volunteer to storm the hiding place?  Take a shot themselves? 

[AJ Dual]

AJ, I'm not sure how the extensive issues in the background that may (or may not have) contributed to the use of this kind of force to "apprehend" a suspect (and yes, just because we know he did it, he still never had his day in court) makes what they did okay.

It's not that I think you are wrong, it's just not an excuse for using that kind of force.

I'm not saying it's "okay", just that it's a side issue at best, and a distraction of something concise that people are more willing to focus on, than the "big picture".

I know there's high level issues of debating what police should and shouldn't do as actors on behalf of the State, but there's also the fact of basic human nature and pragmatism.  Being bluntly honest, if I were a cop, or some private citizen stuck in this defensive situation in some theoretical Libertarian/AnCap version of America that didn't have .gov police forces, if I could just chuck a bomb or grenade in after the guy, instead of having to stick my head through the door vs. "waited him out" maybe for days, to have just as many people complain and apply political pressure that we "endangered others" or "went soft" by trying to wait him out exhausting every last opportunity for a peaceful outcome... I'd have used the bomb.

And facing that exact circumstance, and given the option, realistically, I think most of us here would too.

And I also have to wonder just for the sake of honesty, if the Dallas shooter was just a more "run of the mill" whackjob, and not motivated over BLM issues, just some guy angry over his ex-wife, or getting fired from his job... would we be debating this?

[Fly320s]

you had an active shooter.  He had killed 5, wounded a number of others.   There evidently was not a clear line of attack to stop him.  Bomb seems like a great idea.
It is ludicrous to turn this into anything other than what it was.  Any of the upset folks here want to volunteer to storm the hiding place?  Take a shot themselves? 

No, you had a former active shooter.  He was talking with the police for at least one hour before the police killed him.  On the Use of Force Continuum that means the police should have deescalated.  Only if the shooter was an immediate danger to the police or others should the police use lethal force.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not saying it's "okay", just that it's a side issue at best, and a distraction of something concise that people are more willing to focus on, than the "big picture".

I know there's high level issues of debating what police should and shouldn't do as actors on behalf of the State, but there's also the fact of basic human nature and pragmatism.  Being bluntly honest, if I were a cop, or some private citizen stuck in this defensive situation in some theoretical Libertarian/AnCap version of America that didn't have .gov police forces, if I could just chuck a bomb or grenade in after the guy, instead of having to stick my head through the door vs. "waited him out" maybe for days, to have just as many people complain and apply political pressure that we "endangered others" or "went soft" by trying to wait him out exhausting every last opportunity for a peaceful outcome... I'd have used the bomb.

And facing that exact circumstance, and given the option, realistically, I think most of us here would too.

And I also have to wonder just for the sake of honesty, if the Dallas shooter was just a more "run of the mill" whackjob, and not motivated over BLM issues, just some guy angry over his ex-wife, or getting fired from his job... would we be debating this?

Ummm... On APS? Yes, probably... IIRC, We've actually had this debate a number of times, discussing nutjobs of various motivations, and we mostly remain pretty consistent.

The BLM element in this one seems actually be bringing out the CSD in some of the other posters, though. 

[zahc]

I imagine it's running well over 100F in Dallas this time of year. Unless he was wearing a big Camelback, it wasn't going to be a week-long standoff...

I agree the major factor that would make it justified here is if he had any lines of fire. But considering it's cops, it was probably just a case of the Dorner-like "all rules out the window because we are special and rules don't really apply to us anyway because we are the police".

[BlueStarLizzard]

I imagine it's running well over 100F in Dallas this time of year. Unless he was wearing a big Camelback, it wasn't going to be a week-long standoff...

I agree the major factor that would make it justified here is if he had any lines of fire. But considering it's cops, it was probably just a case of the Dorner-like "all rules out the window because we are special and rules don't really apply to us anyway because we are the police".

Can we please be a little more respectful on this front? I'm not saying that they're behavior was correct, but we should be able to respect the fact that they were rightfully pissed as hell and hot headed because men they worked with just died.

This is the second time on this thread someone has outright belittled the emotional state of the officers of the DPD.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So, as you probably know, the Dallas PD used one of their bomb-bots to blow-up the shooter.  Not all of the details are available, but I will offer my opinion anyway.

As for the poll, based on what you know now, was the DPD legally justified in using deadly force, via the explosive, on the shooter?

My answer is "no" because the shooter was not a current threat at the time.  The use of force continuum says that force must be proportional to the threat.  According to the news, the shooter was holed-up in the building and not actively threatening anyone.

From a personal perspective, I am very happy the DPD blew that guy into little pieces.  Using explosives strapped to a robot makes it even more betterer.

You mean an armed man with demonstrated capacity and ability who has announced he's coming out to kill more and claims to have odds all over is not a threat?
Do tell!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No, you had a former active shooter.  He was talking with the police for at least one hour before the police killed him.  On the Use of Force Continuum that means the police should have deescalated.  Only if the shooter was an immediate danger to the police or others should the police use lethal force.

I looked for that on the " use of force continuum" and can't find it.
Can you help?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lupinus]

you had an active shooter.  He had killed 5, wounded a number of others.   There evidently was not a clear line of attack to stop him.  Bomb seems like a great idea.
It is ludicrous to turn this into anything other than what it was.  Any of the upset folks here want to volunteer to storm the hiding place?  Take a shot themselves?  

Who was at that particular point in time not an active threat as he was not actively shooting anyone, not actively in a position to shoot anyone, and while he hadn't surrendered was not an active threat. By your logic anyone who has killed someone is fair game because they are a higher risk. Maybe we should step up the game from no knocks to just blowing up the house. If they had sent in the bot and blew him up while he was actively shooting you'd have a point, but as it stands you don't.

And the last line? There's a whole host of things police do as part of their job that I have no interest in volunteering for. Hence, I'm not a cop. If they don't want to volunteer for it then don't be a cop and then don't double down by looking for a spot on the swat team.

[Fly320s]

I looked for that on the " use of force continuum" and can't find it.
Can you help?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Try here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/welcome.aspx

Relevant paragraph: "Law enforcement officers should use only the amount of force necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force, and lethal force."

[Fly320s]

You mean an armed man with demonstrated capacity and ability who has announced he's coming out to kill more and claims to have odds all over is not a threat?
Do tell!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion.

Read here: https://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Edited to add preclusion.  I forgot about that bit.

[AJ Dual]

Can we please be a little more respectful on this front? I'm not saying that they're behavior was correct, but we should be able to respect the fact that they were rightfully pissed as hell and hot headed because men they worked with just died.

This is the second time on this thread someone has outright belittled the emotional state of the officers of the DPD.

I don't even know it was a matter of being pissed off, or the "cop revenge" thing.

Could well be that they didn't know how many had died at that point, and could just be that the police felt, or assumed an overwhelming sense of societal pressure or expectation to "end it" and "control the situation" etc. I also imagine that the order or approval of the plan came from up on high before they did it.  I doubt that they just decided on the "bomb plan" from the seat of their pants because they were pissed.

And I don't know how these things work, maybe the on-scene commander has discretion. Although DPD Chief Brown has been a force for reform and some "enlightened" thinking otherwise. Not that his reputation or style of running the department makes the bomb in terms of the "due process" debate right or wrong of course, but at least from watching the man in the news, I kind of doubt it was a "Let's get this sucka!" reaction on his part if he was in on it or approved it.

[Fly320s]

In most officer-involved-shootings the officer is given leave so that the department may investigate the shooting.  I wonder if that happens in this case since so many officers were involved in the shooting.

I also wonder who pulled the trigger on the suspect.  Does he get a leave of absence?

[White Horseradish]

Any of the upset folks here want to volunteer to storm the hiding place?  Take a shot themselves? 

You know full well that this is not possible. The cops wouldn't let us.

[Hawkmoon]

Can we please be a little more respectful on this front? I'm not saying that they're behavior was correct, but we should be able to respect the fact that they were rightfully pissed as hell and hot headed because men they worked with just died.

This is the second time on this thread someone has outright belittled the emotional state of the officers of the DPD.

That's a reason, but it's not an [acceptable] excuse. When each of those cops accepted a badge, they swore to uphold the law and the Constitution.

The late Ann Landers often said, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

[Hawkmoon]

There's precedent for this, of course. From the City of Brotherly Love, no less:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

[BlueStarLizzard]

OMG! What is with you guys and putting words in my mouth? Second thread in a week!

I said it wasn't an excuse. Just be *expletive deleted*ing respectful! They lost their brothers, at that point they didn't even know how many of the injured would make it.

I imagine they were scared, upset and very emotional and we shouldn't dismiss that as some super macho "Gonna get that sucka!" attitude or make like they thought they were some hot *expletive deleted*it something special making a point.

Jesus Christ, they're human beings, not gods or robots. You can be respectful of that even when you say that they needed to keep their cool and handle things differently.

[Blakenzy]

I do not support police killing people who are not an immediate danger to innocents by any methods.

I am specially against killing a contained suspect by using methods of destruction that can very easily get out of hand and cause collateral damage.

Setting fires, detonating bombs? No... just no... I don't care how many of your colleagues died and how pissed off and scared you are.

In this case, as in the Dorner case, police made the conscious choice of executing the suspect instead of apprehending him.

[roo_ster]

1. If the killer has was no longer a threat or actively menacing another human, killing him as he was inactive was illegitimate.
The way to see this is to place yourself there, with a weapon of your own.  There is the guy.  He, as he waswith the police robot, is not threatening anything or anyone.  Yet you draw and kill him on video.  While he is not threatening anyone, let us reiterate.  Congratulations, you just got yourself a trip to the town of Grand Jury.

Something closer to home.  Dude busts into your house with a weapon and starts a-thieving and maybe even kills your dog.  A few minutes later you find him at your kitchen table eating your home-cooked beef stew, spoon in his hand.  Dude is obviously capable of mayhem, did some mayhem, but is not doing so now.  Shoot him while he lookks dumbly at you, spoon in hand, and you have just broken the law.

The simple standard is that if any random person used deadly force in such a way that it would be construed as illegal, it should be illegal for LEOs to do the same.

If dude made to menace folk, then by all means use deadly for to prevent murder.

2. There is no legitimate place for the use of explosives as deadly force in the hands of civilian LEOs.  
How is this not blindingly obvious?

a. Be sure of your backstop.  A bullet exiting the bbl of a firearm generally has a dangerous/deadly path running in an elongated cylinder, usually in a parabolic path.  An explosion is deadly in three dimensions, radiating out from the source.  Unless you got yourself a hefty containment vessel around the explosion, there is no safe backstop to be found in an urban area.  Collateral human damage in a foreign war zone is done to foreigners.  Here, it is to the very people the LEOs are supposed to protect.

b. Um, fire hazard?  Parking garage.  Might there be automobiles with, IDK, gasoline in their fuel tanks?  Were this in an apartment, wouldn't some nice sheer drapes be just great to catch fire and burn the whole place down, to include the elderly heavy sleeper who didn't respond to the door when LEOs went about to evacuate the building?

c. If John Q Public would catch legal grief for dispatching an intruder with a remotely-detonated explosive device, so should LEOs.

d. LEOs, not soldiers.  Police forces, not armies.  This is yet another exhibit of militarization of law enforcement.

e. Dumbassery on stilts.  What we had here was a slice of 4th generation conflict, which had gone cold.  That was the time to use morally unambiguous means to keep it de-escalated and bring it home.  You know, perform a basic policing function.  Instead DPD escalated and lost the moral component in the conflict.

f.  I could go on, but I tire.  

[MechAg94]

How do you know he wasn't an active threat?  How much of this is an assumption?  I don't know enough to start worrying about tyranny and storm troopers yet.  

If a police officer had found a vantage point to kill him with a rifle (say only his head was exposed), would that change things?  I think it depends on my first question. 


My understanding was that most extended stand offs were in large part because the police can't see the bad guy, can't confirm no one else is present, and can't get access to the bad guy.  Also, in most cases, the object of these stand offs hasn't been known to have just shot a bunch of people.  Similar reasons why they generally don't shoot at cars during long car chases.  

Police don't generally use deadly weapons that have large area effect since they can't limit the damage to just the target.  They have enough issues with lawsuits now.  I can't imagine what they would run into if they screwed up the use of explosives (which they would if it went into general use).  Not to mention what happens when "police explosives" are stolen.  

[MechAg94]

One thought occurred to me:  Would 3 or 4 NYPD officers shooting at a suspect be considered an area effect weapon?