Bots, bombs, and use of force.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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."

Not sure that that's a pickle no the guys already shot 11 people promising to come out guns blazing and told you he's got Bombs all over the place

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Fly320s]

Not sure that that's a pickle no the guys already shot 11 people promising to come out guns blazing and told you he's got Bombs all over the place

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion.

Did the shooter have all three of AOJ?  Were the police precluded from using other options?  Unless the answer is yes to all four criteria, the use of lethal force was not necessary.

I want to reiterate that my opinion, and this poll, is based on what the news and police are reporting.  I've only heard that the suspect was barricaded/cornered and was talking with police for at least one hour.  If (when) the report changes and we learn that the suspect was actively attacking people, then I will reevaluate my opinion.

[K Frame]

"My answer is "no" because the shooter was not a current threat at the time."

100% INCORRECT.

He remained armed, he remained mobile, he remained an active thread.

Just because there was a police perimeter around him does not mean the threat was neutralized.

He gave no indication of being willing to surrender, and gave every indication of wanting to continue to kill as many people as possible.

Am I a fan of the "militarization" of police? No.

But I'm even less of a fan of allowing this guy the possibility of killing even more people.


" I've only heard that the suspect was barricaded/cornered and was talking with police for at least one hour. "

He was talking with police for over an hour. But have you actually seen how the discussion went?

You think it was "well, I'm hurt, so I'm thinking about surrendering, please don't hurt me..."

No, it wasn't.

It was an hours-long litany of taunts, threats, promises to try to kill anyone who tried to approach him. When someone has just shot multiple people, you tend to take him at his word.

"Negotiations," if you can even call them that, had broken down by the time the police sent in the bomb-armed robot.

Oh, and if the guy was no longer an active threat because he was cornered and surrounded, I'm guessing the police were to have discounted the roughly 30+ rounds he fired at them (by the counts I've heard) AFTER he was cornered?

Seems like a man willing to surrender and lacking any threatening capability to me.

[Ron]

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.  

Quoted for truth

Reading this thread I'm absolutely flabbergasted  

[Fly320s]

He was talking with police for over an hour. But have you actually seen how the discussion went?

You think it was "well, I'm hurt, so I'm thinking about surrendering, please don't hurt me..."

No, it wasn't.

It was an hours-long litany of taunts, threats, promises to try to kill anyone who tried to approach him. When someone has just shot multiple people, you tend to take him at his word.

I haven't seen this reported.  Do you have a source?   

Not that threats and taunts mean much since, again, the person has to hit all the points on the AOJP to make the police use lethal force.  The shooter certainly had Ability, since he was armed and still conscious.  He may have had Opportunity depending on proximity to the police and what barriers were between them.  Jeopardy is a bit murky since the shooter doesn't appear to be able to physically harm anyone from where he is.  Again, that is from what I've read in the news bits.  The police were certainly not Precluded from using other techniques to stop the shooter.  That opinion is reinforced by the fact that it took the police some amount of time greater than "immediately" to rig the bomb onto the robot and drive the robot to the shooter.  The police seemed to have the shooter cornered into a place where the shooter can do no harm to anyone.  If that was true, then the police should have deescalated to a condition of containment.

We don't have all of the facts and probably won't for many months.  So, for now, I have to go by what the police have told the media and assume that the stories are true.

[makattak]

My opinion is that IF the police thought the murderer had wired himself with a bomb, they were justified in blowing him up. (That is, his death would be a result of destroying the perceived bomb, NOT the aim of the explosion.)

Otherwise, I'm not comfortable with the civilian use of explosives to take out a suspect.

[Fly320s]

Just to lighten things up a bit; stolen from Pistol-Forum.com:

The tactics that DPD SWAT used to get this guy may open new doors for entrepreneurs. Imagine... "US Robotics is proud to announce our new product. Introducing C4PO"

The guys that make the Roomba could come out with a Boomba

[roo_ster]

Then there is the ticklish question no one has asked: To whom was murderous BLM-boy a threat? 

I think given the evidence...
1. One non-LEO shot in calf.
2. Five LEOs shot and killed.
3. Seven other LEOs shot and wounded.
...that BLM-boy was targeting LEOs, not the general population.

He had plenty of opportunity to rack up a general body count if general body count was his objective.  Instead, BLM-boy exercised discrimination in his targeting and shot at LEOs.  Thus, there was even less urgency on the part of LEOs to resolve the issue RFN...if protecting the general public from mayhem was the primary objective.


I would add some possibly explanatory bits as to why DPD may have taken the course of action it did.

1. DPD morale sucks goats' balls.   Ferguson effect + affirmative action / racial quotas + less confrontational policies make for a contentious culture and low motivation.  Each can be examined on its own.

2. The best DPD officers generally decamp to suburban LEO shacks for better pay and fewer NAMs to deal with.

3. The remaining DPD officers are not star performers.

DPD SWAT is not immune from the aforementioned issues, but it is less effected by them.  And they are better than average for a big-city SWAT org.  They are the most effective and most motivated part of DPD. 

I would not be surprised:
1. If patrol DPD officers flat-out refused to close on murderous BLM-boy.
2. Not enough SWAT to close on BLM-boy in an optimal fashion with the least amount of risk to SWAT.
3. The combination of a general DPD population that would not get after BLM-boy and not enough SWAT for the least-risk SWAT solution lead Chief Brown and SWAT leadership to seek alternative means to end the situation quickly.

[MechAg94]

So where were the non-LEO volunteers willing to charge in an apprehend the guy?  But I guess LEO's signed on to charge the guns and shouldn't complain about doing it. 

[HankB]

1. DPD morale sucks goats' balls.   Ferguson effect + affirmative action / racial quotas + less confrontational policies make for a contentious culture and low motivation.  Each can be examined on its own.

To amplify in the above, here's a link to a story addressing low morale in DPD, with low starting pay being an issue. The story was published shortly before the latest incident:  http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/05/dallas-police-assoc-says-low-pay-morale-trigger-several-police-resignations/

Interesting how the DPD leadership uses the term "defections" when DPD officers leave for a better job elsewhere.

My information is that DPD rookies start at about $42,000 a year, whereas Fort Worth rookie pay is in the neighborhood of $58,000. Upper rank DPD pay is comparable to upper ranks in other cities.

[roo_ster]

So where were the non-LEO volunteers willing to charge in an apprehend the guy?  But I guess LEO's signed on to charge the guns and shouldn't complain about doing it. 

1. Not sure, but even if found, DPD was not likely to let them through their cordon.

2. Why should non-LEOs do the charging, since non-LEOs seemed little at risk given BLM-boy's target preferences?

3. LEOs gotta earn their pay, benefits, perks, and limited sovereign immunity some day.  If they don't like the job, they can always quit.  Maybe take up a higher-risk profession like lumberjacking or truck driving.

4. BLM-boy was in the DCCC El Centro campus parking garage, not a bunker on Omaha Beach.  And the force ratio was much more in DPD's favor than it was in the Allies' favor 06JUN1944.  Plus, DPD had eyes on him in the form of a robot that BLM-boy did not shoot to pieces. 

[zxcvbob]

They could have attached teargas to the robot as easily as they did the IED.  But that might not have achieved the objective (the objective was killing him, not apprehending him)

I would expect such lawless behavior from Chicago or Oakland or New Orleans PD, or that reckless sheriff's dept in northern Georgia.  I was surprised and disappointed seeing it from DPD.  If DPD can pull a stunt like this, any of them can.  BTW, I sympathize with the officers wanting revenge on the cop killer, but cannot condone it.  It's not that different from the Oklahoma pharmacist who executed a robber.

[Ben]

They could have attacked teargas to the robot as easily as they did the IED. 

I was wondering about non-lethal alternatives myself. Don't know what has been tested or what might most reliably work. An explosive like this is (I think?) a pretty simple device (both in reliable activation and resulting force) and I wonder if that was part of the consideration.

The more I think about this, the less I like it, even in my "perfect world, last resort" scenario. Part of that has been some of the public feedback. I understand and respect the point of view of LE "needing to do it" even if I don't agree. I much less respect some of the cheering and joking I see from people on the right that should know better, because this definitely has the potential to fall under, "They came for 'X' and I said nothing".

[Hawkmoon]

So where were the non-LEO volunteers willing to charge in an apprehend the guy?  But I guess LEO's signed on to charge the guns and shouldn't complain about doing it.  

What does "charging the guns" have to do with anything? The guy was cornered. Mike mentioned that the negotiations had gone on for "hours" -- I believe actually that's technically correct, because "two" is a plural. That's how long they waited before blowing him up. Other negotiations in standoff situations have gone on for days. They could have simply contained him and waited him out. If they didn't provide food or water, how long would he have been able to continue before his body gave up for him?

On the other hand, the cops could have rotated snipers in shifts, so that his exit route(s) was (were) always covered by three or four sharpshooters, ready to take him down if he tried to burst out shooting.

The chief can try to justify the robot bomb all he wants, to me it was morally, ethically, and legally unjustified.

[HankB]

I'm still not clear on the perp's location - was he completely contained so he couldn't shoot at the public streets, sidewalks, other buildings, etc., or would it have been possible for him to shoot in such as way as to endanger people other than the cops containing him?

[Fly320s]

I'm still not clear on the perp's location - was he completely contained so he couldn't shoot at the public streets, sidewalks, other buildings, etc., or would it have been possible for him to shoot in such as way as to endanger people other than the cops containing him?

Mostly unknown.  The only reports I've read said that the shooter was cornered and negotiating/having a stand-off with police.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

My opinion is that IF the police thought the murderer had wired himself with a bomb, they were justified in blowing him up. (That is, his death would be a result of destroying the perceived bomb, NOT the aim of the explosion.)

Otherwise, I'm not comfortable with the civilian use of explosives to take out a suspect.

They were concerned enough to use robot to check corpse

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

I'm still not clear on the perp's location - was he completely contained so he couldn't shoot at the public streets, sidewalks, other buildings, etc., or would it have been possible for him to shoot in such as way as to endanger people other than the cops containing him?

Think this is the actual garage, across the street from el centro.
https://goo.gl/maps/5uACjyeeiZN2
https://goo.gl/maps/tZxrgbXExZn

If you use 3D and street view, you can ID some of the locations as seen in the uploaded videos.  

Using 3D view, you can get an idea of BLM-boy's LOS.  If at the top of the garage, pretty decent range, but crappy nearby on immediate streets.  I don't think he was that far up in the garage.  IIRC, DPD kept folk out of sight and off the streets.  Even stopped DART coming through.

IIRC, BLM-boy traversed el centro'c bldg C on his way to the garage.

Looking at the garage, were BLM-boy so inclined, he could have caused MUCH more havoc had he used a suppressor, scope, and a few prepared positions with rests from way up high in the garage.  300m shots with little idea of where it was coming from until he was out of rounds.  Why the heck not max out the credit cards on hardware before a suicide mission?

Hells Bells, BLM-Boy really was suicidal or stupid.  

Check it out:
http://2npiml302eni29pobyk8h5u19w8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/themes/d-bootstrap-bobby/inc/timthumb.php?src=/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/hidden_dallas_tunnels_map.jpg&w=747

BLMB had access to the Dallas tunnel system from that building.  He coulda got shots off and then beat feet underneath all the street-level chaos, then emerged next to a DART station and rode the train back home.  If he actually had explosives, he could have opened some of the closed tunnels and gotten even farther away before going topside.

May our enemies be impulsive and on the left hand side of the bell curve.

[BlueStarLizzard]

They could have attached teargas to the robot as easily as they did the IED.  But that might not have achieved the objective (the objective was killing him, not apprehending him)

I would expect such lawless behavior from Chicago or Oakland or New Orleans PD, or that reckless sheriff's dept in northern Georgia.  I was surprised and disappointed seeing it from DPD.  If DPD can pull a stunt like this, any of them can.  BTW, I sympathize with the officers wanting revenge on the cop killer, but cannot condone it.  It's not that different from the Oklahoma pharmacist who executed a robber.

That's what I've been thinking about as well. A sniper only has one option, really, but a robot delivery opens up more options in terms of what can be used. There are too many boomy things that are designed to disable rather than kill for it to not be a consideration.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

What does "charging the guns" have to do with anything? The guy was cornered. Mike mentioned that the negotiations had gone on for "hours" -- I believe actually that's technically correct, because "two" is a plural. That's how long they waited before blowing him up. Other negotiations in standoff situations have gone on for days. They could have simply contained him and waited him out. If they didn't provide food or water, how long would he have been able to continue before his body gave up for him?

On the other hand, the cops could have rotated snipers in shifts, so that his exit route(s) was (were) always covered by three or four sharpshooters, ready to take him down if he tried to burst out shooting.

The chief can try to justify the robot bomb all he wants, to me it was morally, ethically, and legally unjustified.

Is it your belief that, or as some suggested tear gas,  woulda made it impossible to detonate explosives?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

Is it your belief that, or as some suggested tear gas,  woulda made it impossible to detonate explosives?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If he was gonna, or had the capability to, detonate explosives a slow ass RC tank creeping up on him ain't a great idea either.

[roo_ster]

If he was gonna, or had the capability to, detonate explosives a slow ass RC tank creeping up on him ain't a great idea either.

Ayup.  If'n you think BLMB set splodies where they could hurt innocent folk, fiddling around with an RC toy is not the urgent & immediate action called for.  What _is_ called for is an assault RFN and suck up the risk.

And given the tunnel system, they could enter the building without having to cross open ground.

The whole way this was approached reeks of diminished capacity on the part of DPD and an effort to plug the hole with a tech patch.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If he was gonna, or had the capability to, detonate explosives a slow ass RC tank creeping up on him ain't a great idea either.

Interesting

Was that a yes or a no?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[makattak]

There is another problem here. Police robots will be less useful in a standoff situation as shooters/suspects start engaging the robot as a threat.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

There is another problem here. Police robots will be less useful in a standoff situation as shooters/suspects start engaging the robot as a threat.

They always have
 Pretty common

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk