Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on July 10, 2016, 09:52:15 AM
-
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.
-
a really, really silly question. If the decision was made to stop his aggression by using deadly force, what difference does it make whether or not it was a bullet or a bomb? Mission accomplished.
-
Silly or not, I remain uncomfortable with police use of explosives as deadly force. No problem with the robot side of things. Nor with their application of deadly force against an armed, barricaded subject who had just shot a bunch of folks and killed a heaping handful of them and for hours during negotiations expressed his desire to kill more and unwillingness to give up.
-
This does seem like a logical extension of having a militarized police force.
Combined with the Presidents push to have more Federal intrusion and control of policing this seems to be a dangerous trend.
A Federally controlled Military Police Force, aka standing army, in every neighborhood, for our safety :police:
What could go wrong with that :facepalm:
-
So from bombs are we going to frags and mortars? Maybe some HEDP in a surplus 203?
Weapons of war have no place on our streets. Right? I am not comfortable with this extension of police tactics regardless of how much this individual may have needed to die.
-
Yup this seems like an excessive escalation of force. How long before they start using this as an excuse to use explosives for high risk raids? Flashbang crib baby anyone? Just wait till they're tossing Forty mike mike rounds through windows.
-
Okay, then we'll make it policy that all situations like this must begin with a card and flowers. If that doesn't work, step two is chocolates and a day at the spa. After that, slightly terse words, said firmly and with conviction. Minimum use of force, right... ?
This is the same argument used by the "Why didn't you just shoot him in the leg!" crowd. The guy was confirmed as the shooter. He was holed up in place with no intent of leaving. There was no way to get him out using officers that wouldn't endanger more lives. They used means at their disposal to end a bad situation that had every indication of becoming worse. I say good call.
Brad
-
Next the police will monitor ghetto neighborhoods with armed drones outfitted with FLIR.
The police will get some surplus armored up Humvees for patrol.
Bigger depts will get their own Littlebirds with FLIR and chainguns for fast insertion and close air support.
It's for our own officer safety!
-
I'm conflicted on it. I don't know how isolated the area was. If the shooter was completely isolated and there was no danger to others, maybe it was the most expeditious move, and in my perfect world, the cops would know to resort to something like this as a last measure.
In the real world, I agree with the other posts above that this kind of thing militarizes the police, including the accompanying mindset. How long before "no knocks" are performed by Mr Splodey Robot? Wouldn't that be the safest way for the cops to do a no knock (for them)? Their rational would be that they have to break down the door anyway, so why put a cop at risk? Heck, then send in Mr Flashbang Robot, or Mr Auto-targeting Sentry Gun Robot. That way everybody goes home at night (at least on one side).
-
Police use of deadly force should only be used when there is an immediate need to protect themselves or others. Police will of course find themselves in that situation more often, and it may be easier to justify that criteria, than the average citizen. But the basic concept remains the same IMO.
If you can send in a robot with an explosive because someone is holed up, or rig up an improvised incendiary device and drop it on a building from a helicopter, that does not meet that criteria and is descending further down a slippery slope than I for one am okie dooky with.
-
Given the circumstances, it probably did less damage than burning down the
compound hotel or even an isolated cabin.
-
a really, really silly question. If the decision was made to stop his aggression by using deadly force, what difference does it make whether or not it was a bullet or a bomb? Mission accomplished.
Just to be clear, I am asking about the use of force, not the use of the exlosive. In other words, if the cops had gone in and shot the guy after the standoff, would that be a legitimate use of force?
-
Just to be clear, I am asking about the use of force, not the use of the exlosive. In other words, if the cops had gone in and shot the guy after the standoff, would that be a legitimate use of force?
If they waltzed in and shot the guy? No.
If they forced their way in and he resisted to the point they had to shoot him to protect themselves? Of course.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
Okay, then we'll make it policy that all situations like this must begin with a card and flowers. If that doesn't work, step two is chocolates and a day at the spa. After that, slightly terse words, said firmly and with conviction. Minimum use of force, right... ?
There have been numerous standoff negotiations that have gone on for days. This one only went for a few hours before they blew him up. This is more like the case in California (?) a year or two ago where the police had cornered a cop killer in a cabin (not his, FWIW) and they just burned it down around him rather than wait him out. Basically, this wasn't (IMHO) a legitimate use of force. I doubt they would have used the same tactic if the fugitive had been a bank robber, a serial rapist, or even someone who had killed a "civilian." This was a case of the police wanting to get a guy who had killed some of their own.
I understand the feeling, but I can't sympathize with it. A badge is not a license to become an executioner if the subject happens to have killed someone wearing another badge. If you can't remain objective ... don't become a cop.
-
I don't like the precedent that has been set with this one.
I also don't care for the argument of officer safety under this criteria. Deadly force should be last resort. Their goal should always be to bring the guy in alive. Yes, it would have involved a lot more danger to the officers to go in and get him, rather than blow his butt up and, yes, I'm betting this bad guy would have died anyway because they would have been forced to shoot him, and I'm fully aware that the higher probability of another officer getting hurt or killed if they'd done it that way.
However, that is their job and if they wanted a safe job they should have become librarians.
I know I come off as harsh, especially considering that I think death by bomb bot was a good end to an evil man, but this feels too much like the DPD took on the roles of judge, jury and executioner and that scares me.
-
Pretty much what Hawk and BSL said. The cops went too far, again. They had a cool toy to play with, and using it would get them home a lot sooner that day. No overtime. They were too lazy to wait the guy out.
-
The last three posts cover a lot of my thoughts on the situation. I think a bullet is a bomb is an airstrike if lethal force is justified. A lot of the news articles justifying the decision have pushed that same argument. But they all skim over that pesky little "if." I'm not sure sniping him would have been justified in this situation either. He was contained and he wasn't an active threat to anyone. Give him a few hours to get tired and hungry and he might have been a lot more amendable to surrendering.
-
No problem with the robot side of things.
#RobotLivesMatter
While I don't have a problem with the use of a bomb in this particular case, I do agree it sets a dangerous precedent for future police encounters.
-
I see both sides of it.
Mostly I think that he wanted to start a scheissensturm and he got it.
I get the concerns over due process and "using a robot" (100% manually controlled bomb squad unit) but the level of hand-wringing in the articles is more akin to if the guy got away, the DPD located him a week later, and then killed him unannounced with a bomb or a quadcopter and a chunk of C4 etc.
Most of you know I'm pretty radical Libertarian/AnCap myself, but if I were tasked with securing him in that standoff, after several hours, and his repeated statements he intends to kill as many of us as possible on the way out, I'd have just blown him up too.
I dislike the trend everywhere on the internet to Monday Morning Quarterback people in extreme circumstances.
I also think the Right or Libertarians ought to be careful how we hitch our horses to BLM situations, because we all damn well know that if we could magically snap our fingers and make America "the way it ought to be" overnight, in regards to taxes, the government, the welfare state etc. with self-defense and RKBA sacrosanct, hundreds, if not thousands of times more black people who are currently heavily dependant on the state would be killed in the turmoil of the "adjustment period".
-
While I don't agree with the underlying sentiment, this gave me a chuckle:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi177.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw201%2FSVT-40%2FPolice%2520related%2F13620091_1059781790723521_2617266901791155156_n_zpsdh8ewgkg.jpg&hash=241262f4cc859aafc8413e5e5dc9790385c438e0) (http://s177.photobucket.com/user/SVT-40/media/Police%20related/13620091_1059781790723521_2617266901791155156_n_zpsdh8ewgkg.jpg.html)
-
I'm not concerned about its use this time. The situation called for desperate measures.
I'm more concerned about the NEXT time it's used.....
-
War is just police violence outside of the belligerents' own borders, and it's been said by many(and readily observable) that foreign wars are essentially training for domestic tyranny. UAVs go overseas, a few decades later they come home. Extrajudicial(due-process-free) targeted killing of citizens in foreign countries? Now it's kosher here. Excuse this kind of action in the name of officer safety or whatever you want to call it, but like it or not they got away with it here so you can expect to see it a lot more in the future.
Regarding the "weapons of war" distinction, I firmly believe that such a label is misleading and inappropriate. There are no weapons of war and no weapons of peace, only weapons of differing scale. As weapons increase in effect, their use becomes more and more difficult to morally justify as defensive. Explosives are a step up in scale, which is probably one reason many here would have a problem with cops using them.
The other factor which should make you itch is the removal of personal risk to cops. We have seen over and over that making things safer for police inevitably results in more widespread use. SWAT teams with huge budgets, serious weapons, tanks etc reduce cops' risk of bodily harm. 80,000 raids a year and climbing, for ever-smaller "crimes". Sovereign and qualified immunity, jury-stacking and judicial collusion and a sycophantic media and public insulate against legal and financial responsibility. Cops now are trained to act more aggressively(often first in the military, then in the academy) and now can pretty much kill at will without fear of any liability - and they are agitating for MORE protection(restrictions on releasing the names of cops who kill, police bills of rights, etc).
This even shows up in the mundane: photo radar and red-light cameras are free money for departments and cities, so they find their way into more and more places - and they're often not predatory enough to suit the moochers: stories abound of cities shortening yellow-light intervals in order to increase "violations".
Remember the video of the cop breaking the autistic kid's arm to get him off the schoolbus when he wouldn't stop screaming? How about the cop who responded to a backup call for help restraining a guy who was siezing or having some sort of mental brrakdown, said "I don't have time for this" and fatally shot him in the chest? I don't see this as essentially different(although I understand that the Dallas shooter was competent and armed). It's violence as a measure of expedience, not a last resort. If you're not willing to assume some risk as a cop, either go home and apply for a real job or have the honesty to drop the hard-ass supercitizen attitude. Policing SHOULD be dangerous.
Give this a pass in Dallas, and you invite it into your city.
-
Part of the decision may have been that he was claiming to have explosives planted around, and they may have feared him having the ability to detonate them. I'm sort of inclined to give them this one, but it scares me.
Their have been a lot of incidents of cops killing people unnecessarily and getting away with it. I don't think this is a black/white thing and I think the BLM crowd mostly picks bad examples and would be more effective if they just concentrated on bad use of force instead of trying to make it a racial thing. Often you hear the "They want to go home at night." justification. I fear the use of explosives in this way may lead to even more bad decisions by our government officials.
-
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!
-
The nice thing here is that they didn't take out an entire city block, like they did in Philadelphia in 85.
Perhaps they will progress to more better destruction when they switch to aerial drones.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. =(
-
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.
-
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, 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?
-
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.
-
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. =|
-
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".
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
There's precedent for this, of course. From the City of Brotherly Love, no less:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
One thought occurred to me: Would 3 or 4 NYPD officers shooting at a suspect be considered an area effect weapon? =)
-
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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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 :facepalm:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. 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/ (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
They always have
Pretty common
I thought, given the police were conversing with the shooter, that the robots were often used for communication purposes. Guess not.
-
Interesting
Was that a yes or a no?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I'm sorry I thought I was clear.
No, if he was sitting on explosives or a detonator for same then Tear Gas would not incapacitate him quickly enough to preclude detonating it/them. I however reject using that flimsy excuse as justification for using a remote controlled tank and attached IED because said tank/IED combo have the same issue as tear gas. That is to say the inability to close on and incapacitate someone fast enough to preclude them from detonating any hypothetical explosives.
Additionally police have well tested anti-IED Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP's) in place to preclude remote detonation of anything but hard wired explosives once the bomb squad (whose RC tank this was, you'll recall) arrives.
Clear enough?
-
Seems like they used enough bang to get him
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/new-photo-of-dead-dallas-shooter-and-his-gun-surfaces-online-graphic
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
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.
I thought the same thing. They have used bots to deliver food, telephones and other stuff in standoff situations. I remember Randy Weaver saying he wouldn't get the phone from the robot at Ruby Ridge because it had a shotgun mounted on it. Sure seems like you send a message that a bomb is a real possibility once you use it for that purpose. That said, the shooter was apparently making on going threats and still claimed he had bombs in place, so if ever there was a case for the Kaboom method this was it.
-
Seems like they used enough bang to get him
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/new-photo-of-dead-dallas-shooter-and-his-gun-surfaces-online-graphic
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
It's not the bang, it's the 90secs of rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr beforehand. Remember, he didn't set of any explosives here not because they surprised him, but because he didn't have any.
-
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.
My charging the guns comment was a reaction to some previous comments that apparently cops sign up for the job to be shot at and shouldn't complain about the risk.
There are better ways to talk about this without acting like all police are jack booted thugs. Most of the blame for bad police behavior falls on their politician bosses IMO anyway.
Most of this discussion has been good. I guess I shouldn't react.
-
No, if he was sitting on explosives or a detonator for same then Tear Gas would not incapacitate him quickly enough to preclude detonating it/them.
If he had been sitting on explosives, the bomb likely would have also exploded whatever he was sitting on ...
-
I'll be interested in the replies from some of ya'll when police forces start arming airborne drones and using them to deliver ordinance onto targets.
-
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 a tactical assault crowbar, he could have opened some of the closed tunnels and gotten even farther away before going topside.
Unless they've done a lot since I last used them, the "closed" tunnels are sort of like the "closed" seating areas at Dairy Queen. At most, they have plywood nailed up, drywalled over and painted nicely.
-
I'll be interested in the replies from some of ya'll when police forces start arming airborne drones and using them to deliver ordinance onto targets.
I thought I read a couple of years ago that Montgomery County TX has armed drones. (that's the county where I grew up) They were on of the first to get them. But maybe they just have surveillance drones.
ETA: http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands/article/250K-police-drone-crashes-into-Lake-Conroe-5435343.php
-
2. Not enough SWAT to close on BLM-boy in an optimal fashion with the least amount of risk to SWAT.
How many does that really take? The guy had a rifle and a pistol, not a CIWS and a mine field.
Somewhere, Terrell Bolton is grinning that DPD finally topped anything it did with him in charge.
-
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I do agree to an extent that if the decision is made to use deadly force, then how he dies isn't much of a concern... in THIS case it seems like a decision that left everyone but the bad guy alive
That said, i'm VERY concerned about the precedent that this sets, and I don't think it bodes well for the already acknowledged issues with law enforcement in the nation.
I may have made the same decision... but that doesn't mean it was the right decision.
In fact, under certain circumstances, this exact tactic COULD have gotten me hemmed up bigtime in Iraq. that should tell us something
-
http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/07/10/why-it-matters-the-dallas-police-used-a-drone-to-kill-someone-in-america/
-
I stopped in at my Mennonite neighbor's store to buy gas. He is outside and shoes me his drone.Checking in on vacation Bible school which is right next door to me and.5 miles from where we are. If the Mennonites having them I assume that any future conflict will have massive amounts of sensor and attack platforms. So now how to kill all cameras, deny spectrum and distrust any machine?
-
Could have just used a 50 with ap rounds and shoot through the cars.
-
How about getting to the deck above with a hammer drill, Pop a hole in the floor and pour down a gallon of gas and light?
-
I stopped in at my Mennonite neighbor's store to buy gas. He is outside and shoes me his drone.Checking in on vacation Bible school which is right next door to me and.5 miles from where we are. If the Mennonites having them I assume that any future conflict will have massive amounts of sensor and attack platforms. So now how to kill all cameras, deny spectrum and distrust any machine?
Something about the idea of a Mennonite drone surveillance force just...I dunno...
-
I stopped in at my Mennonite neighbor's store to buy gas. He is outside and shoes me his drone.Checking in on vacation Bible school which is right next door to me and.5 miles from where we are. If the Mennonites having them I assume that any future conflict will have massive amounts of sensor and attack platforms. So now how to kill all cameras, deny spectrum and distrust any machine?
A tesla coil or Marx generator and a spinning coffee can and nails spark-gap generator mounted at the focus of on an old 1980's TVRO satellite dish would play hell with almost anything using a 2-way RF link that was not hardened to a military standard. Just letting the spark-gap transmitter run omnidirectionally would probably cause loss of comms for most all commercial/hobby drones within a hundred yards or so.
Jamming GPS, at least out to a radius or a "bubble" of at least a few hundred yards is stupid-easy. Get an oscillator at even just 1 Watt or even less on the proper frequencies, and it will drown out the very weak signals the GPS constellation puts out from 12,000 miles up or whatever it is. Add a few more frequencies if you're paranoid, and are worried it's an enhanced GPS unit that also listens for the signals from the incomplete Russian GLONASS constellation for increased accuracy. We're literally talking $20 or less in off the shelf hobbyist chips you can get from Digikey, and can program with a USB dongle from your PC to do this, a source of 12VDC, a prototyping breadboard and a few other components and wires that cost only pennies.
Also... 20-50 Watts of near-ir LED laser diode slaved to some simple sensors and a mirror on steering galvos could play hell with almost any cameras. And I could easily see it scanning the sky on low power at like 10mW in a LIDAR like mode looking for any kind of reflection or shaped return of the laser sweeps that could only be coming from a camera lens, (details are shady, but there's something like this the military already has that looks for the reflections of rifle scopes in combat zones) then it locks on and starts tracking at full power. It might not burn out the camera, but it could blind it as long as it's looking in the direction of the laser. There's an R&D curve here for sure, but I don't think it would be too hard for a pre-packaged consumer-like system being made out of that which isn't much bigger than your average security camera dome. This one I know I'm onto something plausible for sure, because when I chatted up birdman about it, he could not/would not discuss it with me. >:D
Also, microphones listening for high RPM electric motor/propeller signatures, and video tracking against the sky is also pretty "easy". Go look at YouTube videos of kids that have made Nerf and Paintball "sentry guns" all DIY. If you're honeybadger enough to do it, no reason such a thing couldn't be mounted with a 12ga semi-auto full of high-brass goose loads if you really wanted to do it.
There's also a few startups claiming to be creating a turnkey system with sensors and anti-drones that watch/listen for paparazzi drones and then launch an interceptor drone with simply drops sticky string on them, and they hope to market it to wealthy people and movie stars etc.
In Europe, there's a team practicing with training falcons to intercept drones to protect airport airspace.
Of course ALL these ideas are highly illegal at a minimum to FAA aviation regs, FCC radio regs/laws, and FDA/FTC laser safety regs, but it's all pretty do-able. Especially the RF stuff. The RF stuff is things a hobbyist could easily turn out in a week of spare time if they have the skill. Maybe a month if they need to learn on the internet how to produce the needed electronics and program them.
As for holed up suspects now shooting at the bomb disposal robot. It might take a lot of shooting to do it, unless you're very quick, careful, and lucky to take out it's lights and cameras. IIRC, I can't find the video, but from a few years or a decade back, probably on one of those "WORLD'S CRAZIEST POLICE VIDEOS" cable TV clip shows. There was some sort of standoff with an older man on the 2nd story of his home, and the PD sent in the bomb robot just to get a visual, and try to talk with him, and on the video from the bomb disposal bot you could see he was pumping .30-30 from a lever gun into it at point-blank range without much effect. Although he might not have had any tech savvy to pick out things worth shooting at.
-
I stopped in at my Mennonite neighbor's store to buy gas. He is outside and shoes me his drone.Checking in on vacation Bible school which is right next door to me and.5 miles from where we are. If the Mennonites having them I assume that any future conflict will have massive amounts of sensor and attack platforms. So now how to kill all cameras, deny spectrum and distrust any machine?
Most use the 2.4GHz hardware. Not hard to jam.
-
A tesla coil or Marx generator and a spinning coffee can and nails spark-gap generator mounted at the focus of on an old 1980's TVRO satellite dish would play hell with almost anything using a 2-way RF link that was not hardened to a military standard. Just letting the spark-gap transmitter run omnidirectionally would probably cause loss of comms for most all commercial/hobby drones within a hundred yards or so.
Is this effective against frequency modulated systems?
-
Is this effective against frequency modulated systems?
Spark gap oscillators typically run less than 1 MHz, but it's a really dirty signal. I have no idea if they generate much energy (thru harmonics) into the GHz band. That probably depends on the length of the antenna. 2.4GHz halfwave antenna is only a couple inches long.
A really powerful one will won't necessarily jam signals, it will destroy equipment, like a EMP.
It's been over 30 years since I studied electrical engineering, and I wasn't a very good student. Hams like Terry probably have better info.
-
...on the video from the bomb disposal bot you could see he was pumping .30-30 from a lever gun into it at point-blank range without much effect.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F12%2F127594%2F5013213-3849037939-VOvDR.gif&hash=9797cd6780f405335a603c04813d42318ea27e57)
-
Post withdrawn by poster.
-
Post withdrawn by poster.
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-10/what-happens-after-cops-start-getting-shot
Besides the long term liberty implications of the police militarization, or the legal questions about whether it was justified, the article looks at it from the colder angle of pure strategy, from which it alleges the boombot maneuver was a Bad Idea, and irresponsible and short-sighted, considering the possibility of inciting a hotter race war, but contemporary Americans are out of touch with insurgency dynamics, and they don't realize the fire they are playing with. By exploding BLMB in this extravagant manner, police may hope to send a message that further violence against police is a bad idea. However, the article alleges that it will have the opposite effect by the martyrdom factor, and rather that sitting around discussing legality or political angles, we should be focusing on what will keep a proper insurgency, of which this type of police shooting is a harbinger, from popping up,
Basically, I think the police that are militarizing think that their fancy hardware and increasingly despotic methods are going to keep them one step ahead, or they think it will assure their victory, suppress resistance, or keep them safer, when in fact history shows there is no way to be safe from the insurgency that is the end result of the escalations, as we see overseas with IEDs and such.
This leaves a bit of a bad taste because the message is basically "cops need to back down", and I can understand their reluctance. However, I note that right now, the BLM phenomenon is " BLM vs. cops ". There have been riots, but it's not really black vs. white race war right now, so I don't personally feel much at risk from the BLMers; if anything, I am beginning to feel more at risk from the cops, whom I cannot avoid as easily. If the cops don't deescalate, that could change fast, and more riots and whites-directed crimes could be the result. The cops, media, and even this board don't seem to take this possibility seriously and approach the issue in terms of who's right, rather than how to minimize losses.
-
http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/07/10/why-it-matters-the-dallas-police-used-a-drone-to-kill-someone-in-america/
From the comments
There was no reason to kill the suspect by robot, by drone or by sniper. The suspect was contained. There were no hostages. The suspect was alone, barricaded in the building surrounded by cops. The robot could have delivered tear gas, knock out gas or the cops could have simply waited him out behind a safe perimeter. He would eventually have to come out. If he came out armed, lethal force would have been justified.
We need to remind ourselves that the job of a solider is to kill the enemy. The job of a cop is to arrest a suspect and deliver the arrestee to the judicial system. A cop may only use lethal force to prevent imminent harm, not to punish a criminal.
IMHO police were eager to exact revenge and end the standoff.
The precedent this sets is unsettling.
-
What he said ^
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
IMO, the police wanted to stop the guy without exposing themselves the fire. They used what was there. I really doubt they were thinking of precedents. Maybe they should have. If they had brought in a 50 cal rifle and shot through the barrier, I am not sure if the precedent wouldn't be the same.
I just don't think this event is quite as significant as you think. The general use of explosives would require someone to decide that collateral damage is okay as long as the target is stopped which sometimes happens already. I just don't see it carrying over to explosives and armed drones just because of this event. If we are heading down that slippery slope, that ride already started and this didn't add anything significant. The criminal courts punishing police officers and civil suits punishing the administration are the two things that might hold law enforcement in check. I think the first has been eroded already. I don't know about the second.
-
Graphic photo of supposed Dallas shoot surfaces online (https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/new-photo-of-dead-dallas-shooter-and-his-gun-surfaces-online-graphic)