Poll

Was the DPD legally justified in using deadly force, via the explosive, on the shooter?

Yes
25 (55.6%)
No
17 (37.8%)
What?
3 (6.7%)

Total Members Voted: 45

Author Topic: Bots, bombs, and use of force.  (Read 9508 times)

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2016, 03:37:29 PM »
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.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,034
Re: Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2016, 03:41:15 PM »
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?

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re:
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2016, 03:44:20 PM »
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 is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,065
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2016, 03:49:24 PM »
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.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,034
Re:
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2016, 04:11:36 PM »
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.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,894
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #80 on: July 11, 2016, 05:22:38 PM »
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.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,364
Re: Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #81 on: July 11, 2016, 06:12:31 PM »
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 ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #82 on: July 11, 2016, 06:19:42 PM »
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.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2016, 06:58:59 PM »
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.

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,280
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2016, 07:06:37 PM »
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
"It's good, though..."

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2016, 07:18:02 PM »
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.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2016, 08:04:04 PM »
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
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog


French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,202
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2016, 08:35:56 PM »
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?
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

never_retreat

  • Head Muckety Muck
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,158
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #89 on: July 11, 2016, 08:43:32 PM »
Could have just used a 50 with ap rounds and shoot through the cars.
I needed a mod to change my signature because the concept of "family friendly" eludes me.
Just noticed that a mod changed my signature. How long ago was that?
A few months-mods

never_retreat

  • Head Muckety Muck
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,158
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2016, 08:50:30 PM »
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 needed a mod to change my signature because the concept of "family friendly" eludes me.
Just noticed that a mod changed my signature. How long ago was that?
A few months-mods

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #91 on: July 11, 2016, 08:51:14 PM »
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...

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #92 on: July 11, 2016, 09:14:40 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 09:28:31 PM by AJ Dual »
I promise not to duck.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2016, 10:13:41 PM »
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.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Nick1911

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2016, 10:54:16 PM »
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?

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,280
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2016, 11:47:53 PM »
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.
"It's good, though..."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,509
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2016, 12:05:06 AM »
...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.


"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,970
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2016, 04:48:30 AM »
Post withdrawn by poster.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 10:03:29 PM by 230RN »
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,970
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2016, 06:03:17 AM »
Post withdrawn by poster.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 10:03:09 PM by 230RN »
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,812
Re: Bots, bombs, and use of force.
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2016, 07:19:03 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 07:37:45 AM by zahc »
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine