BREAKING: Shooting at Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, TX - Please SOURCE your updates. - Polidicks

I had heard earlier reports that the explosives were for breaching the door he was behind. Not sure if the use of explosives to kill him was intentional or he was just too close to the door.

You do what you have to in order to eliminate the threat. I genuinely don't see some special issue with killing an active shooter with a robot compared to a team of SWAT or anything. Eliminating the threat is priority.

[QUOTE=OvB;50677808]Because he said he had explosives, and wanted to kill as many white people, preferably cops, as possible. There's no way in hell a cop is going in that building without an EOD not clearing it first. Perhaps they were using it to destroy a suspicious package and the suspect died in the process. Either way, humans going in there would be incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] If he wasn't going anywhere, why bother going in? If the location was secured and surrounded with no hostages, there's no immediate reason to go in. It might have lead to a 20+ hour stand off, but that gives the suspect time to cool off as well as officers and negotiators time. It's not like this is the first time someone said they had explosives and wanted to kill as many people as they could. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50677816]You do what you have to in order to eliminate the threat. I genuinely don't see some special issue with killing an active shooter with a robot compared to a team of SWAT or anything. Eliminating the threat is priority.[/QUOTE] Active shooter no problem, as in the individual is active in shooting or is believed to be ready to shoot someone in a very short time. If there's no one in immanent danger thats a different story.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677690]It's not so much the matter of how it was done, but rather the precedent it set. If this goes unchallenged it basically means it's ok to arm a robot to kill criminal american citizens. On a tinfoil level of thinking it means that you can put a missile on a drone and chuck it into their house if they're dug in. The whole point of cops having guns is to defend themselves and others, not to go on the offensive unless others are in harms way. From the looks of it when they did deploy the robot he had no hostages, so what was the point in detonating? Yeah he could have opened fire and hurt others and whatever, but is that what we've come to? If the guy is surrounded, the police have the upper hand, and he has no hostages, was there no other way to end the situation? We couldn't have barricaded him in and wait it out? Hell he might have killed himself but at that point its on him. While I'm sure someone will pip up "There were no other options, this guy was a blah blah blah blah blah" you have to remember this stuff is about a lot more than just that guy.[/QUOTE] If Ruby Ridge or Waco happened tomorrow you would probably expect to see drones used. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50677799]I thought the robot just detonated explosives the shooter placed I mean I don't think the police just have C4 lying around to strap to robots. I could be wrong thorugh.[/QUOTE] Someone made a decision to do that, it's in the press conference.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677823]If he wasn't going anywhere, why bother going in? If the location was secured and surrounded with no hostages, there's no immediate reason to go in. It might have lead to a 20+ hour stand off, but that gives the suspect time to cool off as well as officers and negotiators time. It's not like this is the first time someone said they had explosives and wanted to kill as many people as they could.[/QUOTE]Because he was still an active shooter. He remained a threat who had already killed several police and injured more. Sit and wait and hope is always a terrible choice compared to eliminating the threat. I'd take a dead shooter over an imprisoned one who got even the chance to take more lives.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50677799]I thought the robot just detonated explosives the shooter placed I mean I don't think the police just have C4 lying around to strap to robots. I could be wrong thorugh.[/QUOTE] They have a variety of tools at their disposal to deal with suspected explosives. More explosives being one of them.

[QUOTE=OvB;50677842]They have a variety of tools at their disposal to deal with suspected explosives. More explosives being one of them.[/QUOTE] Interesting. The more you know, I guess.

[QUOTE=Quark:;50677101]Or just call it an assault style rifle because it's the catch all buzzword[/QUOTE] "Assault style rifle" really gets me salty because it's like they realize that "assault rifle" isn't correct but don't want to use "assault weapon" because people are onto that by now, but they still want to be wrong. [QUOTE=unrezt;50677175]every gun with black plastic parts is an "assault rifle 15" and every pistol is a glock[/QUOTE] AR-15 actually means "Armalite Rifle, design 15" after the designer, Armalite.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677823]If he wasn't going anywhere, why bother going in? If the location was secured and surrounded with no hostages, there's no immediate reason to go in. It might have lead to a 20+ hour stand off, but that gives the suspect time to cool off as well as officers and negotiators time. It's not like this is the first time someone said they had explosives and wanted to kill as many people as they could. Active shooter no problem, as in the individual is active in shooting or is believed to be ready to shoot someone in a very short time. If there's no one in immanent danger thats a different story.[/QUOTE] Wasn't he threatening to use explosives set up around the city? If he made a threat like that I'd imagine they'd want to eliminate him as quickly as possible to prevent him from setting any of them off.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50677839]Because he was still an active shooter. He remained a threat who had already killed several police and injured more. Sit and wait and hope is always a terrible choice compared to eliminating the threat. I'd take a dead shooter over an imprisoned one who got even the chance to take more lives.[/QUOTE] Active shooter implies that they are out and about shooting at people. If they had enough time to bring out a EOD robot and he barricaded himself all without taking pot shots while in communications with a negotiator at that point he was no longer an active shooter. Do you realize the legal implications you're making there? The guy killed people, so we should kill him right now. Sure, that sounds fine and dandy in this situation, but what about the guy who kills someone and turns himself in? What about the guy who accidentally kills someone but when found was thought to be intentional? Its a matter of a right to a fare trial, to not just be killed on the spot without being judged by your peers. While those examples might sound "well of course we wouldn't in those situations" it's all about the precedent, and while taking it into those contexts is an extreme letting the precedent stand makes them a potential. "he was an active shooter" is a reason if he is either actively shooting or is about to shoot someone. If he is no longer an active shooter if that is no longer the case, and unless there is imminent danger to the lives of people other than the suspect there's no right to just go in and kill them. To better explain this allow me to run two hypothetical situations that will involve elements from this one. In both situations the suspect just committed multiple murders and is now held up in a room, claims to have explosive, and is armed. The room is surrounded by police, all exits are covered and all officers are in cover. In both situations a robot armed with a gun is sent into the room. In the first situation the suspect has multiple hostages, is holding one with a gun pointed to their head, and is acting very iradically shouting nonsense. In the second situation the suspect is in the room alone, pacing back and fourth, and is shouting nonsense. Does the bot shoot both suspects? With all this being said that is entirely based on the notion that there was no immanent danger, as in he didn't start pointing a gun through a window or something of the sort. Without knowing the exact context of the situation it's hard to determine whether or not immanent danger played a role, and while we may like to assume so we can't always trust that judgment. [QUOTE=Anderan;50677892]Wasn't he threatening to use explosives set up around the city? If he made a threat like that I'd imagine they'd want to eliminate him as quickly as possible to prevent him from setting any of them off.[/QUOTE] You wouldn't just want to deck someone in case they had a dead mans switch.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677902]Active shooter implies that they are out and about shooting at people. If they had enough time to bring out a EOD robot and he barricaded himself all without taking pot shots while in communications with a negotiator at that point he was no longer an active shooter. Do you realize the legal implications you're making there? The guy killed people, so we should kill him right now. Sure, that sounds fine and dandy in this situation, but what about the guy who kills someone and turns himself in? What about the guy who accidentally kills someone but when found was thought to be intentional? Its a matter of a right to a fare trial, to not just be killed on the spot without being judged by your peers. "he was an active shooter" is a reason if he is either actively shooting or is about to shoot someone. If he is no longer an active shooter if that is no longer the case, and unless there is imminent danger to the lives of people other than the suspect there's no right to just go in and kill them. [/QUOTE] In this situation, I wouldn't want anyone to walk in with him alive. There's no guarantee he wasn't going to continue shooting. He passed the point of no return and wouldn't be a trustworthy source. I wouldn't really have a problem with a legislated point of no return because red tape shouldn't take priority over the lives of cops. Blowing him up saved everyone tons of trouble.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50676746]CNN will prolly report it as an AK47 style rifle to push their agenda[/QUOTE] Even though it's actually a battle rifle. Edit: Similar to the m1 garand svt40 and gewher 43.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50677920]In this situation, I wouldn't trust anyone to walk in anymore. There's no guarantee he wasn't going to continue shooting. He passed the point of no return and wouldn't be a trustworthy source. I wouldn't really have a problem with a legislated point of no return because red tape shouldn't take priority over the lives of cops. Blowing him up saved everyone tons of trouble.[/QUOTE] It's not a guarantee, but that doesn't make it right. Applying that rational to a suicidal person is like saying "Oh he made it to the top of the clock tower, he's pass the point of no return so no use trying to save him". I'm not denying the fact that what happened ended a terrible situation, and that it may have prevented more people from being killed. I'm more worried about what context/situation it was done under, and what kind of precedent it may set.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677902]You wouldn't just want to deck someone in case they had a dead mans switch.[/QUOTE] Has there ever actually been a situation where someone had a dead man's switch? It seems far more likely that someone would just start setting off explosives tied to phones than someone actually having a dead man's switch.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50677955]Has there ever actually been a situation where someone had a dead man's switch? It seems far more likely that someone would just start setting off explosives tied to phones than someone actually having a dead man's switch.[/QUOTE] While possibility and likelyhood are two different things you can't just rule out possibilities over likelyhoods, especially in that context.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677933]It's not a guarantee, but that doesn't make it right. Applying that rational to a suicidal person is like saying "Oh he made it to the top of the clock tower, he's pass the point of no return so no use trying to save him". I'm not denying the fact that what happened ended a terrible situation, and that it may have prevented more people from being killed. I'm more worried about what context/situation it was done under, and what kind of precedent it may set.[/QUOTE] Suicidal people aren't necessarily threatening the lives of other people. I think it would be a better analogy to equate trying to get this guy to surrender to trying to save a man who's already jumped off of the clock tower, broken every bone in his body, and has lost a fatal amount of blood. I can see your fear, but I don't imagine they'll start blowing up people simply based on uncertainty without a really good reason, like not trusting a person who has committed a string of murders and threats of continuing to murder. In these cases, I think safety is really important and their solution was justified.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677974]While possibility and likelyhood are two different things you can't just rule out possibilities over likelyhoods, especially in that context.[/QUOTE] When given a very possible real danger (him setting off explosives while left alone) and a very improbable/unlikely scenario (him having a dead man's switch) the police will act on the first. If there is nothing to suggest that one scenario is possible then police won't act on it. Just to be clear what exactly do you mean by a dead man's trigger exactly? Like him having people ready to set off explosives in the event he died? Or some sort of actual device designed to go off when his heart stopped? Because in the first case they'd probably set them off as soon as he was captured and the second case really sounds like something directly out of a video game or movie and I can't find any instance of an actual criminal using such a device.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50678015]When given a very possible real danger (him setting off explosives while left alone) and a very improbable/unlikely scenario (him having a dead man's switch) the police will act on the first. If there is nothing to suggest that one scenario is possible then police won't act on it. Just to be clear what exactly do you mean by a dead man's trigger exactly? Like him having people ready to set off explosives in the event he died? Or some sort of actual device designed to go off when his heart stopped? Because in the first case they'd probably set them off as soon as he was captured and the second case really sounds like something directly out of a video game or movie and I can't find any instance of an actual criminal using such a device.[/QUOTE] Dead mans switch implies your first example. It can be as simple as a button that has to be held down and the moment its released sets off the explosives. They're incredibly simple to make in their most basic forms, and can be made to link with remote control devices. In either example the potential to detonate with a dead mans switch is there, through capture or being killed. There may not be any instances here in the US as of yet, but it doesn't mean it can't happen. There's plenty of documented use of them in the middle east, and if someones dedicated enough to make explosives themselves it's only a matter of time before someone uses one with them. It can't just be ruled out because of likelyhood relative to past situations.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50677955]Has there ever actually been a situation where someone had a dead man's switch? It seems far more likely that someone would just start setting off explosives tied to phones than someone actually having a dead man's switch.[/QUOTE] Chechen extremists used them in the Beslan School massacre. They're effective because if someone shoots the user they can potentially kill all of their hostages, which puts huge pressure on the responders to not attack first.

Well regardless if he says he's going to start setting off explosives you treat it as if he's going to start setting off explosives. There's nothing else to do in that situation, you either sit back and try to call his bluff and run the risk of him not bluffing or you move in and run the risk of triggering a less likely scenario. In this case likelihood is entirely relevant.

Well, you can wave fucking goodbye to using bomb robots for negotiation for any suspects with a medium and higher intelligence.

I don't see the difference between an improvised bomb on a robot and a cornershot or other gun being used to kill him. Are weapons supposed to be chosen on how "fair" they are to fight back against? A rifle is fine but a brick of c4 on a slow robot with the operator around a corner isn't? He stated he was out to kill white people/cops and already was involved in killing 5. Something tells me that someone who was angry at BLM for not being radical enough to start a race war would just willingly surrender anyways.

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;50678519]I don't see the difference between an improvised bomb on a robot and a cornershot or other gun being used to kill him. Are weapons supposed to be chosen on how "fair" they are to fight back against? A rifle is fine but a brick of c4 on a slow robot with the operator around a corner isn't? He stated he was out to kill white people/cops and already was involved in killing 5. Something tells me that someone who was angry at BLM for not being radical enough to start a race war would just willingly surrender anyways.[/QUOTE] I think people are talking about once anyone see's a robot carrying a bomb they're likely going to try to go down guns blazing or kill any hostages they have.

[QUOTE=OvB;50676087]Blocking highways and blocking streets are not the same. A highway is considerably more dangerous and there's a significantly higher risk to the public and protestors health when you have pedestrians running out into the highway. Should be considered public endangerment.[/QUOTE] [url]http://i.imgur.com/ytr6yTk.gifv[/url] Recent BLM protest at a highway, not dangerous at all.

[QUOTE=Everstvetita;50679001][url]http://i.imgur.com/ytr6yTk.gifv[/url] Recent BLM protest at a highway, not dangerous at all.[/QUOTE] One fatigued semi truck driver could've killed two dozen people. And injured 2 dozen more.

I can understand protesting outside a police station or city hall but I don't personally see what they're trying to accomplish standing in the middle of the highway. I know the point is to disrupt and draw attention to your issue but there has to be less dangerous ways of doing so.

[QUOTE=Everstvetita;50679001][url]http://i.imgur.com/ytr6yTk.gifv[/url] Recent BLM protest at a highway, not dangerous at all.[/QUOTE] Blocking a major road can completely fuck over emergency services who need it to get to their destination. Its the reason why my state blocked them from getting onto the interstate since grady memorial hospital is one of the major hospitals in the state that handles burn victims and heart related operations.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;50679285]Blocking a major road can completely fuck over emergency services who need it to get to their destination. Its the reason why my state blocked them from getting onto the interstate since grady memorial hospital is one of the major hospitals in the state that handles burn victims and heart related operations.[/QUOTE] Adding onto this, imagine if you or someone you know had a medical emergency and had to be driven to the hospital in a private car. There's no way they'd let you through. You're critically injured or your wife is in labor? Too bad. Black lives matter.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50679314]Adding onto this, imagine if you or someone you know had a medical emergency and had to be driven to the hospital in a private car. There's no way they'd let you through. You're critically injured or your wife is in labor? Too bad. Black lives matter.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine they'd make an exception for emergencies and emergency vehicles, if they're the benevolent saviors they're made out to be. (though I guess they'd probably want to stop cops from doing their job, given the whole point of their org). If not, well, I guess you can always opt to go through yourself? :v: Sounds awful, but if anyones actively endangering my family for their political cause, their safety is nowhere near my top concern.

[QUOTE=Quark:;50677101]Or just call it an assault style rifle because it's the catch all buzzword[/QUOTE] No no no, it was a [I]long gun![/I]