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

[QUOTE=Apache249;50680279]There may not have been any accomplices. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/08/multiple-snipers-dallas/86839430/[/url][/QUOTE] So, there was only one shooter in the end. I completely missed that, thanks.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680495]He wasn't in a position to kill anyone, clearly, because he was cornered with nobody to shoot. Unless we should also send bomb drones to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, I don't see how it can be excused. A judge makes a legal decision on the death penalty - if it isn't a judicial decision, or self-defense, or in the defense of others in explicit danger, it's an extrajudicial killing. If someone says "I have a bomb that's going to blow up a school," that doesn't give the police the right to immediately plug him full of bullets - how is this different? There was no immediate threat to anyone's lives, and the threat of violence elsewhere isn't a legal excuse to kill the man.[/QUOTE] Any attempt to arrest him would inherently put him in a position to kill. There is no alternative where he's arrested and also has zero ability to kill. A person with a gun who's making bomb threats is inherently in a position to kill.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680495]He wasn't in a position to kill anyone, clearly, because he was cornered with [B]nobody to shoot[/B].[/QUOTE] Other than the officers that would've had to apprehend him??? A corned animal is the most dangerous. And yes calling in bomb threats = the targeted killing of white police officers. You'll do anything in your power to smear law enforcement any chance you'll get.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with police shooting a person who was saying that they were about to blow up a school.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680495]He wasn't in a position to kill anyone, clearly, because he was cornered with nobody to shoot. Unless we should also send bomb drones to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, I don't see how it can be excused. A judge makes a legal decision on the death penalty - if it isn't a judicial decision, or self-defense, or in the defense of others in explicit danger, it's an extrajudicial killing. If someone says "I have a bomb that's going to blow up a school," that doesn't give the police the right to immediately plug him full of bullets - how is this different? There was no immediate threat to anyone's lives, and the threat of violence elsewhere isn't a legal excuse to kill the man.[/QUOTE] Cops aren't going near a guy that claims to have bombs with him.

But guys, [i] at the time[/i] he couldn't harm anyone! I'm glad they took care of him without risking more lives. Enough lives were taken and I'm sure he wouldn't have spared more cops As for "other nonlethal measures" I can't think of one where there is no posisbility of the measure failing

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680454][B]If he was raising his weapon at a police officer and they opened fire and he died - I'd be totally okay with it.[/B][/QUOTE] HE DID DO THAT HE MURDERED 5 COPS

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680454]I am considering that. But considering that they were able to talk to him for several minutes without losing a single life (remotely), he clearly wasn't in a position to take any lives at that point. Physically he didn't have anyone to shoot. I'm fine with the guy dying. I would've just preferred that a judge decide that and not a cop. If he was raising his weapon at a police officer and they opened fire and he died - I'd be totally okay with it. It's the fact that police planned out a way to kill him that doesn't sit right with me - police don't have the authority to plan out someone's death. That's the judge's job. Incapacitation should be the first option. Slap a Christmas tree of flashbangs and tear gas canisters on the robot and you have a blind, deaf, largely incapacitated target that can be shot from a distance if he resists. It doesn't sit right that the police, not a judge, decided that the guy should be put to death, even if I agree that he should be.[/QUOTE] tear gas and flashbangs give him an opportunity to set off any bombs he may have planted

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50680557]HE DID DO THAT HE MURDERED 5 COPS[/QUOTE] bro, [I]at the time[/I] :downs:

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680377]The difference is a judge would sentence him to death. There's a process. A judge sentencing someone to death and the police planning out how to kill someone are very different - one is judicial, one is extrajudicial.[/QUOTE] How is this different than police standoffs where the suspect is killed at range by a sniper? In either case they acted to bring a dangerous situation to an end without further endangering officers. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50680414][B]So throw some tear gas canisters around the corner and incapacitate him. [/quote][/B] You don't stand around the corner from someone who claims to have explosives. You get as far away as possible.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50680565]bro, [I]at the time[/I] :downs:[/QUOTE] Even, [I]at the time[/I], if the cops weren't able to approach him, it's because he, not only had claimed to have bombs, he had a gun that wanted to shoot cops with. So Isak is arguing against something he's okay with, which makes no fucking sense.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680414]So throw some tear gas canisters around the corner and incapacitate him. There were plenty of ways to do this that didn't result in extrajudicial death. My point is that he didn't have any hostages and wasn't in a position to shoot anyone at the point where he was cornered. Yes, he was armed - I'm not saying they should've pulled a 300 and charged him down like action heroes. I'm just saying that maybe they should've tried some alternatives that didn't involve extrajudicial death when incapacitation was still a possible option without risking anyone's lives.[/QUOTE] Why should someone who nearly took out an entire Platoon of police, and spent over 8 hours killing police officers live on television be afforded incapacitation when he made it clear he was going to keep killing people? Also you said gas him; You do realized that 1. some people are immune to CS gas, 2. gas masks are $10 dollars at surplus stores you think he didn't have one?

I don't even know where Isak's stance is half the time.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50680627]Why should someone who nearly took out [B]an entire Platoon[/B] of police, and spent over 8 hours killing police officers live on television be afforded incapacitation when he made it clear he was going to keep killing people? Also you said gas him; You do realized that 1. some people are immune to CS gas, 2. gas masks are $10 dollars at surplus stores you think he didn't have one?[/QUOTE] Last I checked, a platoon numbers between 30-50 personnel. Five is an over-strength fireteam.

Ya' know what, the people that are claiming he shouldn't of been killed need to be leveled with here. Let me bring up the still recent Oregon Standoff. The group involved with that mostly dispersed off into the woods and retreated from the area to avoid being arrested. Most of them are still facing federal charges as we type and drama out about crap like this. Well, I won't force on you the boring drivel which is the judicial process, I will tell you about how Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, was killed and I leave you all to compare the situations. During the standoff, Robert was attempting to leave the area, but the road was blockaded, he ended up driving off the road in an attempt to escape and rammed into a snow embankment. He exited the vehicle with his handsup shouting, "Just shoot me!" and had his hands in the air. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN2DO6vo]Link to the video on Youtube[/url] He was shot multiple times in the back, and attempted to reach for his gun, and then was gunned down from the front by another officer. This was seen as justified, even though it was clear that he had his hands in the air, and he was shot numerous times from behind. Did he go for his firearm? Absolutely, but he only did so in reaction to being shot. This shooting was later justified by the FBI, and even though it's fairly clear he was shot first, it was stated that he endangered the lives of officers earlier on, and therefore killing him was perfectly justified. Now, let's compare to this situation. You have a man who actually [B]killed five officers[/B] and wounded another six. How do you respond when this man refuses to surrender and is still heavily armed, all the while threatening to use explosives on nearby buildings? The simple solution is to deal with the problem, and not drag on the standoff with a dangerous and cornered shooter. I cannot understand for the life of me, why the same people here on FP which bitched me out for saying the situation with LaVoy could of been handled better, are now bitching about a guy who actually killed and harmed people, being killed. It makes no sense to me at all. Seriously guys, this guy wasn't innocent in any shape or form. He had to be dealt with.

No one cares when a white, right winger is killed. Just like they don't care when black on black is the leading cause of death for black males. It doesn't exist, please don't talk about it.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680495]He wasn't in a position to kill anyone, clearly, because he was cornered with nobody to shoot. Unless we should also send bomb drones to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, I don't see how it can be excused. A judge makes a legal decision on the death penalty - if it isn't a judicial decision, or self-defense, or in the defense of others in explicit danger, it's an extrajudicial killing. If someone says "I have a bomb that's going to blow up a school," that doesn't give the police the right to immediately plug him full of bullets - how is this different? There was no immediate threat to anyone's lives, and the threat of violence elsewhere isn't a legal excuse to kill the man.[/QUOTE] Cops go in, pop off their 100% effective flash grenades, tear gas, whatever. Guy has time to react before the grenades go off. They had to assume the guy would flick a switch in that half second and blow the room up, or hell, bring the whole building down. Assuming they go in anyway for some reason; He can still mag dump at the door and possibly wing a guy- It isn't worth the risk. At all. ESPECIALLY when the guy clearly has the intention to kill every cop he sees. It'd be a little bit muddier if it was someone holding hostages, or hadn't shot at anyone yet, but this guy had made himself a clear and present danger to anyone who got near him, and was all alone. Bombing him seems like the best way to minimize risk to the officers who would have been in a very dangerous situation if they went in. I get where you're coming from, though, and agree to a point. This is the first situation like this I can name. Probably isn't going to be the last in the kind of world we live in nowadays, so you do need to take into concern the precedent it can set. The cops should do all in their power to take people in alive(especially when they could put the screws to him to figure out where whatever IEDs he planted were), as long as it doesn't put them over an unacceptable risk threshold like walking into a bomb rigged building with a guy who wants to kill all cops behind the detonator is- and they had to assume he had bombs planted. There are exceptions to most rules, I think this one is probably one of the most legitimate exceptions out there.

Apparently, the robot survived [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm8OQTwWgAEopa6.jpg:large[/t]

[QUOTE=StrykerE;50680844]Apparently, the robot survived [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm8OQTwWgAEopa6.jpg:large[/t][/QUOTE] Damn, they build them well. That's not a small amount of C4 to put on something as sophisticated as a robot and to have it come out still functional. [img]http://i.imgur.com/APIfxXx.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/5zkD63T.png[/img]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50680702]Ya' know what, the people that are claiming he shouldn't of been killed need to be leveled with here. Let me bring up the still recent Oregon Standoff. The group involved with that mostly dispersed off into the woods and retreated from the area to avoid being arrested. Most of them are still facing federal charges as we type and drama out about crap like this. Well, I won't force on you the boring drivel which is the judicial process, I will tell you about how Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, was killed and I leave you all to compare the situations. During the standoff, Robert was attempting to leave the area, but the road was blockaded, he ended up driving off the road in an attempt to escape and rammed into a snow embankment. He exited the vehicle with his handsup shouting, "Just shoot me!" and had his hands in the air. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuIN2DO6vo]Link to the video on Youtube[/url] He was shot multiple times in the back, and attempted to reach for his gun, and then was gunned down from the front by another officer. This was seen as justified, even though it was clear that he had his hands in the air, and he was shot numerous times from behind. Did he go for his firearm? Absolutely, but he only did so in reaction to being shot. This shooting was later justified by the FBI, and even though it's fairly clear he was shot first, it was stated that he endangered the lives of officers earlier on, and therefore killing him was perfectly justified. Now, let's compare to this situation. You have a man who actually [B]killed five officers[/B] and wounded another six. How do you respond when this man refuses to surrender and is still heavily armed, all the while threatening to use explosives on nearby buildings? The simple solution is to deal with the problem, and not drag on the standoff with a dangerous and cornered shooter. I cannot understand for the life of me, why the same people here on FP which bitched me out for saying the situation with LaVoy could of been handled better, are now bitching about a guy who actually killed and harmed people, being killed. It makes no sense to me at all. Seriously guys, this guy wasn't innocent in any shape or form. He had to be dealt with.[/QUOTE] I just have a different definition of an immediate threat. If the guy in the Oregon standoff was shot with his hands up, that's unjustifiable in my opinion. But him reaching down for his weapon constitutes an immediate threat to the officers, and them firing on him after that is justified. The original shot, absolutely not. A bomb threat is not immediate to me. I don't think someone who calls in a bomb threat elsewhere should be treated the same as someone raising a firearm directly in front of someone. One is an immediate threat to your own safety and the safety of others immediately nearby, the other is a distant threat that needs to be resolved in a totally different manner than immediate self-defense. Any situation where anyone is not in an immediate threat of death or injury isn't justified. If the bomb bot had been sitting next to him when he opened fire during negotiations, and they blew it then to protect the lives of the officers taking fire, fully justified. If the officers taking fire had shot him in the face, fully justified. But sending in a robot 15 or more minutes later with a bomb strapped to it and blowing up a guy who wasn't in the act of physically threatening someone's life is hard to justify for me. I get why they did it, and I think it was a creative way to neutralize the threat, and I understand that the legal system likely disagrees with me. I just can't justify any killing other than in the name of immediate self-defense, and from the evidence I've seen the DPD didn't seem to exhaust non-lethal options beforehand. He was absolutely a threat. But he was not an immediate threat. If he was alone on a rooftop and a helicopter sniper took him out when nobody else was near him and he hadn't raised his weapon, I'd call that unjustified as well. This is my own opinion and I'm not trying to argue that it's an issue of legality. If he had hostages and they sniped him, justified, he had others in immediate danger. A bomb threat to me isn't immediate danger. I'm imagining some guy holed up in a barricaded home, totally alone. He shoots and kills a cop. When they start negotiations, he again shoots and injures more cops. If he then retreats inside the house and isn't firing or even aiming his weapon at anybody, I don't think killing can be justified Should they call a drone strike on his home? Should they just set it on fire and have him burn to death? To me, absolutely not - if he fired again or made any hint of causing another immediate threat, and they shot him, fully justified. I think that immediate self-defense is effectively the only justification for killing, and I think the police should have relied on methods of incapacitation when they were not under immediate threat. Raising a firearm, moving towards them with a knife, all of those are immediate threats - being in a corner with a rifle and no ability to shoot anyone while calling a bomb threat is not immediate to me - although he's obviously still a threat. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=evilweazel;50680831]Cops go in, pop off their 100% effective flash grenades, tear gas, whatever. Guy has time to react before the grenades go off. They had to assume the guy would flick a switch in that half second and blow the room up, or hell, bring the whole building down. Assuming they go in anyway for some reason; He can still mag dump at the door and possibly wing a guy- It isn't worth the risk. At all. ESPECIALLY when the guy clearly has the intention to kill every cop he sees. It'd be a little bit muddier if it was someone holding hostages, or hadn't shot at anyone yet, but this guy had made himself a clear and present danger to anyone who got near him, and was all alone. Bombing him seems like the best way to minimize risk to the officers who would have been in a very dangerous situation if they went in. I get where you're coming from, though, and agree to a point. This is the first situation like this I can name. Probably isn't going to be the last in the kind of world we live in nowadays, so you do need to take into concern the precedent it can set. The cops should do all in their power to take people in alive(especially when they could put the screws to him to figure out where whatever IEDs he planted were), as long as it doesn't put them over an unacceptable risk threshold like walking into a bomb rigged building with a guy who wants to kill all cops behind the detonator is- and they had to assume he had bombs planted. There are exceptions to most rules, I think this one is probably one of the most legitimate exceptions out there.[/QUOTE] I agree that it was a good solution - it's just tough to justify. It hasn't happened before. I don't know the legal precedent, but I'd like to see something established for this type of thing. Thanks for not assuming I was defending the guy's actions in any way. He's the scum of the earth. It's just a complicated moral issue for me and I have to figure it out. Even an unjust action can lead to a just result - I'd just prefer we achieve justice through just actions instead of muddy ones.

[QUOTE=StrykerE;50680844]Apparently, the robot survived [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm8OQTwWgAEopa6.jpg:large[/t][/QUOTE] Long live R2-IED

I hope they give it a cool nickname like The Terminator or something

Can we please not forget that this guy apparently had military training, which was particularly clear in the way he carried out this attack. The guy killed 5 trained cops and would most likely be able to kill or injure more if they just rushed him in an attempt to take him in alive.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50680643]Last I checked, a platoon numbers between 30-50 personnel. Five is an over-strength fireteam.[/QUOTE] A platoon is 15 to 50 soldiers, he took out 11 officers.

[QUOTE=CasualTR;50680984]Can we please not forget that this guy apparently had military training, which was particularly clear in the way he carried out this attack. The guy killed 5 trained cops and would most likely be able to kill or injure more if they just rushed him in an attempt to take him in alive.[/QUOTE] Nobody's recommended rushing him.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680886]I just have a different definition of an immediate threat. If the guy in the Oregon standoff was shot with his hands up, that's unjustifiable in my opinion. But him reaching down for his weapon constitutes an immediate threat to the officers, and them firing on him after that is justified. The original shot, absolutely not.[/quote] Remember guys, if you're a white right-wing militia member, simply reaching into your coat is grounds to be gunned down and completely justified, but you're your a black nationalist, who executed a cop point-blank live on national TV, killed 4 others, and and spent 8 hours gunning down police officers. [video=youtube;fS5sHIv4nrs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS5sHIv4nrs[/video] Obviously killing this person is murder. #blacklivesmatter

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50680722]No one cares when a white, right winger is killed. [/QUOTE] Way to make a race issue out of something that obviously isn't. No one cares not because he was white or a right winger but because he was a dipshit that accelerated at a checkpoint, struck (or nearly struck) an officer with a vehicle, jumped out and started reaching for his gun. Joe's inaccurate portrayal of events goes completely out the window when you consider that they are two drastically different cases and while I don't personally fault the police with the action they took in Dallas, it seems to be a bizarre time to whine about how hard it is being white and right-wing in the United States. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;50681067]Remember guys, if you're a white right-wing militia member, simply reaching into your coat is grounds to be gunned down and completely justified[/QUOTE] When you reach for your gun after ramming a police blockade, not "simply reaching into your coat". Looks like the right can race bait too.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50681067]Remember guys, if you're a white right-wing militia member, simply reaching into your coat is grounds to be gunned down and completely justified, but you're your a black nationalist, who executed a cop point-blank live on national TV, killed 4 others, and and spent 8 hours gunning down police officers. [video=youtube;fS5sHIv4nrs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS5sHIv4nrs[/video] Obviously killing this person is murder. #blacklivesmatter[/QUOTE] Nobody is defending Micah Johnson that way and he has absolutely nothing to do with BLM.

It isn't the job of police to get themselves killed. He had already demonstrated aptitude in urban combat, was heavily armed, and was actively threatening to kill again. He made the risk of live capture unacceptable. As such, he was neutralized in a way that posed to least risk to the innocent people on the scene. There's a good reason he was the only person killed by police that night.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50681067]Remember guys, if you're a white right-wing militia member, simply reaching into your coat is grounds to be gunned down and completely justified, but you're your a black nationalist, who executed a cop point-blank live on national TV, killed 4 others, and and spent 8 hours gunning down police officers. [video=youtube;fS5sHIv4nrs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS5sHIv4nrs[/video] Obviously killing this person is murder. #blacklivesmatter[/QUOTE] He's not saying that the guy shouldn't have ended up dead, from what I can understand. He's contesting the idea of a police force planning a lethal-from-the-get-go operation on a suspect, which is a reasonable thing to scrutinize, considering it is something that, combined with todays tech., is a really, really new frontier we're going to be seeing being a viable end to threats like this, considering these types of things are going to keep happening, and that tech. to do it is only going to become more available. Personally, I think in this situation that it was called for. This is one of the situations where it has merit to immediately go to a permanent solution that puts no officers in harms way. But bringing about an argument on whether it could lead to being normalized as procedure (which I don't think it will be) due to how easily cops can do it with available resources is one of the most reasonable questions about modern day Law Enforcement I've seen in a while.