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

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50681180]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.[/QUOTE] Except this is what he said. [QUOTE]The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody ... [it's] literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer[/QUOTE] This is quoting him word for word. It's irrelevant the method they used to kill him, he was a threat not only to the public, but state security and made it clear he wasn't going to surrender. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50681126]Nobody is defending Micah Johnson that way and he has absolutely nothing to do with BLM.[/QUOTE] The #BLM was sarcastic but it's pretty much the same arguments they would be using right now. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50681106]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] He declared Micah Johnson's death to be "literally premeditated murder" despite him actively shooting officers for 8 hours straight, and continuing to shoot at police and declaring he wasn't going to surrender. Yet at the same time saying the police were 100% Justified to shoot a guy for reaching into his coat for what may or may not have been a gun whilst [I]walking away[/I] from Police after wrecking out his truck. And to add, he didn't ram the blockade, he tried to swerve around it and hit a snowbank.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50681210]Except this is what he said. This is quoting him word for word. It's irrelevant the method they used to kill him, he was a threat not only to the public, but state security and made it clear he wasn't going to surrender. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] The #BLM was sarcastic but it's pretty much the same arguments they would be using right now.[/QUOTE] Apparently the only major disagreement here is that I define "immediate threat" as someone physically capable of injuring or killing you raising a weapon. Bomb threats aren't immediate - you don't shoot someone immediately for saying they have bombs placed around town. I agree he was a threat to the public. I just don't think that he was an immediate threat to any individual at the moment he was blown up. I've set out a dozen scenarios where I think it would be fine. I've consistently defended police in BLM situations where the person was raising or drawing a weapon. I understand that safety of police and civilians is the top priority - I just don't think that him being cornered without an actual ability to shoot anyone made him an "immediate threat," and so I don't think a planned tactic to kill him was justified. That's all I'm saying. I don't know shit about the Oregon attacks and my position has literally nothing to do with race. I'm criticizing police policies because I find them difficult to justify - and if something similar has ever happened to a person of any other race, I'd share the same concerns.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50681250]Apparently the only major disagreement here is that I define "immediate threat" as someone physically capable of injuring or killing you raising a weapon. Bomb threats aren't immediate - you don't shoot someone immediately for saying they have bombs placed around town. I agree he was a threat to the public. I just don't think that he was an immediate threat to any individual at the moment he was blown up. I've set out a dozen scenarios where I think it would be fine. I've consistently defended police in BLM situations where the person was raising or drawing a weapon. I understand that safety of police and civilians is the top priority - I just don't think that him being cornered without an actual ability to shoot anyone made him an "immediate threat," and so I don't think a planned tactic to kill him was justified. That's all I'm saying. I don't know shit about the Oregon attacks and my position has literally nothing to do with race. I'm criticizing police policies because I find them difficult to justify - and if something similar has ever happened to a person of any other race, I'd share the same concerns.[/QUOTE] The biggest question in my mind is why, if they could put explosives on the robot, they could not also put CS Gas canisters, detonate, and enter with gas masks if it proved effective? I mean, the bot has a camera on it presumably and they would be able to see right away if it disarmed and incapacitated him. If he somehow immediately whipped out a gas mask and escaped the effects and resumed his firing position, then sure - blow him up. I just feel like they had the opportunity to do something to take him alive here.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;50681278]The biggest question in my mind is why, if they could put explosives on the robot, they could not also put CS Gas canisters, detonate, and enter with gas masks if it proved effective? I mean, the bot has a camera on it presumably and they would be able to see right away if it disarmed and incapacitated him. If he somehow immediately whipped out a gas mask and escaped the effects and resumed his firing position, then sure - blow him up. I just feel like they had the opportunity to do something to take him alive here.[/QUOTE] Nothing less-than-lethal acts quick enough to take away the threat of him detonating explosives. As soon as he sees the robot pop off gas, he would know something was up, and have the chance to detonate any explosives he may have planted in the area. The only thing that really works fast enough to eliminate the threat of him popping him off any explosives they had to assume he had planted around was a MGS-tier tranquilizer, or a very quick, surprise lethal solution.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;50681278]The biggest question in my mind is why, if they could put explosives on the robot, they could not also put CS Gas canisters, detonate, and enter with gas masks if it proved effective? I mean, the bot has a camera on it presumably and they would be able to see right away if it disarmed and incapacitated him. If he somehow immediately whipped out a gas mask and escaped the effects and resumed his firing position, then sure - blow him up. I just feel like they had the opportunity to do something to take him alive here.[/QUOTE] Some people are naturally immune to CS gas. And CS gas doesn't stop you from pushing a button. Also he was holed up in a Parking Garage, it was no safe way to approach him.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50681319]Some people are naturally immune to CS gas. And CS gas doesn't stop you from pushing a button. Also he was holed up in a Parking Garage, it was no safe way to approach him.[/QUOTE] Armored vehicles probably don't fit in there either. I really don't see how this would have played out peacefully. This guy was on a mission to kill police officers. He'd already killed five and wounded six or seven others. They had reason to believe he had an explosive device on him when they cornered him. Even if he appeared to surrender, what's stopping him from detonating the device when they approach him to apprehend him? Why would he give up? He was miles beyond rational thinking by then. He had nothing to lose.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50681210 Yet at the same time saying the police were 100% Justified to shoot a guy for reaching into his coat for what may or may not have been a gun whilst [I]walking away[/I] from Police after wrecking out his truck. And to add, he didn't ram the blockade, he tried to swerve around it and hit a snowbank.[/QUOTE] Ram the blockade is technically inaccurate but he did nearly strike an officer and one of their vehicles. He was also walking towards a cop who pulled up his gun then he started walking away from him and fumbling in his pockets for...what exactly? His lighter? Was he gonna do the thing from Gran Torino? Stop being silly and stop making this about race or politics, the police responded exactly how they should have in that scenario.

CS Gas is discomforting, its not going just knock you out. And if it were in a high enough density to knock him out, he'd be dead shortly after from suffocation because he is just breathing gas. Basically the only way to safely approach him was if he was dead.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50681361]Ram the blockade is technically inaccurate but he did nearly strike an officer and one of their vehicles. He was also walking towards a cop who pulled up his gun then he started walking away from him and fumbling in his pockets for...what exactly? His lighter? Was he gonna do the thing from Gran Torino? Stop being silly and stop making this about race or politics, the police responded exactly how they should have in that scenario.[/QUOTE] If you watched the video, it was clear he didn't see that cop and was totally surprised when he got shot by him.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50681250]Apparently the only major disagreement here is that I define "immediate threat" as someone physically capable of injuring or killing you raising a weapon. Bomb threats aren't immediate - you don't shoot someone immediately for saying they have bombs placed around town. I agree he was a threat to the public. I just don't think that he was an immediate threat to any individual at the moment he was blown up. I've set out a dozen scenarios where I think it would be fine. I've consistently defended police in BLM situations where the person was raising or drawing a weapon. I understand that safety of police and civilians is the top priority - I just don't think that him being cornered without an actual ability to shoot anyone made him an "immediate threat," and so I don't think a planned tactic to kill him was justified. That's all I'm saying. I don't know shit about the Oregon attacks and my position has literally nothing to do with race. I'm criticizing police policies because I find them difficult to justify - and if something similar has ever happened to a person of any other race, I'd share the same concerns.[/QUOTE] He claimed that he wanted to kill cops and there were no signs of him stopping. He was and always was going to be a threat to the officers that were trying to negotiate with him. He had explosives around him, threatened to use them on others. Those cops were most definitely fearing for their safety and lives, so I am completely okay with the actions they took to neutralize him.

Did the man not still have guns when he was holed up and barricaded? Bomb threat or otherwise, still being in possession of a gun would be an immediate threat, I think. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I thought he still was in full possession of the guns he had when he retreated into the garage.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50681351]Armored vehicles probably don't fit in there either. I really don't see how this would have played out peacefully. This guy was on a mission to kill police officers. He'd already killed five and wounded six or seven others. They had reason to believe he had an explosive device on him when they cornered him. Even if he appeared to surrender, what's stopping him from detonating the device when they approach him to apprehend him? Why would he give up? He was miles beyond rational thinking by then. He had nothing to lose.[/QUOTE] Exactly, most parking garages have a clearance of 7 feet; The typical Police armored vehicle has a height of about 8 feet [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pascall;50681392]Did the man not still have guns when he was holed up and barricaded? Bomb threat or otherwise, still being in possession of a gun would be an immediate threat, I think. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I thought he still was in full possession of the guns he had when he retreated into the garage.[/QUOTE] He spent a good 4 or 5 hours shooting it out in the garage.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680254]The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. [B]The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life[/B]. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer.[/QUOTE] I am utterly baffled by this post and the subsequent posts trying to argue in support of it. This is like, "why didn't they just shoot his gun/leg" on steroids. This is literally, "Why didn't you have an officer run up and throw teargas to discomfort(?) the person that just, in premeditation, shot 11 officers and threatened to shoot civilians and is also claiming to have explosives within the area" Quite frankly the survival of the EOD robot is worth more to humanity than that piece of shit.

the problem here Isak is that you're saying the police should have put themselves into a position where he WOULD be an immediate threat Yes, under that the assumption that, if confronted, he would just lay down his arms and give up, his death was unnecessary. The problem is that he had already walked right up to an officer earlier that night and fucking [I]executed him.[/I] There was absolutely no reason to believe he would have done anything other than continue to fire on police. like what is even the point of only using lethal force AFTER a threat has hurt someone the entire point of lethal force is to neutralize a threat BEFORE it kills people

I think if there was ever a time to set a precedent regarding procedures to stop an active shooter, this would be one. I highly doubt their first idea was "lets strap one of those EOD robots with some C4", it was probably, legitimately, the last best option they had.

how do we know the shooter wasn't lying about being affiliated with no groups? maybe he was affiliated with BLM and didn't want to put them in the spotlight before his impending death?

[QUOTE=SonicHitman;50681570]how do we know the shooter wasn't lying about being affiliated with no groups? maybe he was affiliated with BLM and didn't want to put them in the spotlight before his impending death?[/QUOTE] well how do we know he wasn't an ISIS plant tasked with sowing unrest in the united states this sort of wild speculation is counterproductive

[QUOTE=SonicHitman;50681570]how do we know the shooter wasn't lying about being affiliated with no groups? maybe he was affiliated with BLM and didn't want to put them in the spotlight before his impending death?[/QUOTE] He's been confirmed to be a member of the New Black Panthers down in Houston.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50681511]the problem here Isak is that you're saying the police should have put themselves into a position where he WOULD be an immediate threat Yes, under that the assumption that, if confronted, he would just lay down his arms and give up, his death was unnecessary. The problem is that he had already walked right up to an officer earlier that night and fucking [I]executed him.[/I] There was absolutely no reason to believe he would have done anything other than continue to fire on police. like what is even the point of only using lethal force AFTER a threat has hurt someone the entire point of lethal force is to neutralize a threat BEFORE it kills people[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's definitely a fair point - that there isn't a fair way to incapacitate him without being put in a position of immediate danger. I wish that there was an alternative, but people have raised some good points, and I get why it was probably necessary in this case. I'm just really hopeful that this doesn't set a precedent that supports premeditated police killings in other situations where there's more alternatives - stuff like this should be an absolute last resort. I'm just concerned that it might legitimize premeditated police killings in other situations. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;50681581]He's been confirmed to be a member of the New Black Panthers down in Houston.[/QUOTE] Which is a hate group according to the SPLC - not too much surprise there.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50681636]Yeah, that's definitely a fair point - that there isn't a fair way to incapacitate him without being put in a position of immediate danger. I wish that there was an alternative, but people have raised some good points, and I get why it was probably necessary in this case. I'm just really hopeful that this doesn't set a precedent that supports premeditated police killings in other situations where there's more alternatives - stuff like this should be an absolute last resort. I'm just concerned that it might legitimize premeditated police killings in other situations. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] Which is a hate group according to the SPLC - not too much surprise there.[/QUOTE] Hopefully advances in robotics will allow for new, safer, non lethal methods of incapacitating suspects.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50681652]Hopefully advances in robotics will allow for new, safer, non lethal methods of incapacitating suspects.[/QUOTE] Gotta build a Mike Tyson robot coming in knocking ya flat on your ass

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50681664]Gotta build a Mike Tyson robot coming in knocking ya flat on your ass[/QUOTE] "i'll cuff you till you love me faggot"

[QUOTE=Pascall;50681392]Did the man not still have guns when he was holed up and barricaded? Bomb threat or otherwise, still being in possession of a gun would be an immediate threat, I think. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I thought he still was in full possession of the guns he had when he retreated into the garage.[/QUOTE] Yes. According to one of the news anchors who was on the scene, after the detonation there were gunshots from the suspect before he passed away. (The gunshots that were originally reported as the suspect taking his own life.)

Anyone else weirded out as to how there were literally no remains left

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50681636]Yeah, that's definitely a fair point - that there isn't a fair way to incapacitate him without being put in a position of immediate danger. I wish that there was an alternative, but people have raised some good points, and I get why it was probably necessary in this case. I'm just really hopeful that this doesn't set a precedent that supports [B]premeditated police killings[/B] in other situations where there's more alternatives - [B]stuff like this should be an absolute last resort.[/B] I'm just concerned that it might legitimize premeditated police killings in other situations. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] Which is a hate group according to the SPLC - not too much surprise there.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]premeditated police killings[/QUOTE] These people just committed a terrorist attack and claimed to have access to explosives, which could have killed who knows how many civilians. This was done out of self defense and not out of hostility. [QUOTE]stuff like this should be an absolute last resort.[/QUOTE] 5 cops died. at what point would it have been considered a last resort in your eyes?

[QUOTE=da space core;50683275]These people just committed a terrorist attack and claimed to have access to explosives, which could have killed who knows how many civilians. This. Was. Not. Premeditated.[/QUOTE] [quote]think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand.[/quote] What? I thought it's pretty obvious that this was all planned.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50683303]What? I thought it's pretty obvious that this was all planned.[/QUOTE] I believe what Isak was referring to was the police killing the terrorist. There was no hostile intent, it was done out of self defense. they had no other options. [IMG]https://i.snag.gy/MjnW6X.jpg[/IMG] but fair enough, I guess while it does technically fall under premeditated, the word implies hostile intent (as in murder) when there was none

on a bright side. Cops have arrested the head of BLM

All I see is Hindsight 20/20 discussions about a split second decision after taking 5 deaths and 7 wounded to begin with and SWAT teams engaging three other suspects. But yeah sure, they could've just paragoned it and had him kill himself instead.

[QUOTE=da space core;50683275]These people just committed a terrorist attack and claimed to have access to explosives, which could have killed who knows how many civilians. This was done out of self defense and not out of hostility. 5 cops died. at what point would it have been considered a last resort in your eyes?[/QUOTE] I accepted that there wasn't any clear alternative method to neutralize the guy non-lethally without putting anyone else in immediate danger. That's why this [i]was[/i] a last resort - I'm saying that I don't want to see this precedent used in other situations where it isn't a last resort. Police planning out how to kill someone when he's not in a situation where anyone is in any immediate danger doesn't sit right with me - but others have pointed out to me that there's no other way to neutralize the guy without putting people in immediate danger anyways. I've already explained my position in the multiple previous posts and the one you're quoting is more or less me accepting the very reasonable arguments put out by other people in this thread.