This has probably been posted a million times already so sorry if it has. "This was a man that we gave plenty of options to to give himself up peacefully and we spent a lot of time talking. He had a choice to come out and we would not harm, or stay in and we would. He picked the latter." Has this set the precident of "do what we fuckin say or we'll fuckin bomb ya" Fuck due process just kill anyone because we can.
How the fuck was this legal? What are the legal implications this has made? Don't get me wrong this guy deserved life in prison/capitol punishment but after the courts have convicted him. Soon it might be that when the speed trap predator drones also notice someone breaking the law they'll just send a hell fire instead of a ticket.
It's not legal. Shocking how "accepted" this has become after 24 hours. Local news reported "bomb robot" like a common occurrence. Hopefully some outfit will sue specifically for bot usage and prevent bomb robot future.
Wyatt Martin
It is legal. Cops have legal authority to kill you if you are a threat to life or property. That is why they carry guns.
Dude killed people and they could have used any method to bring them down.
Lincoln Bennett
Probably had something to do with killing police officers, or threatening to bomb the city.
Chase Carter
...
Gavin Turner
No more dead cops!
Connor Gonzalez
>defending niggers
LOL how fucking cucked can you be
Eli Fisher
Man shot 12 people, shot at people trying to talk to him, and said he had a bomb.
So they decided that it was too much of a risk to capture him since he might have a Deadman switch, and they couldn't snipe him.
Jose Cook
shut the fuck up you pussy
>hurr just go into the parking lot and get shot one by one by super soldier nigger who just said he planted bombs everywhere hurrr
fuck off
Caleb Butler
...
Adam James
This. By bomb robot or by gun, the point is they killed the fucker without putting themselves in further danger.
Thomas Allen
they didnt resit arrest or smoe petty shit, the guy was an active shooter who murdered multiple people, its legit to take them out if there is no other recourse to stop him
Tyler Scott
This is the reason. Are you just supposed to let him go and kill more white police officers?
Ryder Nguyen
THIS IS THE PHOTO DA MEDYA DONT WANT US TO BE SEEIN! YOU THINK IT BE A COINCIDENCE DAT HE BE BLOWIN UP A BROTHA?? NAH CHECK DIS SHIT PHAM OF HIM JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. SMDH FAMMM. STAY WOKE.
Nathaniel Morales
police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to neutralize the threat. that's why they aim for center of mass and not the head. i don't think is semantics, either.
they sent JIHADBOT9000 in there with the sole intention of killing him. there's no way they put in a bomb thinking "this will stop him."
David Gomez
Your post pretty much answered your own nigger tier rant. shit lord.
Oliver Taylor
>Has this set the precident of "do what we fuckin say or we'll fuckin bomb ya"
I think you'll be fine as long assuming you don't shoot a bunch of people.
Kayden Sullivan
>People actually protecting these nigger snipers in Dallas >Bitching about a bomb being delivered by a RC robot
I swear to god Sup Forums has the biggest nigger loving cucks on the face of the whole internet.
Jose Russell
He'd already killed multiple people. He was armed to the teeth. If they tried to take him he would have tried to kill them. So they said, "nope, we're not risking any more lives".
This wasn't a drunk hiding in his house, this was a man who was a clear and present danger to them.
Ian Wright
You're a fucking idiot
How do you function
Elijah White
BLESSED BE OUR SKYNET OVERLORDS
James King
>threat to life or property Srs user? Many government officials believe if you just own a gun you are a threat to life and property. Driving a car too fast is a threat to life a property. Using words or having opinions that people don't like are a threat to life and property.
I'll agree that what a said is on the boundaries of things but a large number of people and many laws consider what I said to be threats to life and property.
Maybe I'm mistaken or don't have all the facts (part of why I made this thread) but was he still putting shots on target while negotiating and holed up in his building? Just because you kill someone or attempt to kill someone does not give the police authority to immediately kill you. (this is not exactly relevant to this case but extremely relevant to your claim) you can legally defend yourself in a senerio like this. >People different than me don't deserve rights. Yeah fuck off with that I would hold the same opinion of this shit regardless of race.
Hunter Long
Pedo mafia need to start setting precedents and rolling out the 100% loyal robot law enforcement before the entire U.S. population becomes self radicalized lone wolves
Owen Hall
>People different than me don't deserve rights. >The very same people that commit over 50% of the crime in the US
Oh fuck off nigger lover. Like they deserve ANYTHING from us. If they are so threatened then they can return to Africa.
Jaxon Collins
I think people are just freaking out about the possibility of this tactic being used for situations that don't really require it. They aren't considering the reality of the situation that the officers were in, that the end effect would be the same no matter the cause of it. And so they freak out about drones and robots and police controlled explosives without giving any real thought to the escalation of methods and technology and the situations that require them. They only give half a thought to those things when CNN or FOX or MSNBC shoves it towards them and forces them to react to it.
Wyatt Gutierrez
> Defending concept of inalienable rights FTFY Just like Boston, no sane man would defend the actions of these people. It is the reactions and their implications that make us nervous. You want me to say i dont care if police officers die? ok. Its not my primary concern. Peace officers arent drafted, they play a vital VOLUNTARY role in a society. If you want to ensure nobody can ever get hurt ever again prepare to lose the ability to do a great many things. Due process exists not to coddle bad people, but because "bad" historically gets decided by the state. And the state has a long long long history of sometimes deciding people thye disagreed with were "bad." Its a frog in a pot situation; there is a slowly lowering threshold of summary execution and morons like BLM are missing the point entirely. I don't care if you're a "terrorist." I don't care if you're a murderer. I dont care if you just slit my wifes throat. I may want to kill you. But not police, police taking military action makes them soldiers. Soldiers take objectives, neutralize targets. There's dozens of perfected strategies developed by the military to accomplish hundreds of mission types. Policing is not and never will be one of them.
Nolan Perry
Maybe I don't have the facts correct. If he was still actively shooting and actively attempting to kill (e.g. not just threatening to have a bomb) then yes prevent him in your manner of choice. It was said that police sharp shooters couldn't get a shot on him. Which, again maybe I'm missing something, means that he also cannot get shots on police and is not CURRENTLY a threat.
I don't think that the police should have rushed the building either and gotten shot or bombed. That's fucking dumb for the people who think that. It should have been treated as any other negotiation between police and a gunman in which the police typically can wait because fuck it they get paid either way and have food and water.
His motives to the shooting are irrelevant although I openly disagree with his reasons for it.
This is my issue. I'm not convinced (yet) this situation called for it. I'm against the militarizing police forces to an extent. I'm believe that this tactic could very well be abused and has a decent probability to be used again if there isn't some government condemnation of the practice. "We know there is a drug cartel leader with several armed men in this house we can send officers in harms way or Wall-E the house."
Logan Harris
Kek I'm nabbing this
Aaron Watson
>It was said that police sharp shooters couldn't get a shot on him. Which, again maybe I'm missing something, means that he also cannot get shots on police and is not CURRENTLY a threat. He was shooting at people, and it was hours of trying to talk to him to surrender. in a armed standoff at some point the police will make a call to eliminate the person who a general threat, even if they are holed up in a house and not shooting out.
Due to the fact that he claimed to have a bomb, they were worried that he would explode on death, and kill more cops. So they used a robot .
Zachary Robinson
>but after the courts have convicted him. courts are liberal circuses. the nigger would have walked away a freem man because judges are nothing but cucked libs. Any nigger with a gun should be shot on sight.
Jaxon Hernandez
THEY LITERALLY SAW HIM COMMIT A CRIME, therefore he can be arrested, he resisted arrest violently. I don't get your reasoning ?
Colton Cox
This is the problem with allowing the militarization of the police. If we give them the means to act as a standing army on US soil they will justify increasingly militaristic methods for 'neutralizing' threats.
This is how you end up with crowds of people machine gunned and burned alive by the hundreds, a la Egypt. We are heading towards an Egyptian tier military police state.
Blake Carter
That doesn't entitle the police to blow up buildings and shit in pursuit of killing him before he become an immanent threat.
Caleb Johnson
What's the difference between this and sending in SWAT to shoot his ass down? That's usually what happens in these situations, but now we realize we don't have to risk any innocent human life. Someone is holed up with a gun and has already threatened the public? You can't just let them go. Are we supposed to spend millions of dollars on a massive perimeter and wait them out? Fuck that shit. No matter what people think, a human's life isn't worth that shit, especially some worthless turd of a human being's. Give them a chance to surrender peacefully, and if they refuse, send in Johnny 5.
Nathaniel Martin
There is no Due process in war faggot. What happened in Dallas was all out war. You will never understand until you experience such a situation yourself
Wyatt Garcia
user, you are barking up the wrong tree. Police have terminated active shooters for decades with whatever means they have.
Cooper Evans
>active shooter attacking law enforcement >they kill him with a bomb strapped to a RC toy after he repeatedly refuses to stand down >waah let me make a bait thread
Joseph Johnson
>crowds of people machine gunned and burned alive by the hundreds I see nothing wrong with this as long as its niggers and liberals.
Samuel Hill
>what happened in Dallas is war
Yeah that's pretty clear.
We are in a martial law scenario.
Carter Campbell
SOON
Nicholas Edwards
>It's not legal.
Says who? Where does it say law enforcement isn't allowed to blow someone up? This isn't the first time a criminal has been blown up. They're just as dead whether you shoot them or blow them up.
Matthew Cooper
Thank you. You said it better than me. It's ducked what that guy did and again he pretty much deserved death in my opinion but unless he was still actively attempting to kill the police do not get to issue that sentence.
Please cite 1 or so semi credible source that says he was STILL firing at police or others. I haven't read that anywhere yet so it's not that I don't believe it is just I haven't heard it. Again you do not lose due process because you commit a crime. You can be stopped from from actively killing someone but it is different than being executed without due process because of a crime.
Levi Myers
He had killed five, and shot 12 people, and was still armed with a rifle and claimed to have explosives.
How much more of a immanent threat does one have to be?
Tyler Morgan
A weapon to surpass metal gear...
Ian Cox
This is race war. He could have been a PORW but he decided to die for his cause.
Dylan Murphy
Martial law or not, it doesnt matter to me. Ideology, the Rule book, your faith, that ALL goes right out the fucking window when you hear that supersonic crack.
Easton Brooks
Permitting their means to expand beyond a certain limit will mean crossing the red line between law enforcement and occupying force.
It is in our constitution that there shall never be a standing army in the United States, and this is exactly why. Tyranny becomes the only method of public governance in force.
Ethan Myers
After Mr. Johnson was cornered on the second floor of a parking garage, negotiators spent hours trying to get him to surrender, Chief Brown said, but he “told our negotiators that the end is coming and he’s going to hurt and kill more of us, meaning law enforcement, and that there are bombs all over the place in this garage and downtown.”
“The negotiations broke down, and we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” the chief said. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
>police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to neutralize the threat
No, you're retarded. It's called "lethal force" for a reason. Because it's lethal. Otherwise it would be called "neutralizing force". The point is you stop using force once they're no longer a threat. If they're still alive then so be it, but if they're dead well that was the point.
Wyatt James
The difference is one is attempting to apprehend someone and executing them. The former is typically a swat team tries to arrest, suspect resists violently, is stopped which is different than executed, and is then arrested. The latter is killing without due process.
Jackson Morris
Why is this a problem? How else do you suggest resolving this situation?
Kevin Murphy
>they should have shot him in the leg
Aaron Parker
ITT: cucked americans justifying their hard on for authority to tell them what to do. You are naive and ignorant of history and human nature if you don't think that allowing police to robot bomb won't affect ppl other than niggers. I've only had a few iteractions with them, but your police are fucking insane power crazy thugs. And you fucking worship them! "Yes sir, no sir". "Oh well he didn't do exactly what he was told / told the cop to fuck off so he deserved it." Fuck me. You know you paid the cops' salaries, right? They are supposed to work for you. Give me 6 cops Benny Hilling round a suspect any fucking day rather than fuckwits with weapons and insecurities.
Isaac Smith
>“The negotiations broke down, and we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” the chief said. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
This never happens by the way. There was no gunfire from the parking garage before they decided to bring in the remote explosive. The entire thing was streamed live on periscope.
Leo Taylor
A active shooter who killed five people, shot 12, and fired at police after negoations had started is not a "Expansion of limits"
if anything, Dallas Police were professional and did their utmost to talk to the man to surrender.
Jacob Ward
"due process" is a liberal code word for "let niggers off scot free". Due process is and always will be a leftist tool of white genocide.
Brody Rogers
Sorry user, there was gunfire and flashbangs going off hours after the shooting. So fuck off on your false flag narrative.
Dominic Allen
I mean the actual armaments available to them, not the metric by which legitimate deadly force is determined.
Evan Brooks
You've gotten it ass backwards dude. Every training course ive been to and everything ive seen is shoot to stop. Its called deadly force because its likely to end in death but the goal is to stop them, dead or alive.
Joshua Cook
Like you have right? Kek. War. Moron; ive never been and dont expect to know better but i'm pretty fucking sure an active shooter doesn't take us to war. Now police are definitely behaving more and more like their precincts are war zones, and that in itself is a good topic for conversation.
But this hero worship action movie fantasy that its a war-zone out there? Utter bull. People are mad because this moron snapped, but we can deal with that as a people. People die, life has tragedies. People are also mad that more and more it seems rather than adhering to the spirit of the law and the idea of policing a nation of free men and women, Police are withdrawing from culture and developing their own. Yes this is an extraordinary situation, yes he probably needed to die right then and there. But how did it come to this? How did police wind up thinking up a strategy to deploy a bomb? I don't know the right answer to any of this.
But i do know that exclusive club oorah tripe like yours doesn't have a place in our country.
Isaac Powell
Criminals hate the idea of robotic law enforcement because you can check their programming to see if they have "systemic bias" or not. Better to keep that unfalsifiable
Leo Sullivan
What false flag? I'm saying the cops are lying about 'negotiations breaking down into an exchange of fire'. That does not happen after he flees into the parking garage.
I seriously doubt they even attempted to communicate with him once he was cornered in the parking garage.
Wyatt Long
We already went through this with that gorilla being shot in a zoo a while back. Can we just agree that all types of monkeys deserve a bullet when they chimp out and move on with our lives? >obvious educated chimp here
Dominic Fisher
>The difference is one is attempting to apprehend someone and executing them.
Uh, no. If they send in SWAT to shoot their ass down the intent is to kill them. If the dude drops his weapon and doesn't die then that's all well and good. In the future, I'm sure these suspects will understand what the robot is and the robot will have a camera and the criminals will have a chance to drop their weapon and throw their hands up in the air.
Either way, the point is that we don't owe criminals every single chance to take them in alive, especially when this involves risking innocent human life. THEY decided they were going to die by not surrendering.
Anybody that thinks differently is absolutely retarded or a child.
Isaac Kelly
>The difference is one is attempting to apprehend someone and executing them. No, the difference is whether you're sending a SWAT team in to execute them or a robot.
Cops to take suspects into custody alive, but unless there's live hostages in the situation, nobody is sending a SWAT team into a room with an armed nutcase expecting the suspect to be alive afterwards.
Benjamin Gomez
Killing by Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military Bradley Jay Strawser and Jeff McMahan
A new powerful military weapon has appeared in the skies of world and with it a new form of warfare has quickly emerged bringing with it a host of pressing ethical questions and issues. This book brings together some of the best scholars currently working on these questions and provides timely and important arguments on many of the most significant and previously unexplored areas of this recent debate. Essays range from broad theoretic questions regarding the moral permissibility of killing by drones to specific examinations of particular uses of unmanned weapons such as their role in counterinsurgency operations, humanitarian interventions, and their controversial use in “targeted killings.” Some scholars engage remarkably vexing issues such as what happens to classic military virtues such as bravery for the warriors who fly remotely controlled drones from complete safety, half a world away from the combat in which they operate. Others wrestle over the future of such technology and whether “autonomous” weapons should be allowed to kill human beings. All of the views presented are given wide berth to contest, dispute, and provide sharp critical scrutiny and analysis to these contentious questions.
Anthony Jenkins
You justified the use of bombs in your own post. nice.
Asher Sanders
cont.
If you think that regardless of the method chosen
>killing is killing you might be a fucking degenerate
Ayden Lee
>Cops to take suspects into custody alive, but unless there's live hostages in the situation, nobody is sending a SWAT team into a room with an armed nutcase expecting the suspect to be alive afterwards. They wouldn't usually send them in at all unless they had a good reason to. SWAT usually sets up stand offs with cornered targets for HOURS before flashbanging the fuck out of them and rolling through blitzkrieg style.
Oliver Jenkins
You're arguing the fine details instead of looking at the bigger picture, faggot. This dude was a threat and they stopped him. No where in the use of deadly force does it say you absolutely need to do everything you possibly can, even risk additional human life, in order to take this suspect in alive.
Caleb Powell
The problem with libtards like OP is they have never encountered real life. They only know the totally controlled, thought control experiment, as illustrated by the monday morning quarterbacking above. Real life is open ended and combat is about possibilities rather than links in a pre-ordained logic chain.
Grayson Hill
>surrender peacefully >no >ok >boom
whats the problem here? The suspect was an armed felon who had shot 5 police officers dead minutes later, and he refused to surrender
how can you operate proper cause? you attempt to peacefully restrain him your going to get a few more officers dead from an old sks, whats the alternative, just walk away from the corner where the suspect is located?
Christopher Murphy
I agree with the use of the bomb. The intent was to disarm any possible ied and disable the suspect. It did.
Michael Turner
Boot licking cuck
Andrew Price
The guy said he had a bomb. They handled the situation in the safest way they could.
Brody King
they aim center of mass because headshots are cowadooby shit.
Bentley Campbell
This. Did they just eat donuts until the robot batteries were charged? Of course they tried to talk to him and of course the murderer was an unreasonable guy.
Jordan Perry
it was a self defense bombing
Hunter Carter
Blowing up undetonated explosives is a bad idea unless you know how powerful the explosive is.
GIven that there were like five cops huddled directly under the window that exploded about 20 feet over their heads if the guy really had high yield explosives on him they would have probably accidentally killed themselves.
That is primarily why I don't think they ever thought for a second he had explosives in the first place.
Easton Gonzalez
Deadly force was appropriate in this case. The method is no more "OMG" then using a tank to ram a building or any other police tactic to kill someone who is a threat to the community
The main issue is now they cannot use robots to talk to a suspect, as a suspect will shoot hte robot
Jose Ross
Why don't you cry about the Javelin rocket launcher faggot.
Bentley Nguyen
criminals / suspects - same thing right?
I know in this case it's obvious, however people have proven not to be cool when you give them the power to summarily execute "criminals"
Adrian Ortiz
Center of mass is most likely to hit. Biggest target. Also happens to have the largest concentration of goopy soft livey organs you need to live that will make you stop hurting people if they are hit.
Also tends to make you stop living if they are hit. Not always but usually.
Kevin Green
and I am saying you are full of shit. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.
Brayden Hall
>a jury was needed to prove he killed those people
Joshua Cooper
Swat teams are not sent in to kill. They are sent in to stop which is way fucking different m8. In self defense cases (which to justify intentional lethal force is required for all) you cannot execute someone. You can legally shoot to stop which might mean a mag dump. Might mean a mag dump from several officers. But once a person is down and no longer moving/a threat the shooting typically stops. If you can't see how that vs driving a bomb in to kill someone is different then you are absolutely retarded or a child.
Christopher Moore
>Let's see if we can end this peacefully >I have no intention of surrendering. I am not interested in stopping, ever. You will not stop me I want to kill as many white cops as I can
BUT WHY DID THEY KILL HIM?!
Cooper Jackson
>Maybe I don't have the facts correct. If he was still actively shooting and actively attempting to kill (e.g. not just threatening to have a bomb) then yes prevent him in your manner of choice.
Yes you don't have all the facts. After the shooting stopped, they managed to get in contact with him and negotiated for a couple hours. During this negotiation he declared he had no intention of stopping or giving up, and that he was going to continue to fight.
So he was still an active threat and declared he would continue being an active threat. The cops did what they had to do.
Dominic Reed
Easier to blow him up than risk more lives trying to apprehend him.
Samuel Nguyen
No, an armed dude that has killed people and stated he will kill more is not the same. We "summarily" execute these people all the time. How we're becoming so retarded all of a sudden and acting like these people deserve all our love and attention is beyond me. I understand this dude was probably a lot of people's hero though, so that probably has something to do with it.
Dominic Peterson
Because the suspect had threatened that this was what would happen if the police tried to apprehend him, that he had explosives rigged and ready to go.
Honestly this is just a grenade with "legs", has the US ever used an explosive grenade to end a standoff? if so its not a precedent.
Asher Martinez
When will there be mechs for law enforcement, or at least in the military?
Carter Brown
A jury was not needed to prove he was a threat that needed to be stopped because he specifically stated he was.
Ayden Williams
Swat is not used for regular cases, this is case of active shooters, hostages, and so on.
Even in the UK if someone has shot 12 people and killed five, and the suspect cannot be arrested, the police will after a time frame when they view negotiations are fruitless, Will use lethal force to eliminate the danger.
Colton Mitchell
>This. By bomb robot or by gun, the point is they killed the fucker without putting themselves in further danger. We pay them to be in danger, better they die than the nations laws go up in smoke.
