• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bomb Robot Takes Down Dallas Gunman, but Raises Enforcement Questions

The use of a bomb-disposal robot to trigger an explosive to kill the Dallas gunman has also triggered questions on what tactics are or aren't permissible by law enforcement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html


How far should police be allowed to go to deal with a clear and present danger?

IMHO, they were justified - and it helps that no bystanders were killed by the bomb explosion. On the other hand, if the police were to have used a bomb or some other highly unconventional method, and it resulted in significant casualties among bystanders, then I think we'd all probably criticize the police for going off the yellow brick road.

When everything turns out okay, then you face less questions. When something goes awry, then everybody's going to Monday-Morning-Quarterback you.


It sort of reminds me of the waterboarding debate - suppose you waterboarded some guy, but it turns out that doing so saved a whole bunch of lives?

Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.

My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.
 
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.

My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.

Good point.
 
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.

My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.

Rubber bullets or a " gas grenade " against a shooter wearing body armor ?
 
Rubber bullets or a " gas grenade " against a shooter wearing body armor ?

Body armor wont stop gas. Did he have a gas mask? How about spraying him with sticky glue? Or couldnt they have simply hidden behind riot gear? Thats what bulletproof shields are for. SWAT has them and this was a SWAT situation. There were lots of alternatives on the face of it. The police chose maximum force.
 
Ya, this is what militarizing our police force looks like. Congrats.

The core concept is whether the use of force was warranted and whether it was proportional to the threat. In this case, both answers are "Yes". Accoding, it does not really matter what weapon the police used.

The police chose maximum force.
The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?
 
Rubber bullets or a " gas grenade " against a shooter wearing body armor ?
''


Yes.. it could be very effective. Body armor does not defeat a gas attack.

Nor does body armor defeat concussion and a spray of rubber bullets.

just to point out.. that if this fellow had been taken alive.. we would probably know a lot more about his connections, other possible threats out there waiting to strike (if he was not acting alone or planning alone or if he was a member of a group).
 
Last edited:
The core concept is whether the use of force was warranted and whether it was proportional to the threat. In this case, both answers are "Yes". Accoding, it does not really matter what weapon the police used.


The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?

I am sorry.. please explain how causing a fatality is using something less than "maximum force".
 
''


Yes.. it could be very effective. Body armor does not defeat a gas attack.

Nor does body armor defeat concussion and a spray of rubber bullets.

just to point out.. that if this fellow had been taken alive.. we would probably know a lot more about his connections, other possible threats out there waiting to strike (if he was not acting alone or planning alone or if he was a member of a group).

Gas attack ? Lol...didn't realize olocal policce departments had access to " knock out gas ".

You've been watching too many movies. But they used concussion alright.

1 # of C4
 
I am sorry.. please explain how causing a fatality is using something less than "maximum force".

Because it is less than fatalities. This is an example of a poorly conceived use of maximum force:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

In Dallas, the police, after negotiating for six hours, used the minimal force needed to stop the threat that the suspect posed. This minimal force ended in a single fatality.
 
The core concept is whether the use of force was warranted and whether it was proportional to the threat. In this case, both answers are "Yes". Accoding, it does not really matter what weapon the police used.


The level of force caused minimal damage to property and resulted in only one fatality ( a gun man with the stated intention of killing more officers). How is that "maximum force"?

So if the police force used a armed plane it would be acceptable to you since the use of force was warranted and it is proportional to the threat?
 
The use of a bomb-disposal robot to trigger an explosive to kill the Dallas gunman has also triggered questions on what tactics are or aren't permissible by law enforcement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html


How far should police be allowed to go to deal with a clear and present danger?

IMHO, they were justified - and it helps that no bystanders were killed by the bomb explosion. On the other hand, if the police were to have used a bomb or some other highly unconventional method, and it resulted in significant casualties among bystanders, then I think we'd all probably criticize the police for going off the yellow brick road.

When everything turns out okay, then you face less questions. When something goes awry, then everybody's going to Monday-Morning-Quarterback you.


It sort of reminds me of the waterboarding debate - suppose you waterboarded some guy, but it turns out that doing so saved a whole bunch of lives?

They could have used a drone with hellfire missiles for all I care .
 
So if the police force used a armed plane it would be acceptable to you since the use of force was warranted and it is proportional to the threat?

Haha, I so called this crap, the day after Dallas PD sent Micah Johnson to hell.

I predicted on DP that wittle wiberals would start complaining about the use of force, and next we'll see Johnson's family file a multi million dollar lawsuit because his civil rights wuz all violated n stuff.
 
1 # of C4
Yes. From what I understand, the robot used was a Remotec Andros Mark V-A1 armed with one pound of C4.

This particular robot performs well in SWAT and Hazmat situations.
 
Haha, I so called this crap, the day after Dallas PD sent Micah Johnson to hell.

I predicted on DP that wittle wiberals would start complaining about the use of force, and next we'll see Johnson's family file a multi million dollar lawsuit because his civil rights wuz all violated n stuff.

I think he should be dead. And the force was acceptable. I am sorry you can't understand my point. My point is that police departments should not possess these tools. Please gather some reading comprehension prior to making such a false statement.
 
The robot can star in the next Star Wars movie as R2-C4.
 
I think he should be dead. And the force was acceptable. I am sorry you can't understand my point. My point is that police departments should not possess these tools. Please gather some reading comprehension prior to making such a false statement.

Obama agrees with you.
Obama to ban military weapons sent to local police departments | MSNBC

He wants American police to be defenseless when terrorists and others appear with military weapons.

Have you seen the footage of the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery shootout?
 
So if the police force used a armed plane it would be acceptable to you since the use of force was warranted and it is proportional to the threat?

Yes as lethal force was justified, it does not matter whether if the weapon used was an armed plane, or a crossbow so long as precautions were taken not to endanger inncocent lives and the lethal force selected was proportional to the threat posed by the individual. In addition, there are needs to keep property destruction to a minimum, and the method chosen had a good chance of stopping the threat.

In this case, the robot bomb met all of those requirements. The attempted use of a crossbow probably would have failed on two requirements. I am not sure about the use of a plane. It might meet the requirements (laser guided munitions?), but the robot bomb was a far better choice.

In short, if terrorist elements attack the police with high velocity rifles, refuse to surrender and state their intent is to kill as many police as possible, I dont expect the police to limit themselves to revolvers, or even AR-15s.

Rather, the police can use any weapon proportional to the threat posed by the terrorists. That can include weapons not normally issued to police. It does not matter whether the terrorists are left wing, right wing, Islamacist or ethnic based (white, black, hispanic etc).
 
Last edited:
The robot can star in the next Star Wars movie as R2-C4.

First thing that came to mind when I saw a pic of that robot......

johnny 5.jpg

See the resemblance ?

Adrotec.jpg

Maybe with a little Wall-E added in ?

wall-e.jpg
 
Obama agrees with you.
Obama to ban military weapons sent to local police departments | MSNBC

He wants American police to be defenseless when terrorists and others appear with military weapons.

Have you seen the footage of the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery shootout?

Wrong again.

The police have a difficult mission as is. Every time you expand their arsenal to take care of another problem you are spreading them thinner...not making them stronger. We have trained people who can deal with this D-bag. There is no need for the police to have these tools.

These tools should not be for policemen.
 
Gas attack ? Lol...didn't realize olocal policce departments had access to " knock out gas ".

You've been watching too many movies. But they used concussion alright.

1 # of C4

Yeah.. nice strawman.. never said "knock out gas"..

But CS used in an enclosed space can certainly disable and convince a person its time to comply.

You've been watching too much batman.
 
Because it is less than fatalities. This is an example of a poorly conceived use of maximum force:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

In Dallas, the police, after negotiating for six hours, used the minimal force needed to stop the threat that the suspect posed. This minimal force ended in a single fatality.

Okay.. well using that definition the attack on Hiroshima was minimal force.

Which means you are using a useless definition.
 
Haha, I so called this crap, the day after Dallas PD sent Micah Johnson to hell.

I predicted on DP that wittle wiberals would start complaining about the use of force, and next we'll see Johnson's family file a multi million dollar lawsuit because his civil rights wuz all violated n stuff.

Sure.. because of course.. conservatives want a police state right? You know where you can;t distinguish the police from military....

Oh wait...
 
Like a lot of things.. it depends on the judicial use of force.

My question is that if the robot had the ability to carry C4. Could that robot had another means.. non lethal or less lethal.. that would have been as effective.. and less potentially harmful to bystanders.. such as a gas grenade, or an exploding canister with rubber bullets.

Anaesthesia gas is not some magic stuff that takes down a badguy. Tear gas certainly won't, and neither would rubber bullets.

1-lb of C4 wasn't going to blow up the entire block, and the guy was isolated inside that parking garage. What they used was enough to get him, and in a reliable way. Presumably, the gunman wasn't visible to police snipers, otherwise they probably would have got him that more tried-and-true way, as they have in other cases.
 
Extra-judicial killing is murder, right?

Not if the guy is trying to kill you, and it's clear that Micah Johnson was a clear and present danger to the lives of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom