• 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

Cryptic said:
No, an atom bomb, tasers and C-4 are all potentially minimum force weapons- depending on the totality of the situation.


You are forgetting the other component: With out risking additional lives. That includes the lives of the police.
Click to expand...

Again.. a useless definition.

and no.. I am not forgetting the other component..

Proportional to the threat is just that.. proportional to the threat. It does not include.. without risking additional lives"..

Under using "proportional to the threat".. the officer would be obligated to use a baton.

That's why I have never been a proponent of "proportional to the threat" whether in civilian defense or the police.
 
Painter said:
"It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns" is the battle cry of the NRA.

Their #1 sound byte that I've been hearing for decades is now utter trash.
Click to expand...

Did the cops not have guns?
 
Cryptic said:
The man's rifle was apparently capable of penetrating the body armour of the police. Likewise, there is no requirement that the police respond with equal force (If I rush a police officer with a club, the officer is not obligated to only use his baton). Rather, the police only need to use force proportional to the threat- which is exactly what they did.


My guess is that he was killed by concussion. That aside, lethal force was clearly justified, and the amount used was the minimal needed to eliminate the threat with out risking additional lives.
Click to expand...

According to the police, he was blown up into multiple peices, which makes blood loss the cause of death. Using explosives is not proportional to the threat. The purpose of C4 is to destroy physical structures, not human beings. They fact that this had never been used, even though police have been in worse situations, confirms it was unnecessary.
 
jonny5 said:
Did the cops not have guns?
Click to expand...

bingo!
There was a whole city full of good guys with guns and they could not stop 1 bad guy with a gun without using a robot with a bomb.
 
Painter said:
bingo!
There was a whole city full of good guys with guns and they could not stop 1 bad guy with a gun without using a robot with a bomb.
Click to expand...

Wrong.. he was pinned down into a place where it was safe and effective to use the robot with a bomb because there was a city full of goods guys with firearms.
 
jaeger19 said:
Wrong.. he was pinned down into a place where it was safe and effective to use the robot with a bomb because there was a city full of goods guys with firearms.
Click to expand...

He was not pinned down.
He chose that location because it was defensible.
He did not intend to survive and he never tried to flee or get away.

If you listen to the police interviews, they felt they had no way to get at him without taking more losses.
 
Painter said:
bingo!
There was a whole city full of good guys with guns and they could not stop 1 bad guy with a gun without using a robot with a bomb.
Click to expand...

They could. They chose not to. Still not sure what the NRA has to do with anything. Were they trying to take away his lawfully possessed guns?
 
Painter said:
He was not pinned down.
He chose that location because it was defensible.
He did not intend to survive and he never tried to flee or get away.

If you listen to the police interviews, they felt they had no way to get at him without taking more losses.
Click to expand...

In hindsight they will be proven wrong. Our society does not support unusual punishment.
 
jonny5 said:
According to the police, he was blown up into multiple peices, which makes blood loss the cause of death. Using explosives is not proportional to the threat. The purpose of C4 is to destroy physical structures, not human beings. They fact that this had never been used, even though police have been in worse situations, confirms it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Ok, he was blown to pieces. Explosives (the type is not important) have a variety of purposes. Those purposes can include mining, and
when lethal force is justified, the destruction of humans. The fact that C-4 had not been used as a weapon by US police before does not make its use illegal or somehow "unconstitutional".

jaeger19 said:
That's why I have never been a proponent of "proportional to the threat" whether in civilian defense or the police.
Click to expand...
Years ago, I was trained on a rough model that encouraged a proportional "one up" use of force in most situations (force is justified, threat is unarmed, use batons, spray etc). Force is justified, threat has a bat, confront him with a fire arm.

Of course, the concept is not set in stone. It is possible that one unarmed individual may need to be confronted with a fire arm. Likewise, it is possible that spray can be used against a weaker person armed with a bat.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Ok, he was blown to pieces. Same difference. Explosives (the type is not important) have a variety of purposes. Those purposes can include mining, and
when lethal force is justified, the destruction of humans. The fact that C-4 had not been used by US police before does not make its use illegal.
Click to expand...

I said, unnecessary. They improvised an explosive, instead of using approved procedures. Exactly why BLM is upset about. What the gunman was upset about.
 
jonny5 said:
I said, unnecessary. They improvised an explosive, instead of using approved procedures. Exactly why BLM is upset about. What the gunman was upset about.
Click to expand...

The use of explosives was necessarry to avoid needlessly risking more lives (that includes police lives). BLM can just lump it and they should also note that the Polcie chief authorizing the technique is also black.
 
Cryptic said:
The use of explosives was necessarry to avoid needlessly risking more lives (that includes police lives). BLM can just lump it and they should also note that the Polcie chief authorizing the technique is also black.
Click to expand...

Police abuse doesnt just have to be about race. Excessive force is a real problem. SWAT teams shooting peoples dogs while knocking down the wrong door on minor drug investigations. In this case, they did not use minimal force, they used an unusual method of maximum force on a contained suspect.
 
jonny5 said:
I pay taxes so I dont have to.
Click to expand...
Thats right. You dont have to...so pay your taxes and shut the **** up and let those that are willing to do the job do it and dont be an armchair quarterback telling them how YOU would do it. Because you wouldnt. Wont. Dont.
 
Painter said:
He was not pinned down.
He chose that location because it was defensible.
He did not intend to survive and he never tried to flee or get away.

If you listen to the police interviews, they felt they had no way to get at him without taking more losses.
Click to expand...

You are too funny.

He chose that location "because it was defensible"..

What was he defending himself from? Oh right... good guys with guns.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats right. You dont have to...so pay your taxes and shut the **** up and let those that are willing to do the job do it and dont be an armchair quarterback telling them how YOU would do it. Because you wouldnt. Wont. Dont.
Click to expand...

Translation..."don;t question the government.. we know better than you".
 
jaeger19 said:
Translation..."don;t question the government.. we know better than you".
Click to expand...
Translation...if you arent willing to put your ass on the line you should ABSOLUTELY feel free to sit on the sideline and whine bitch and moan...but not interfere with the practices of those willing to actually do it.
 
Cryptic said:
Years ago, I was trained on a rough model that encouraged a proportional "one up" use of force in most situations (force is justified, threat is unarmed, use batons, spray etc). Force is justified, threat has a bat, confront him with a fire arm.

Of course, the concept is not set in stone. It is possible that one unarmed individual may need to be confronted with a fire arm. Likewise, it is possible that spray can be used against a weaker person armed with a bat.
Click to expand...

Well, and that's why I never like the "proportional force" BS. I think the standard should be judicial force.

if you are a 220 pound 6 foot 2 trained officer in good shape and facing a fat, unarmed and wounded person several feet away... you don't need to use deadly force.

If you are a 120 pound female officer facing that same opponent.. you might need to use deadly force.
 
VanceMack said:
Translation...if you arent willing to put your ass on the line you should ABSOLUTELY feel free to sit on the sideline and whine bitch and moan...but not interfere with the practices of those willing to actually do it.
Click to expand...

Translation.. the government should be able to do whatever it wants regardless of the needs and desires of the people that pay its bills.
 
jaeger19 said:
Translation.. the government should be able to do whatever it wants regardless of the needs and desires of the people that pay its bills.
Click to expand...
Your translator is really busted. Stop buying those cheap ass Chinese versions.
 
VanceMack said:
Your translator is really busted. Stop buying those cheap ass Chinese versions.
Click to expand...

Sorry mine is US made..

The Chinese versions say..." don't worry.. the government is always right".. "IF you haven;t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about".. "if you disobey the government then you deserve it".
 
jaeger19 said:
Sorry mine is US made..

The Chinese versions say..." don't worry.. the government is always right".. "IF you haven;t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about".. "if you disobey the government then you deserve it".
Click to expand...
You sure? Because it really looks like what you are saying (again) is "Waaaaah! Social injustice! Evil Cops! Oh, and look at me being boring as ****. Again." Again.
 
Fenton said:
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
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that a police department that has a bomb robot and C4 probably has a decent amount of riot gas as well. Plus they negotiated for quite a while. They could have got some from another nearby dept. Not saying I am against what they did but let's not pretend what others brought up is unreasonable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom