- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,140
- Reaction score
- 14,558
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.