News you can use
12 Responses to “News you can use”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 11th, 2016 at 8:36 pm
Couldn’t the robot have employed some sort of net and trident combo to try and take him alive? Straight to C4 seems a little over the top. At least it wasn’t a plasma rifle.
July 11th, 2016 at 9:41 pm
He shot cops. I’m surprised they didn’t blow the whole city block. Was it legal? The rule of law is dead. We all knew this, but it was nice of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States to hold a press conference last week to announce it and inform the minions.
July 11th, 2016 at 10:42 pm
I can’t quite put my finger on why but I find it disturbing that they used the robot. But as to the morality/legality of it: if he had been shot (and killed) with a rifle from a distance, would the shot have been considered moral*/legal? I would apply the same answer to the use of the robot — and also think it irrelevant whether it was government agents or one of us “regular” Joes doing the killing.
*Note: moral by a _sane_ person’s judgement; anti-gun and anti-selfdefence types are dismissed.
July 11th, 2016 at 11:36 pm
Justified, legal, ethical and morally correct. The actions stopped the ongoing threat of extreme violence against others. If they’d had grenades, lobbing one at him earlier would have been OK, too, as long as the blast was isolated to the shooter’s location.
July 12th, 2016 at 12:31 am
Okay, all you gun-fags out there who scream when someone says an AR-15 is an assault rifle. The damn robot is really a piloted drone, to get totally technical. Piloted. Operator on other end. Cop took the ‘shot’, just as a sniper would from a distance. Just a different tool this time.
The media is using “robot” to try to bring images of Ahhnuld walking around in “Terminator,” wasting everything in his path.
The only difference in the use of the C-4 charge to kill the shooter vs just disabling a bomb was that there was a meat sack with a potential bomb at the location of the detonation.
Drones or RPVs have been used by police to deliver phones, food and gas bombs before. This time it was a bomb-bomb.
July 12th, 2016 at 12:37 am
And the acceleration towards banana republic continues. While I don’t disagree with the outcome, I like the drumhead trial less, as even douche bags of this magnitude are supposed to get their day in court.
Based on this outcome I guess we can look forward to the DOD to start transferring fragmentation grenades to local police forces.
July 12th, 2016 at 1:05 am
No. A “robot” is a machine that doesn’t have instinct morals or culpability. These things are lost on a small monitor controlling the thing. Even the use of military drone have a list of protocols. What training do you give for robot detonation.
July 12th, 2016 at 7:02 am
“Was using the Dallas robot bomb legal?” I predict that Dallas politicians will say no, and apologize.
I predict that as soon as the public memory fades, Dallas will pay money to the shooter’s family. The money will be substantially more than Dallas paid out to the dead cops’ families, and incredibly more than Dallas paid to the people who were shot and didn’t die.
If Dallas can’t find family members to take the money, they will pay it to a liberal social justice group.
I predict that the only moral quandary on the part of Dallas politicians in paying out the money, is whether this October is too soon (to influence the election), or if they have to wait until the next election cycle.
July 12th, 2016 at 8:11 am
The robot I have no problem with. Executing him with with a bomb, on the other hand, I do have a problem with. It’s an indiscriminate weapon. In fact, under US law, any intentional use of an explosive to harm another classifies it as a “weapon of mass destruction”. Bomb-carrying robots are “weapons of war that have no business on our streets”, no matter *WHO* uses them, civilians or police.
There is no justifiable police use for a mobile anti-personnel mine, ever. Period.
There are just some lines you do not cross, and the Dallas PD has crossed one of those lines. There were certainly other options that were open to them: Waiting him out (he was cornered with no place to go), or flooding the area with CS gas, or using flash-bangs to disorient the shooter right before engaging him. Hell, they could have used a robot with a gun mounted on it to shoot him, and I probably wouldn’t care: That’s not an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.
Intentionally killing a person with a bomb makes you no better than Ted Kaczynski, no matter how good you think your justification is.
July 12th, 2016 at 9:42 am
From a certified Use of Force instructor:
Deadly force is deadly force. If the use of deadly force is justified, the manner of its delivery is immaterial.
(That’s why I’ve always been disturbed by the people saying it’s okay to kill U.S. citizens with drones. If it’s legal to kill them with drones, then it’s just as legal to walk up to them and shoot them in the face.)
Getting back to Dallas: Was deadly force justified? Yes.
Would the conventional use of deadly force, i.e., a conventional SWAT-type raid or a swarming, have resulted in more dead or injured police? Most likely.
How long can you wait, when the entire downtown is locked down and the rest of the city is essentially without police protection? (If most taxpayers knew how few police are actually on duty at any given time, they would crap their pants or buy a gun and a case of ammo, or both.) How do you control the direction of a cloud of gas? (Ask the Germans at Cambrai about that.)
As far as a bomb being an “indiscriminate” weapon, that would be true in an environment containing innocent bystanders. But the offender here was alone, fortified, with no hostages. Detonating a bomb next to him was no more “indiscriminate” than detonating a recovered pipe bomb in situ would be.
July 12th, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Legal or not, it was used too late to save five lives.
July 12th, 2016 at 3:11 pm
“Deadly force is deadly force. If the use of deadly force is justified, the manner of its delivery is immaterial.”
This is my understanding. Norm is probably to use a sniper. Don’t have enough information to know why they used the bomb instead. Clearly, it was a deadly force situation earlier which would make it legal. They key question is had the justification lapsed, when the guy forted up. Also not enough information to answer this question. But if they thought he had a bomb on his person, that would be important in the justification.