BLM shooting suspect killed by robot; do you support robots/drones use to kill suspects?

[bunklocoempire]

In Dallas, Drone Wars Just Came Home

Written by Daniel McAdams



http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive.../july/08/in-dallas-drone-wars-just-came-home/
Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Police claim that continuing the negotiations was pointless and attempting to capture him would have put officers at risk.

What goes around. There's your law and disorder.

 

[phill4paul]

There is a question no media will ask.

Correct.

 

[Schifference]

Flashback...

"I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…" Rand Paul

I'm not a heretic for posting this since he dropped out of the POTUS run am I?

I wouldn't agree with killing a person exiting a liquor store with a weapon and fifty bucks.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

What a slippery slope we are on.

This sums it up.

Where is information about the other three shooters? Why so much focus on just this one? Why is the police chief speaking only singularly with regarding to suspect statements?

Also this bomb-bot needs to be looked into, were the residents of Dallas aware their police department purchased such robots and bomb materials, did their city counsel approve this? Are police exempted by federal statutes from bombing, setting such lethal traps, and the like as are "civilians"? ...Was this equipment provided to the police by a federal agency?

Little chance of getting answers to all these Qs.
Surplus gear from Iraq/Afghan freedom wars was being given to US Police in various cities and at least one of the cops shot dead had served in Iraq.
The extremist in Dallas shooting himself had served in Afghanistan and won WOT medals.


Quote:
Cops:
Brent Thompson, among those killed in Dallas, was a former U.S. Marine who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan to train local police, Fox News reported. The 43-year-old was a newly married grandfather who joined the Dallas Area Rapid Transit police department in 2009, the news organization reported.

Patrick Zamarripa, 32, who was also slain in the attack, was a Navy veteran who had survived three tours in Iraq before joining the Dallas police department about five years ago, Stars & Stripes reported.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-identified-as-former-us-soldier-reports.html

Extremist suspect:
Johnson was a decorated veteran, having received a National Defense Service Medal, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an Army Service Ribbon, an Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and a NATO Medal, according to Military.com.
He also achieved the rank of private first class, according to The New York Times.

do you support robots/drones use to kill suspects?

A suspect is not guilty and has rights.

Dead suspects have no defense.

suspicion is not even grounds for arrest. it may be grounds for investigation..but nothing more.

This may depend on race/nationality/wealth status etc of the 'suspect'.

For example, many so called "liberals" in media/hollywood and probably over 90% of BLMer's support a drone gangster who has been repeatedly violating human/living rights of brown children/civilians in poor countries .. they certainly don't protest in public against such killings.

 

[Krugminator2]

Robots disarm bombs. This is useful technology in a situation like this or in a hostage situation.

This guy has given up his right to life. He shot 10 people. His choices are surrender instantly or die. There should be no negotiations in these situations. You come out immediately or you die. Those are your options.

Killing this guy is like killing that gorilla in the zoo. His life is meaningless compared to everyone else. If there is any remote chance he or the gorilla could cause harm then that isn't a risk worth taking.

 

[69360]

Killing is killing. It's either justified or isn't. The device used to kill is besides the point. Killing this shooter seems to be justified.

 

[MelissaWV]

Killing is killing. It's either justified or isn't. The device used to kill is besides the point. Killing this shooter seems to be justified.

This. I have a problem with using drones/robots to kill, but it's not any more of a problem than I have using human beings to kill. Most of the time it's not going to be justified. Once in a blue moon it will be.

You can't have it both ways. If, in some of your minds, a well-armed citizen should/could have killed an active shooter, then it extends to a police officer or a drone. I don't assign them any special super powers. If the standard's met for you and your weapon, then anyone else and their weapon falls into the same category. Now, if your taillight's out, I'm going to have a problem with anyone shooting you --- drone, citizen, or cop.

 

[pcosmar]

Killing this shooter seems to be justified.

from one point of view.

 

[pcosmar]

His life is meaningless compared to everyone else.

hmm

I see this a lot

 

[kahless]

Kind of a loaded poll question since of course we do not shoot "suspects". In an active shooter situation or trying to stop someone with a bomb, then yes - so poll choice "other".

 

[AuH20]

 

[LibertyEagle]

Now, if your taillight's out,

You mean, he fit the description of a person who robbed a convenience store in the area. From what I can tell, the whole tail light story was complete nonsense.

I'm going to have a problem with anyone shooting you --- drone, citizen, or cop.

True, but if you pull your gun out, it rather changes the equation.

 

[phill4paul]

Maybe he knew what was going to happen to him and the letters "RB" that he wrote on the walls stood for "Robot Bomb."

 

[phill4paul]

My view. A robot cannot "fear for it's life." Therefore, it should not be used in a lethal manner. There is no reason these robots cannot be equipped to use non-lethal means of apprehension.

 

[TheTexan]

I'm in support of anything, that makes our brave hero Officers safer

 

[limequat]

I think Dallas has a lot of questions to answer.

Why did you have a bomb?
Who made the bomb?
Do you have more bombs?
What is your rules of engagement for detonating bombs?
Are your officers trained in lethal bombings?

I mean...shit, that doesn't even scratch the surface of the questions I have.

 

[Ender]

This. I have a problem with using drones/robots to kill, but it's not any more of a problem than I have using human beings to kill. Most of the time it's not going to be justified. Once in a blue moon it will be.

You can't have it both ways. If, in some of your minds, a well-armed citizen should/could have killed an active shooter, then it extends to a police officer or a drone. I don't assign them any special super powers. If the standard's met for you and your weapon, then anyone else and their weapon falls into the same category. Now, if your taillight's out, I'm going to have a problem with anyone shooting you --- drone, citizen, or cop.

Can't support this- it can turn into a nightmare for "suspects" and will infringe even more on rights.

Do we have any proof besides the MSM/PTB word that this was the shooter?

If a well-armed citizen is in the same store as an active shooter, that is one thing- to kill someone that we are told is the shooter by questionable sources is other. Now we will never know the details for sure. Sorta like the Boston bombers.

And where are the other reported shooters?

 

[TheTexan]

You mean, he fit the description of a person who robbed a convenience store in the area. From what I can tell, the whole tail light story was complete nonsense.



True, but if you pull your gun out, it rather changes the equation.

I completely agree, LE.

It's pretty obvious he did this to himself I'm not sure why only you and I see it

 

[Nirvikalpa]

It could have easily been innocent Mark Hughes, who cops lied to saying they had not only video evidence of him shooting, but that several witnesses stepped forward and said they saw him firing into the crowd. There were even videos of him walking around as the shooting was occurring, but that didn't stop the cops from trying to frame him and posting his picture on their twitter account - which was retweeted thousands of times.

Mob mentality is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Ender]

It could have easily been innocent Mark Hughes, who cops lied to saying they had not only video evidence of him shooting, but that several witnesses stepped forward and said they saw him firing into the crowd. There were even videos of him walking around as the shooting was occurring, but that didn't stop the cops from trying to frame him and posting his picture on their twitter account - which was retweeted thousands of times.

Mob mentality is a very dangerous thing.

Yep.

Article on this incidence:

Police Robot Killing?

By Mike Holmes

July 11, 2016
Email Print
FacebookTwitter
Share

Two days after the event I have not encountered any thoughtful discussion of the recent Dallas police sniper robot murder.

The suspect (though undoubtedly guilty of mass murder) was trapped in a garage and surrounded by what were likely dozens of Dallas police. All very personally angry and vengeful.

We are told (indirectly by murky police “sources”) that after negotiations “failed” the suspect was given an ultimatum: surrender or be killed.

I wonder what the legal rationale for that demand actually is?

“Surrender or die!”

This suspect wasn’t going anywhere. Had he made some attempt at escape or a suicidal charge, he would have been cut down by dozens of police rifle and pistol bullets.

Why not simply wait him out? He needed food, water and sleep. Those requirements mean that surrender or suicide would be inevitable.

Why not use CS or tear gas? I’m sure the Dallas police had plenty of that available. This suspect had no protection from that.

Yes, the police were hot, tired, angry and vengeful (especially that). But those circumstances don’t preclude non-lethal efforts at capture.

As it stands the only motives we have are what the Dallas PD says they were, via conversations with the suspect. Were these recorded? Why have we not heard the details by now? Surely there were lots of recorded radio chatter and perhaps even cell phone texting/calls. Did the Dallas police legitimately want a peaceful outcome?

While this suspect would have inevitably been killed by the State (in Texas, killing law enforcement guarantees you the needle), why wasn’t he captured and given a trial? Summary execution of suspects isn’t legal, is it?

What little I’ve read are brief news interviews with legal professors, most of whom parrot the police claim that this killing was for the “protection” of the officers. This isn’t credible since barricaded suspects who are surrounded can do no harm to anyone but themselves. He didn’t have explosives.

Instead, they sent in a robot with a bomb and detonated it. Unprecedented, even in militarized police America.

What will happen the next time police send in a robot to “talk” to a suspect? Might this now trigger a suspect to attack, kill hostages, or set off hidden explosives? Who will trust a police robot now?

“Well, we waited two hours, and that was enough” is hardly a legal doctrine for murder by law enforcement. Not when the public or police are not in danger.

Since robots may not always be available, will police in America start using grenades, bazookas, or small artillery to dispatch recalcitrant suspects in the future?

If a civilian family traps a red-handed murderer of family members in their garage, in a remote rural area where the police are hours away at night, does the family have the legal authority (post facto) to simply demand the suspect surrender or be killed? And then kill the suspect if they don’t give up after an hour or two? At the very least the grand jury would be empaneled for this.

What this appears to be is the classic (but oft-denied) double standard regarding law enforcement. If you hurt or kill them, you are literally “outlaw” and subject to immediate and fatal retaliation (by law enforcement) regardless. You have no rights. No surrender (unless granted) or trial. You are subject to police execution because they think you are guilty and your victim is one of “them”, not a “citizen.” In fact, this doesn’t happen often since few law enforcement personnel are willing to rely on this double standard themselves. But it is widely acknowledged to exist.

Is mere inconvenience to police, or accommodating the news cycle, a valid excuse for law enforcement murder of suspects? Even at the Waco massacre the FBI waited over a week before their military assault, which killed dozens of children and women non-combatants. In Dallas, the wait was only a few hours.

The despicable James Holmes, who murdered 20 people in a Denver-area movie theatre, was also trapped by police but was allowed to surrender. They didn’t rush in and shoot him to pieces or blow him up. He was given a trial and found guilty. Of course his victims were not law enforcement officers.

I have no sympathy with the now dead sniper. But isn’t the reason for this tragedy the fact that too many times the police act as judge, jury and executioner, claiming self-defense as a rationale? (And as in Dallas, the suspects are often black.) Isn’t that behavior the problem, not the solution?

Does America solve this problem by ignoring legal due process? We are about to find out.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/mike-holmes/summary-judgement-execution-robot/