Posted on 07/08/2016 11:15:33 AM PDT by Rinnwald
“We saw no other option than to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension to detonate where the suspect was”
Will one day gun possession be labeled as violent behavior?
“The Philly Police used a bomb on suspects in 1985 and burned down an entire city block.”
I remember that. Oops!
“I am shocked that the Dallas Police are using explosives as a deadly weapon.”
Before you go postal, why don’t you try and find out just what was used to “supress” the shooter? I would submit that not all “expolsives” are area weapons necessarily. The robot could have had something like an M-79 on it that lagged in a small grenade.
Could they have used something to disable him - possibly - but also remember he had indicated that multiple IEDs were planted around the city, so they had to proceed with the suspicion that he might have a remote detonation device of some type.
In that case, if he is not completely disabled he could possibly detonate multiple explosives. They had to take him out completely and quickly and this was the best solution to do that.
Hindsight is always 20/20
“He needed to be taken alive. They could have gassed him”
I suppose a robot could have an assortment of weapons, lethal and non-lethal. For instance, it could start with Hillary’s laugh.
Sets a questionable precedent
During the Ruby Ridge standoff, the FBI rigged a robot up with a telephone and sent it up to the front door to “negotiate” with Randy Weaver.
Weaver never went out to answer the phone. Why? Because it a had a shotgun mounted on it aimed at the telephone.
Why explosives in their arsenal - breaching charges, charges used to destroy suspected bombs, etc. I get why they have it.
I also get the choice; assuming a police sniper couldn’t get a good angle without exposing himself to counter fire, and assuming no available armor would guarantee officer safety, I can see how they came to the idea. Being that his elevated position and previous shots from that position (including during negotiations), he was an imminent danger to the public.
But yeah, it disturbs the hell out of me.
I would say this is an argument against police bombings. Also, that case put the kibosh on explosives as a viable tactic for about 30 years.
Robots Lives Matter
See my post #28
NOPE NOT ONE BIT....if they want to kill our Policemen and women then use whatever is necessary to kill them...
This is Barky’s fault, ALL OF IT!!!
Yes, I am. I don’t see the point. Law enforcement and combat are two different things, or ought to be.
Until one comes to your house and blows up your dog
Why didn’t they just starve him out?
Afraid he’d be a problem for them if he lived?
There is a chance that they were stealthy with it, imagining the scenario where he is threatening to detonate bombs in the city. They keep him talking to keep him from detonating, and secretly where he can’t see, they bring in this way of getting him. Like a drone or something that he doesn’t expect. They needed a small way to get him where he didn’t know he was going to die, so he didn’t detonate. Just imagining, maybe I am dead wrong because I don’t know about this stuff.
A few short years ago, Obozo said, “We need a civilian force, just as well funded, just as equipped as the military”.
This is a way to get around Posse Comitatus.
The purpose of this act was to limit the federal governments use of military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the U.S.
I dunno, the world is so much different now dayz. Cops and or even law abiding citizens are at much greater risk. I can see the cops wanting to be prepared, but explosives? What next? Cops lobbing grenades around?
If they blew him up with his own bomb, I call that poetic justice.
Jack Ruby wasn’t available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.