Jump to content

2 officers shot at protest about police shootings in dallas


mrs.cos

Recommended Posts

How do you know there aren't procedures that they follow already? It seems like you make a lot of assumptions to fit your agenda. I'm not exactly sure what you are complaining about. My guess is, you're complaining just to complain.

 

So at what point do you stop asking them to come out with their hands up? How many people does an active shooter have to injure/kill before you use lethal force? Don't have an issue with something without a reasonable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It really is a very simple decision, especially in the Dallas case.

 

You attack LEO with lethal force, equal force will be used to neutralize you, and re establish order. The use of the bomb-bot was brilliant and perfectly executed in my eyes.

 

What makes these bomb-bots so "pear shaped"? I believe it is a prime deterrent for future nut jobs to realize that if they want to go down in a fire fight well, the cops may just roll up 4 rc cars and grant their wish. Its cant be any more "pear shaped" then LEO's using lethal force in any medium; so essentially what is the difference that a bomb-bot took this racist scumbag out vs a barrett fifty cal from 300 yards. . . no difference really other then "who makes the lethal decision" that is the root of what your concerned about.

 

How is it removing accountability? The decision for lethal force is the accountability, it doesn't matter the method in a active scenario, dead is dead. Either a bomb bot goes in to take down a threat of and active shooter, or a human life is put in further jeopardy to do so. We care about humans more, after all right?

 

Undocumented, Christ our (likely) next president doesn't even believe in documentation...More bureaucracy bullshit. Use the tools in the chest, use them to perfection like in Dallas. I think it is fairly clear the trained professionals in law enforcement are enabled to make the decisions to deal with lethal force, in this Dallas example its plain as day, use bomb bot to kill cop sniper to help protect the public and LEO officers was stunningly effective...Clearly they were not dealing with a side ways held glock in the streets of Chicago running around "killing white cops".

 

From and economics perspective it makes sense like Sledhead mentioned as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know there aren't procedures that they follow already? It seems like you make a lot of assumptions to fit your agenda. I'm not exactly sure what you are complaining about. My guess is, you're complaining just to complain.

 

Seems I am "complaining" more about people having a cavalier attitude about using this to take a life than I am about the situation. Maybe the do have something written down, would be an easy thing to disclose in the interest of transparency. Not hearing a lot in the narrative that suggests this but whatever. Again, I am talking about being careful about how we advance this.

 

My guess is you read everything I write as a complaint and aren't really open to discussion. But what's a guess really worth?

 

So at what point do you stop asking them to come out with their hands up? How many people does an active shooter have to injure/kill before you use lethal force? Don't have an issue with something without a reasonable solution.

 

that's up to the department to decide since they have access to the most information and the experience - and then justify as the appropriate solution to the public. Every situation is going to be different - and I get that there may be times where it isn't even an option. As long as we maintain the emphasis on preserving ALL life wherever possible and don't just throw around this idea that every situation like this needs to end with a dead shooter we should be ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You attack LEO with lethal force, equal force will be used to neutralize you, and re establish order.

An eye for an eye is not the law of the land.

 

What makes these bomb-bots so "pear shaped"?
currently it is collateral damage. Both bombs and bots in the past have a tendency to set the structure on fire and cause unintended loss of life. If they just wanted to set the building on fire, why use a bot and a bomb?

 

Its cant be any more "pear shaped" then LEO's using lethal force in any medium;
Every method has it's own risks. All I am advocating is that we as a society keep that in mind and that those who make the decision make sure they evaluated the risks.

 

so essentially what is the difference that a bomb-bot took this racist scumbag out vs a barrett fifty cal from 300 yards. . . no difference really other then "who makes the lethal decision" that is the root of what your concerned about.
At the moment, there may not be a difference. In the future, there is the possibility for semi-autonomous and autonomous functions and that would start to remove the accountability. It is also more complex and that invites more risk for malfunction or error. There is a similar conversation that is going on in the death penalty world right now since lethal injection drugs have become more difficult to obtain for the purpose of ending life.

 

How is it removing accountability? The decision for lethal force is the accountability, it doesn't matter the method in a active scenario, dead is dead. Either a bomb bot goes in to take down a threat of and active shooter, or a human life is put in further jeopardy to do so. We care about humans more, after all right?

 

even if the decision to use lethal force is made in the chain of command, it is still within the discretion of the police sniper pulling the trigger to determine if it is safe. Robot isn't really in that same place. Maybe they are pretty close now, but we are humans and we can't help but keep trying to make things "better", you can't really improve the police sniper but you can automate a robot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an active shooter and you tell him to disarms himself and come out with his hands up and his response is to fire more rounds at you, your response should be to end his life to save the innocent lives of others. I don't consider an active mass shooter as an "innocent" life like you do. I'm not a terrorist/mass shooter sympathizer like yourself, so I think that is where you and most people on this forum disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an active shooter and you tell him to disarms himself and come out with his hands up and his response is to fire more rounds at you, your response should be to end his life to save the innocent lives of others. I don't consider an active mass shooter as an "innocent" life like you do. I'm not a terrorist/mass shooter sympathizer like yourself, so I think that is where you and most people on this forum disagree.

 

nobody is talking about "innocent" life being the only life worth saving. Either all life is valuable or no life is valuable since "value" is a subjective term.

 

I don't sympathize with "terrorists" or "mass shooters", I simply believe that we should not be cavalier about ending someone's life. If it is a necessary evil to preserve lives of others then so be it, but it should not be taken lightly. The preservation of life is at the core what separates us from them - without it we aren't really any better, just our motives for bloodlust are different.

 

You are trying to simplify what has been an existential question for hundreds of years without an answer. These things are rarely simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An eye for an eye is not the law of the land.

 

Duh; however in situations where the LEO are under live fire attack there is only one way to respond, lethal force. I would make that established in the law, what greater discourse can you have from rules and laws then actively killing/attacking those whom enforce it.

 

I know you can make examples of hostage situations were maybe a nut ball is armed and kills a hostage, then decades you know I will lay down my arms before the bomb-bot rolls up and try my luck in federal prison. Obviously if they put their weapons down and are not and active threat then lethal force may not be required.

 

These are just very hard line decisions, scrutinized by lawyers, and citizens with agendas.

 

currently it is collateral damage. Both bombs and bots in the past have a tendency to set the structure on fire and cause unintended loss of life. If they just wanted to set the building on fire, why use a bot and a bomb?

 

I actually agree here, the thought of collateral damage is interesting. I would imagine a through amount of training is put in place for usage of these bots., and where they are most effective. Clearly a concrete parking garage seemed reasonable. I guess the collateral damage has a form of cost function equating to life, tough call, but I like the bot.

 

Every method has it's own risks. All I am advocating is that we as a society keep that in mind and that those who make the decision make sure they evaluated the risks.

 

Reasonable, yet in this example it seems the decision was clear with the risk factors.

 

I think the arguments you may be most concerned about is artificial intelligence vs human intelligence with regard to lethal force. We are not to robo cop levels yet, but its foreseeable, that is for certain. As we evolve there will be road bumps, this happens in all innovations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody is talking about "innocent" life being the only life worth saving. Either all life is valuable or no life is valuable since "value" is a subjective term.

 

I don't sympathize with "terrorists" or "mass shooters", I simply believe that we should not be cavalier about ending someone's life. If it is a necessary evil to preserve lives of others then so be it, but it should not be taken lightly. The preservation of life is at the core what separates us from them - without it we aren't really any better, just our motives for bloodlust are different.

 

You are trying to simplify what has been an existential question for hundreds of years without an answer. These things are rarely simple.

 

Thousands...of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you are too young to recall this....but this was not the first time cops used a bomb. Why is it such a big deal? Total nut job with a Gun, killing innocent people....No court costs, No prison costs...no additional lives lost.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html?pagewanted=all

 

Geebus...50-60 homes on fire in the area? That's cray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody is talking about "innocent" life being the only life worth saving. Either all life is valuable or no life is valuable since "value" is a subjective term.

 

Obviously the shooter(s) didn't care about other lives in Dallas, so pardon me for not giving a flying fuck how he's killed, so long as it's quick, effective, and minimizes collateral damage as much as possible, with the emphasis on speed of eliminating the threat. (I will agree with you on the collateral damage point, but given that this was a concrete parking garage, a small bomb seems 100% reasonable to me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people getting caught up in what Geeto67 posts here, need to keep in mind he is part of a profession that makes a living from chasing ambulances, defending people like the shooter, and basically feeding off of the bottom. so when he posts, its always a good idea to keep that in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply believe that we should not be cavalier about ending someone's life. If it is a necessary evil to preserve lives of others then so be it, but it should not be taken lightly.

 

I don't think anyone on here takes capital punishment with a cavalier attitude, Kerry...it just helps your case by making it seem so.

 

Active shooter, or suspect that pleads guilty/caught red-handed (literally), should be treated as 'shoot on site' in my book. If they give up, even present of a heinous attack, then the courts will determine justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone on here takes capital punishment with a cavalier attitude, Kerry...it just helps your case by making it seem so.

Oh Really? see below:

 

Society didn't owe the guy any type of justice. To do anything but end-him is a waste of resources on many many levels. His due process was delivered by C4PO and I'm happy to see it was done so successfully. Society needs to man-up and realize that we need to start being way way tougher on fucks like this guy. No need to house and feed the system of politics and legal crap when you have someone dead to rights.

 

Most of you are too young to recall this....but this was not the first time cops used a bomb. Why is it such a big deal? Total nut job with a Gun, killing innocent people....No court costs, No prison costs...no additional lives lost.

 

Seems pretty caviler to me.

 

 

Active shooter, or suspect that pleads guilty/caught red-handed (literally), should be treated as 'shoot on site' in my book. If they give up, even present of a heinous attack, then the courts will determine justice.

I, and equal protection and due process, have issues with above bolded statement.

 

I don't get what the big deal is, all I said was we have to be careful going forward and this should not become a standard and everyone gets their panties in a twist that we aren't killing enough criminals onsite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the part where the police officers were given their fair trial, equal protection, and due process.

 

Then you also missed the part where we as a society are different from the shooter.

 

I stand by my statement. He deserved to be decommissioned. I rest my case

 

To quote Clint Eastwwod: deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Edited by Geeto67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you also missed the part where we as a society are different from the shooter.

 

What exactly are you arguing? Are you saying the shooter should have somehow been captured alive so he could go in front of a judge and jury so he could justify what he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you also missed the part where we as a society are different from the shooter.

 

Serious question: are you mentally handicapped? It's a prevalent theme with mass shootings, and apparently, those who sympathize with the shooter.

 

How EXACTLY do you propose we capture alive an active shooter who is literally in the process of shooting at police officers?

 

Look, I agree that there's potentially a dangerous slope for the use of explosives by our police. I agree, there's a few corrupt departments out there (Dallas is absolutely NOT one of them, though - look at their track record). At no point, however, do I sympathize with the shooter over the shootee. He lost that the moment he opened fire.

 

Let's put it this way, if you own a gun and someone breaks into your house and kills your wife/girlfriend/child/mother/father/whatever, then aims at you, are you going to tell me you're NOT going to try to shoot him before he shoots you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly are you arguing? Are you saying the shooter should have somehow been captured alive so he could go in front of a judge and jury so he could justify what he did?

 

all I said was we have to be careful going forward and this should not become a standard (by which I meant routine) and everyone gets their panties in a twist that we aren't killing enough criminals onsite.

 

As Americans we have a duty to hold our government to the highest standards. As Americans we have an understanding that we offer inalienable rights to everyone without exception and that includes life, equal protection, and due process. As human beings we have a duty of empathy to mankind.

 

When you say our government has a right to execute without trial in a broad sense you fail the duty to hold to scrutiny. When you say blanket statements that all people in this situation must be killed you fail to offer equal protection and due process. When you say someone deserved to die you fail at empathy. Why is it so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Americans we have a duty to hold our government to the highest standards. As Americans we have an understanding that we offer inalienable rights to everyone without exception and that includes life, equal protection, and due process. As human beings we have a duty of empathy to mankind.

 

When you say our government has a right to execute without trial in a broad sense you fail the duty to hold to scrutiny. When you say blanket statements that all people in this situation must be killed you fail to offer equal protection and due process. When you say someone deserved to die you fail at empathy. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

 

Holy shit :dumb:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say our government has a right to execute without trial in a broad sense you fail the duty to hold to scrutiny.

 

Our government has been doing it since 1776, cupcake. It's not pretty, but there are a few well-documented situations where it's warranted.

 

Mexico is cheap as fuck if you hate America that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...