In Dallas, what is the official reason they didn't just wait the shooter out?

[pnwmom]

Last edited Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Who was at risk? Why did they feel justified in just killing him with the robot? Could they have remained at a distance till he fell asleep or something?

Back in the pre-drone days, what would they have done?

I'm not necessarily condemning the action -- I'm just wondering how and why the decision was made.

ON EDIT:

I just found this "conversation" with a UW law professor discussing why, in his view, the use of the robot bomber was justified in these particular circumstances -- because the lives of human beings were at risk and lethal force was justified.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/8/12132120/dallas-shooting-police-bomb-robot-ethics-ryan-calo-interview

So those are sort of the three major debates going on globally. What I’m trying to say is that this particular incident does not implicate any of those. I mean, here the officers were justified in using lethal force. So, any court that looked at this, barring something bizarre, would probably be pretty agnostic as to the means by which they delivered violence.

[SoCalNative]

1. Probably because

he kept insisting that he had planted bombs all over the city..and maybe they thought he had a remote detonating device in there with him? I don't know this for a fact, just my guess.

[MADem]

4. Often those IEDs are exploded by cell phone.

I think your thesis is very plausible.

[AntiBank]

55. I am sure they had him cell jammed.

[Liberal In Texas]

57. You watch too much TV

This isn't some show where the heroes turn off all the cell phones at the drop of a hat.

[AntiBank]

60. they can do it here in Sweden (and have) I don't see why they couldn't

in a major city centre like Dallas.

[AntiBank]

74. Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101548.html

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 1, 2009

As President Obama's motorcade rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, federal authorities deployed a closely held law enforcement tool: equipment that can jam cellphones and other wireless devices to foil remote-controlled bombs, sources said.
It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. Police and others say it could stop terrorists from coordinating during an attack, prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless devices, simplify arrests and keep inmates from using contraband phones.
But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first.

snip


(in this case below they had the networks turned off)

San Francisco Cops Jam Cell Phones to Prevent Protest

http://gawker.com/5830458/san-francisco-cops-jam-cell-phones-to-prevent-protest


It's not just the London police and Middle East dictators who try to curb unrest by clamping down on communications networks. According to reports, police in San Francisco are jamming cell phones to head off protesters.

Protesters had planned to gather at a San Francisco BART station during rush hour to protest the fatal July shooting of Charles Hill by a BART police officer. But the protest never materialized. One reason, possibly, is the extreme lengths police went to make sure potential protesters couldn't communicate. From CBS San Francisco:

As an added precaution, the agency shut off cellphone service on the station's platform. While Alkire said the tactic was an unusual measure, he said it was "a great tool to utilize for this specific purpose" given that the agency was expecting a potentially volatile situation.
"This group seems to want to challenge BART, challenge the police department," Alkire said.
This has caused a twitter firestorm, under the hashtag #muBARTek, a reference to Internet-killing former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. The hacktivist collective Anonymous has already started planning Operation BART.

snip


The Dark Future of Phone Jamming

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5899130/the-dark-future-of-phone-jamming

How are phone jammers being used today?

Cell phones are commonly used in prisons, however, the items are illegal in U.S. Federal prisons. Cell phone jammers are used by prisons to block calls, preventing coordination of gang related activities within the prison and preventing unauthorized communication with the outside world.

Jammers also play a role in providing security during transportation of high level officials. U.S. Presidential motorcades make use of the devices, and a cell phone jammer played a role in foiling a 2003 assassination attempt on Pakistani President Musharraf. Cell phones are common triggers in improvised explosive devices, with jammers sometimes preventing detonation.

In France and Japan, use of cell phone jammers is legal in movie theaters, art galleries, concerts, and other public venues.



snip




Cellular Phone Jammer for Police and Military Services

http://www.pki-electronic.com/products/jamming-systems/cellular-phone-jammer-for-police-and-military-services/


http://www.jammer-store.com/gm20-military-cell-phone-jammer.html#

GM20 is a military jammer that is used by soldiers in the modern conflict zones to prevent injuries and deaths caused by explosions of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) detonated from the distance. Yet in urban areas there is also a risk of terrorist attack with those IEDs used as remotely detonated bombs. But this device will guard you against this kind of life threat wherever you are by preventing remotely detonated bombs from exploding nearby.

GM20 may be also useful in many other ways and situations. Inasmuch as this product works with such frequency bands as all kinds of cell phone networks, 3G, WiFi and Bluetooth, it can become reliable protection against a lot of modern wireless threats like tracking, eavesdropping, video surveillance, personal data acquiring and other actions threatening your privacy rights and often performed by law enforcement agencies without a necessary warrant. But this product will easily handle them all while protecting you from IED explosions life threat at the same time.





AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke

Electronic Warfare System

http://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/ew/crew-duke.html

The most widely deployed counter-IED system protecting our warfighters against roadside bombs today.

The AN/VLQ-12 Counter Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) Duke system is a vehicle-mounted, lightweight system that neutralizes RCIED threats and gives U.S. troops a tactical advantage across the full spectrum of operations.

The AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke system uses an advanced software-defined architecture that supports rapid reconfiguration to adapt to the constantly evolving threat environment. SRC engineers have continually enhanced the fielded AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke system with programming upgrades.

The Duke system was selected as one of the U.S. Army’s Top 10 Greatest Inventions in both 2005 and 2009.

Simple to operate
Compact size and lightweight
Low power consumption
Proven high reliability/operational availability
In the news

SRC of Cicero Wins $49 Million Army Contract for Bomb-Jamming DevicesOpens in New Window
February 25, 2016 | Syracuse.com
Defeat IED Mission Expands to Defensive Electronic Attack (DEA)PDF
September 2015 | Journal of Electronic Defense (JED)
New Gear Puts Electronic Warfare and Counter IED on the OffensiveOpens in New Window
November 18, 2013 | C4ISR & Networks
U.S. Army Awards Contract to SRCTec of Cicero for Bomb-Jamming DevicesOpens in New Window
August 8, 2013 | Syracuse.com

snip


Finally , there were FEDERAL agencies there on the ground who under FCC rules CAN use jammers

[LongtimeAZDem]

78. You're right; I can't imagine why they didn't run out and buy a wide spectrum jammer

in the middle of a firefight. It's baffling.

[AntiBank]

82. there likely was acces to something through one of the multiple Federal agencies there on the ground

I think you vastly underestimate DHS/FBI etc technological capabilities. The US doesn't have a 1.2 trillion dollar security state/military budget (inclusive of dark-op budgets) for nothing.

[dlwickham]

83. All of the San Francisco BART stations are underground

the article you posted said that the BART people simply turned off the wifi access at the stations

big difference between that and jamming signals

and as someone who depended on BART for several years, I say good for the BART people

shutting down the subway system does nothing but breed animosity towards that do so

people want to get home; do something else to catch people attention

[AntiBank]

85. I said that already in the post (that they turned off the service, not jammed it) That could have

happened in Dallas as well. No idea why you are going after a strawman here. I made ZERO attempt to hide anything, I personally put my own words to that effect directly above the article.

[dlwickham]

86. mea culpa

I misread your post

[AntiBank]

87. totally oki, I have done the same many times

[LongtimeAZDem]

63. Do you know how many ways you can remotely control an electronic device?

How do you jam them all, and know you've done it, during an active terror situation.

[AntiBank]

75. multiple wide-band jammer systems like the last link I posted above

[LongtimeAZDem]

80. A jammer, like any other transmitter, can have drop-outs and dead spots (nt)

[MADem]

91. You've got competing needs in a situation like this.

You've got a panicked crowd, some of whom may be separated from one another, and frantic relatives trying to ensure the well-being of loved ones. They would freak out and make matters worse, most likely, if their cell access were cut off.

I don't know if Dallas has that emergency broadcast thing with the phones like many communities do (I imagine they do), but having that sort of thing can warn people to stay away from a particular building/intersection, what-have-you.

If you're going to do any jamming, you need to be very targeted in the application. Taking away cell access from a frightened crowd could cause more trouble than it solves.

[MADem]

90. Was everyone unable to call out in the area?

He wouldn't have used his own phone had he done the IED thing--he would have used a tosser or maybe several, with the number(s) of the igniting cells pre-programmed into the speed dial.

Of course, I think the upshot was that he didn't have any bombs; he just had ammo and a determination to kill police.

[Schema Thing]

17. yep. and even if he only had one, with him or on his person, they needed to stay far away.

[Yo_Mama]

19. Yes, it was done after negotiations failed. I found it shocking, but

after I thought about it, understandable.

[Lance Bass esquire]

2. Really?

[jmg257]

3. He just gunned down 12 people, and was still an armed an active shooter.

Waiting for him to "fall asleep" or something isn't very likely, or very bright.

[Yo_Mama]

20. There seem to have been multiple shooters - but he was definitely shooting.

I think the bomb threats worried them badly, as they should have.

[MADem]

92. He was using the tactic whereby you take your shot, and then you pick up and

move, immediately. Quickly. No hanging around.

Then you establish yourself in a new location, shoot some more, and then, again, pick up and move.

This way, anyone looking for the shooterS thinks, because the shots are coming from different places, that there is more than one.

it's a way of making your opponent believe your numbers are greater than they actually are. It also has them shooting back, panicked, to a place where there's no one there. They're thinking in some cases that they "got 'im" when he's already gone.

[Yo_Mama]

101. Saw that this morning - determined and capable. I don't think the police were

wrong in taking him out however they could.

[MADem]

109. It is becoming increasingly clear that this fellow was a very disturbed individual.

I don't think he was interested in backing down--he was, the second he shot the first cop, committing "suicide by cop" and he knew it. He got what he wanted, and perhaps he was hoping to be regarded as some sort of martyr to the cause--instead, he's reviled by everyone.

He sexually harassed a soldier in Afghanistan and was given an honorable discharge despite the Army's recommendation that he get a general. The soldier had the equivalent of a restraining order against him. He should have been called to answer for his behavior but instead, they just gave him the swift boot and a "No harm/no foul." The old "skip the paperwork, just get him gone so we get another end strength asset" routine. Have to wonder if he was shoved out the door near the end of the fiscal year...?

This problem has come up in years past when there is servicemember against servicemember crime. We really need a military "circuit court" that has all the force and authority and EXPERTISE of a federal court to try these cases, instead of relying on junior officers with seven weeks of "legal officer school" or wet-behind-the-ears JAG officers. We need these cases heard by experienced judges. I am (and have been, for decades) in favor of a change to the way we hold service personnel responsible for their behavior--this guy is just one example of many. That's an argument for another time, really, but he does illustrate the problem. Yet again!

[Throd]

5. Nobody wanted to be the sixth policeman killed.

[seabeyond]

11. +1. Nt

[lame54]

98. NONE of us wanted a sixth policeman killed...

or the slightest possible chance it could happen

[lapfog_1]

6. I think they only waited as long as they did because

1. Make sure he didn't have a hostage

2. Try to find out enough about the "bombs" to determine if that was a real threat

and

3. Get their resources (landmine and robot) positioned to make a move

If they had a clear sniper shot at the guy which could have a good probability of taking him out and without exposing more police officers to undue risk... I think they would have taken the opportunity even sooner.

[Texasgal]

7. Are you serious?

Or is this just really heavy sarcasm?

[pnwmom]

10. I didn't think police were supposed to kill if no one's life,

including theirs, was at risk -- so i was asking what the situation was.

[Demonaut]

16. I'll leave this alone<----except for

[jberryhill]

29. I believe there was immediate risk

I agree it is unusual.

But I think what makes it unusual is the "robot bomb" part of it.

Was the use of deadly force, in general, justified? Yes, it was a clear deadly force situation.

But, yeah, a robot bomb? That's kind of strange. Who knew they had bombs lying around?

[pnwmom]

30. Right -- the robot bomb isn't the usual approach. Or it didn't used to be.

So I guess I'm wondering how they would have handled this if they didn't have one handy.

[Texasgal]

41. Well, the situation was

that they tried just about everything.

They tried negotiation for hours and that resulted in heavy gunfire.They tried sneaking up behind him which resulted in an officer being shot in the back. This guy wasn't gonna just fall asleep. He was ready and willing to do more damage if he could. He was mocking and laughing, he didn't care about anything except mowing people down and not just cops. Main street was filled with hundreds of peaceful protesters that were running for their lives!

They didn't send in the robot until after they tried using other tactics to bring this guy down.

[GulfCoast66]

42. He had already shot 11

And killed 5. You sure you want to contend no lives were at risk?

If they exposed themselves enough to shoot him he would have the same opportunity.

That said, I am not comfortable with blowing suspects up becoming SOP.

[pnwmom]

43. I was asking a question, not contending anything. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

44. And a question worth asking

I was concerned when I heard the news. I was kind of shocked the police even had bombs/grenades. But I can't think of a better option. Cause if he had decided come out shooting wearing armor, who knows how many people he might have killed.

Really, no good answer is there?

[pnwmom]

48. Did you happen to read the link in the OP to the UW law professor's

thoughts on the issue?

Overall, from what we know, the use of the robot in this case seems okay. But that doesn't mean it will always be okay. We have to be ready to prevent the misuse of the technology.

[GulfCoast66]

50. No I did not

Will do so. I am concerned that this could become SOP when we have some barricaded but had not yet hurt anyone.

Shooting 11 cops is very rare. Perhaps unprecedented.

[840high]

56. There was big risk.

[hrmjustin]

8. It appears he was still a threat and so they acted. I think they were justified.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. as horrific as this event was, I am really bothered by

a police force being able to remotely blow someone up. Once they have that tool, what safeguards will there be against a less justifiable use? I mean, look at Ferguson, MO. The police were way over-armed and armored. Assault vehicles, assault weapons, it looked far more like a military effort than a police effort to quell protests.

Tools like this scare me and should not be used by municipal authorities.

[AllyCat]

65. That is how I feel about it CA.

Obviously, this guy was a danger. And I am sure they tried everything. But once they use this, when is the next "appropriate" time to use one? And who gets killed every time they use one?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

100. I do believe the remaining shreds of our constitution have a point here.

that number 4 thingie which requires warrants before any search or seizure. And then those pesky four fathers also drafted #5 - "NO person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . . "

[qazplm]

103. no

this is self-defense and defense of others using lawful deadly force against someone who has already used deadly force and has vowed to continue to do so and has the means to do it.

[qazplm]

102. so the right answer was then

what exactly?

[still_one]

12. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, 5 people had been killed, and they decided

they did not want to risk anymore lives.

[maxsolomon]

13. Not the "Last" Shooter. The ONLY Shooter.

As usual.

[X_Digger]

14. Perhaps they should have send in tea and biscuits via the robot.

You've got an active shooter, who was still shooting at the folks trying to talk to him, by the way, saying that he'd planted bombs all over the area..

Yeah, nobody was at risk..

[Lance Bass esquire]

18. Warm milk would have done the trick.

Be sleeping like a baby in no time.

[AllyCat]

68. Did you all actually read the post?

You seem to have missed the point of the poster's legitimate question.

[Demonaut]

15. yeah, he'd eventually run out of targets and ammo

fuck that guy

[sarisataka]

21. It was what we have been told to expect

That's if someone thinks they can take their little popgun and challenge the government a drone will just be used to take them out.

This apparently was a demonstration. The police were agents of the government, the shooter challenged their Authority and the robot was the Drone.

[Lance Bass esquire]

22. "take their little popgun and challenge the government"

Statements like that make me think you must own shares in Reynolds Wrap to keep up with daily maintenance of all your hats.

I say Good day to you sir..Good Day

[sarisataka]

25. There is a whole thread

Whole thread cartoons GCRA predicting what will happen to those who would dare oppose the government

One example

[jmg257]

23. Good point..."gun humper" determined, and prepared to die, shown what happens when taking

on authority.

[geek tragedy]

49. He wasn't challenging authority he went on a mass murder spree

Had he been targeting civilians they would have been equally justifying in zapping him.

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. A: To end the seige. Right then.

Good call, give the robot a raise and the weekend off.

[geek tragedy]

26. they had a chance to make sure no more innocent life was lost

and no civilians or police were injured, so they took it.

no sense in giving him a chance to try to take out more. if you have the shot, you take it when you have a guy whose only goal is to take as many people with him as possible.

[NCTraveler]

27. Valid question. Nt

[Igel]

28. I've seen a few attempts to make the guy into the victim.

Regardless of whether this heads in that direction or not, he's not the victim.

He's the guilty one. He's the oppressor. He had the power. He's the one who shot police because of race-hatred and wounded civilians because he was the Avenger of Righteousness, with the power of life and death over those he was intent on executing.

He was homicidal. Didn't give up. Wasn't going to give up. Answered attempts at getting him to surrender with unsubstantiated but plausible bomb threats and with gunfire to kill the negotiators. At some point, it's enough. He wasn't a person of interest, he wasn't a suspect, he was the guy who was still holding the gun that shot and killed human beings.


If he'd given up, he'd likely be alive. I suspect, however, he assumed that if he gave up he'd just be executed no matter what he did. That's the myth, that's the drift that's been foisted on this guy and gave him a mean, mean stride.

[pnwmom]

32. I'm not suggesting he's a victim. I'm asking about the circumstances

that made them decide to use a drone.

And wondering what they would have done in the past, without a drone?

[sarisataka]

33. Sniper

If he will not surrender and cannot be forced out it would be upto the SWAT sharpshooter to get a sight on him and fire a incapacitating (i.e. lethal) shot

[pnwmom]

34. I read somewhere that they used the drone because the circumstances

didn't allow for a sniper to get a shot.

So in that case, what would they have done?

[sarisataka]

35. I would need many more details

To be able to do anything more than speculate.

My speculation however is that they were unsure of what explosives he had. The situation may not have allowed a sniper to approach without putting himself at risk of the explosives.

In that case options will drop precipitously. There are no one hundred percent effective incapacitating weapons. Flashbangs work best from Surprise not against someone who is prepared for an attack. Teargas may have been ruled out as they may have thought he had a gas mask available.

About the only other option, if it was even available, would be to rush him from different directions. However it would be almost guaranteed of taking casualties in such a situation

[MADem]

93. Tear gas or something to put him to sleep? A grenade launcher?

The bottom line is, they looked the situation over, they had the lay of the land, and they made the choice that they believed would best accomplish their objective, which was to neutralize an active shooter.

[Runningdawg]

31. I am adjusting my tin foil

The cops had a brand new toy, they wanted to show it off before the conventions.

[1939]

104. Not a brand new toy.

I had a role in developing EOD equipment for the Army back in the 1970-1975 time frame (though I am not EOD). We were working back then on a robot to do EOD functions. If you don't have a robot, an EOD guy has to move to the IED and either render it safe or, if it can be exploded without danger, blow it in place. The EOD guy has to place the charge, retreat a safe distance, and set it off. The robot is designed to carry a charge to the device without endangering the military or civilian EOD crew. In this case, they used it in desperation because taking the guy out by other means would have caused more fatalities. The regular cops asked the EOD guys to loan them their equipment.

[Runningdawg]

110. Of course its not a brand new toy to the military

but it certainly is to a civilian police force and to a civilian population.
I very rarely use the words slippery-slope but here we are. More weapons of war will find their way to American streets in the very near future. This country has already dropped bombs on its citizens, on american soil, the next step would be drones for traffic control. Won't pull over for the officer? No chase, no one needs to get out of their patrol car, just call in a strike, problem solved.

[1939]

112. It isn't a brand new toy to the police either

The police bomb squads have been using it for a few years. In their desperate need, the Dallas police came up with a use for the exiting device that was novel (to the public). I assure you that big city police bomb squads (EOD) have been using this for years.

[Runningdawg]

113. I think you are missing the point

Name another time an American police force has used a robot to kill a suspect.

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. Let's say he had a few IEDs placed here and there that detonated by cell phone

Let's say he has confederates, waiting to attack after a certain text.

Let's say he's booby-trapped himself.

Let's say there was more than one attacker holed up next to him, laying low.

Let's say that some sympathizers were watching the whole mess on TV and decided to arm themselves to liberate him.

Let's say that some rednecks were watching the same thing and decided they'd had enough of it and went to go settle it themselves.

Get the idea?

[pnwmom]

37. Good post, thanks. n/t

[Kurska]

38. Because he was a sniper who could have shot any unfortunate person who entered his sight

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Rex]

39. Maybe they figured he was ex-military and it would be suicide to advance on his position.

From a tactical POV, it makes sense to use a killer robot. From a constitutional POV...due process was thrown out the window. However, the guy was shooting at the cops and cops like to end conflict as soon as they can - did they do the right thing?

I will let people at a much higher pay grade answer that question.

[HipChick]

40. He was black...

Wonder if the actions would have been the same if he was white

[BainsBane]

47. He had already killed several people

Mass shooters rarely survived. Let's not paint this as equivalent to the shootings in LA and MN. It is not. This guy was a mass murderer.

[HipChick]

96. So did the white guy that killed 9 black church people

but Police took him to Burger King for a meal..

[LongtimeAZDem]

97. Again, false; they did no such thing

He was fed while in custody; see post 61. He was in custody because he surrendered to authorities.

That's how it works when you surrender, just as black cop-killer Dontae Morris did.

[Texasgal]

52. Not so sure about that.

More and more is coming out about this guy having an axe to grind. His color really had nothing to do with the fact that he was unhinged and pissed off.

[840high]

59. In this situation - yes. No doubt.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. You mean like James Huberty?

Go look him up. Long before the drone days however.

[craigmatic]

45. dylan roof shoots up a church and gets burger king this guy kills fewer people and gets blown up.

[LongtimeAZDem]

53. Roof had surrendered. Is it your position that he should have then been denied food, or that they

should have killed him while he was in custody?

[craigmatic]

54. They didn't have to take that asshole out to eat and Johnson was in the process of surrendering

they chose to kill him. just like they didn't choose to kill Roof.

[LongtimeAZDem]

61. They didn't take him out to eat; he was brought food

“He hadn’t eaten, they said, in a couple of days,” [Pastor Strickland] Maddox said. “They bought him a hamburger. They just sent out for it. I guess one of the police officers went and picked it up.”

Ledford confirmed that this purchase was made.

“He did have something to eat while he was there, and he was secured in cuffs the entire time,” the chief said.'

[LongtimeAZDem]

64. There is no such thing as a "process of surrendering" in an active terror situation

either you have surrendered, or you are a severe threat to be eliminated.

Police were actively engaged with a terrorist who was trying to kill them; to even imply that their response was racially motivated is despicable in the extreme.

[Calista241]

84. That's blatantly dishonest to say he was in the process of surrendering.

Your post is the first instance i've seen where someone said he was surrendering. I watched the briefing from the Chief of Police and the Mayor, and both of them insisted they were terrified he was about assault their position while decked out in full military grade body armor.

[lame54]

99. you're on a roll

[BainsBane]

46. He was shooting at them

According to the police statement that aired on the CNN website.

[randome]

51. He could have charged out with guns blazing and managed to kill again before being killed.

So don't wait for that scenario to unfold and take him out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

58. They used the robot bomb becuase they were over powered.

And that is a problem.

[SuperDutyTX]

66. How?

How were they overpowered at the time they sent in the robot?

[morningfog]

69. They couldn't get to him, he was still engaging them in fire.

He had shot 11, 4 or 5 were known dead. They couldn't get to him and didn't want to lose another man.

[SuperDutyTX]

73. Ok

But at the time they sent in the robot/C4, they'd had him trapped, and had been negotiation for him to give himself up (unsuccessfully) for ~6 hours. I strongly suspect at that moment the police were not "out-gunned"; do you honestly believe they didn't have several SWAT teams ready to make entry?

If your adversary has the option, and chooses to send in a freaking robot with C4, you're very likely "out-gunned".

[randome]

95. How would anyone know he was trapped? He could have charged out shooting and killed again.

He might have had another way to escape. Too many unknowns. Stopping the threat in its tracks was the correct response.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[SuperDutyTX]

62. Interesting

If they had attempted to "wait him out" using the most extreme/torture-inspired methods (loud music, hitting him with a fire hose etc.), would you have been willing to lead the assault team in? They had a man who had shot 11 of their counterparts, barricaded/armed/armored, and they'd negotiated with him for ~6 hours unsuccessfully; what else would you suggest?

[applegrove]

67. They were not sure he was a lone gunman. They had more emergency policing to do. They had

gotten what information they could from him and he was still shooting. It is very eerie when new technology kills. But they could not risk a shootout. Too many had died or been hurt. He made the decision easy for them.

[Albertoo]

70. What a bizarre thread

Who was at risk?

With an unknown number of shooters busy shooting?

Quite frankly, I do wish I understood the point the OP is trying to make..

[LisaL]

71. Maybe they decided five dead cops is enough?

What exactly do you propose they should have done? Waited until he run out of bullets?

[dilby]

72. Because he was armed and had the superior defensive position.

Not sure how long you want them to wait it out, a month? The guy shot 11 people he was a threat.

[7wo7rees]

76. Damned good question. Better to send in a new toy.

Just blow him up.

Live in Dallas since 1969. Appalled!

[RandySF]

77. Reason: He killed five officers.

[Travis_0004]

81. Who cares

He killed 5 officers and was still a threat.

They managed to end the situation withouy anybody else getting hurt, abd im thankful for that.

[Shandris]

89. Simple. Because now that the fault tolerance has been tested for martial law (Boston),..

...it's time to test the tolerance for whether or not just killing 'troublemakers' outright will gain public support. Expect the fear to ratchet up as the test continues.

And the Fire Monkey dances on.

[Dale Neiburg]

94. Another concern I can imagine

is that they were afraid he might decide to go out shooting and actually charge the police who had him bottled up. They would have killed him, of course, but he could have killed a few more of them first. (Speculation on my part -- I have no idea what the DPD's reasoning was.)

[OregonBlue]

105. Personally I don't care what reason they give. I think it is utterly appalling.

The police forces are becoming more militarized and that is not a good thing. They could have cleared the area and waited him out and I believe the police force should be sued. We don't want Afghanistan tactics used against our own people.

[Lance Bass esquire]

106. I talked to a sheriffs deputy neighbor of mine this morning about Dallas

He feels they did what they had to considering what the shooter had done up to that point.

Regarding the drones/robot use he said its just a matter of time before both criminals and law enforcement are both using them on a regular basis.

I asked him If a cop has a gun and a criminal has a knife why don't they shoot to wound as a standard practice?

He told me a few things I never thought of.

1. Unlike on TV Not all cops are marksmen with a pistol. When someone is coming at you with a knife there is a lot of movement and in a split second you have to take your shot.

2. There is a documented case they learn about in training about 2 LA cops who answered a domestic violence call. Guy on meth with a knife. They go in with pepper spray/tazer and try to take him down. The guy was tazed but was still close enuff to reach one of the cops...stabbed in throat..died on scene.

He says in 18 years he has only had to pull his gun once to protect himself.
99.9% of the time he has been able to talk or physically apprehend a violent criminal.

I think before some of us get on a soapbox and say the cops should have done this or that might want to think about what its like to walk in their shoes.

Not a job I would want to do but I am glad someone is.

JMHO

[OregonBlue]

107. We don't want our police forces further militarized. They already scare the heck out

of people. Nasty, nasty precedent.

[Lance Bass esquire]

108. "We" is your reality and your opinion.

and I respect that. My reality and opinion is that the technology genie is out of the bottle when it comes to using drones and robots in both military and law enforcement and that genie will never go back in.

[craigmatic]

111. There isn't one he's probably the 1st person on US soil killed by a robot