General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMEDIA A Drone Was Used to Blow up a US Citizen Without Trial On Thursday. Let That Sink In
The suspected shooter On Thursday tragic killings, U.S. Army veteran Micah Xavier Johnson, was, according to police and press reports, holed up in a parking garage and would not give himself up. After hours of what police claimed were fruitless negotiations with Johnson, a weaponized robot was sent to where he was hiding and blown up, taking Johnson with it.
In the headline needs to be the word "executed". I'm not sure what to think of this. But I don't like the implications and the way it feels.
http://www.anonews.co/drone-in-dallas/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FarPoint
(12,336 posts)Negotiations failed....
Gman
(24,780 posts)Who decided he was guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt and who presented the case?
FarPoint
(12,336 posts)I support the decision.....end the massacre.
I so hope that the robot had a sign that popped up saying, " Bye Bye, your time is up'.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)Police, or anyone really, has the right to use whatever lethal force is available if someone is trying to kill you. The shooter was not going to surrender and posed a threat to others. He claimed to have bombs planted, which can be set off by a cell phone call.
No way this can be called an execution.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you come at me with a steak knife, I'm under no obligation to swear out a warrant against you, wait for a trial date, empanel a jury, present evidence, and await jury deliberations before defending myself.
What a silly question.
7962
(11,841 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)them is not enough doubt as to his intentions? He presented his own case with dead cops and bullets to spare.
7962
(11,841 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)But now that robo-cop steps in, we have a problem? I don't buy it. I won't buy that for a dollar.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)To the first stupid question, we know who decided: the cops did.
As to the second stupid question: it's irrelevant. You can't try someone if they refuse to submit themselves to trial.
Gman
(24,780 posts)In the Dallas heat, the guy is severely dehydrated in 24 hours. In custody if not dead in 48.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What could possibly go wrong? Clearly, you've thought of everything.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They could have waited him out.
He had no food or water.
It was a revenge killing.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If he'd had planted them (he had materials at his home to do so), and he detonated one of them while the police waited him out.. you'd feel the same? That would have been the proper course?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I mean, if you have the power of telepsychology, you should put it to good use.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)How disappointing.
Shall we get back to actual statements and facts, rather than what you guess they were thinking?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force.
That's legal and more importantly, that's moral.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They are terrified that someone is going to read something here on DU that can be construed as anti-cop and believe this could lose votes.
My attitude is law enforcement in the U S of A needs some structural change. There are too many former high school football and wrestling idiots who joined up because they want to rough up people for a living and as it stands now the badge lets them get away with murder.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I believe that a cop, or you, or me- can defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force.
Agree?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I believe that a cop, or you, or me- can defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force.
Agree?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. that you agree that a cop (or you, or me) can defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I believe that a cop, or you, or me- can defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force.
Do you agree?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Do you believe that a cop, or you, or me- can defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even lethal force?
Yes? No?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)when facing imminent grave bodily injury or death?
Yes? No?
It really is a simple question.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)unless he personally disarmed them? Killing him would have killed more people.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Most IEDs are remotely detonated. Cell phone, radio, etc.
What if he had a laser beam attached to his head, and it was pointed at a five year old girl huh? Didn't ya think about that? Pshaw!
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #141)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
Seeinghope
(786 posts)see people may have been murdered? No telling what else he may have had. Unexpected things can happen the longer the standoff goes on. Would you say anything if a sniper took him down? This merely does what a sniper could not do. Snipers are accepted parted of situations like this.
Response to Seeinghope (Reply #289)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Response to WillowTree (Reply #295)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
Stryst
(714 posts)why did it have to be lethal? Why not just send in a drone to spray him in the face with some isoflurane? When we just kill these guys, we lose the opportunity to study them and find out what made them decide to do what they did.
SheriffBob
(552 posts)There are many means to knock out a terrorist than to kill him/her.
Much intelligence is lost by killing them.
I guess it's just more fun to kill them, though.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,588 posts)And without endangering the cop's life.
I have zero problems with this.
Gman
(24,780 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,588 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Would you have a problem if they sent in the swat team in and the swat team killed him?
I certainly wouldn't. Its not like he gave up and they just sent in the robot. We was a threat to everybody in downtown dallas, and they ended the threat.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)If he had surrendered. He chose not to.
I'm with CaliforniaPeggy, this ended no differently than it would have if the police had tried to capture him, except that this eliminated the possibility of more deaths.
Gman
(24,780 posts)In another 12 hours in the Dallas heat he'd be severely dehydrated. What was the urgency?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and given an iota of a chance, would have killed again.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Urchin
(248 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)
rollin74
(1,973 posts)the suspect stated that he intended to kill more people and claimed that he had planted bombs all over the area
what was the urgency??
Demonaut
(8,914 posts)fuck that guy
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)
Moostache
(9,895 posts)A robot bomb is an indiscriminate execution.
There IS a difference.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If they had x-ray vision and smart bullets and the suspect would have stood still long enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Its easy to be flippant and non-serious about issues when its comedic or convenient, but your "rights" are the same as the dead shooter. If it is OK to kill him in contravening the rule of law, then the same is permissible for you or anyone else.
Civil society is contingent on an agreement - people live under the rule of law not because it is the only option, but because it is the BEST option for a peaceful and just society. Saying that because a bad guy got what was coming to him makes it OK is the true fallacious argument being trotted out.
And there was no need to "go get him" either...a man holed up and armed but contained from escape and unable to kill without exposing himself to counter fire is NOT the same as a man actively charging out of that position. He was hiding and trapped and killed by remote.
Pray that they never come for you...
randome
(34,845 posts)And if I refused to talk and threatened to kill more, I should be stopped as quickly as possible. No one charged this guy with a crime because it was an emergency situation. You don't bring a judge and jury to the scene of a massacre and ask the shooter to pause long enough to put him on trial.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Moostache
(9,895 posts)He was NOT actively killing any longer at the time of his execution. There is a huge difference.
randome
(34,845 posts)He could have decided to die by charging police and managing to kill a few more people until he was killed. He might have decided to detonate his imaginary bombs and killed still more people.
In a tense situation like this, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the commanding officer on the scene. They had time to think through their options and it appears they did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Any semi-competent tactical unit would have ensured that if he as much as stuck his head out that they could neutralize him. The idea that he could charge out and take out additional cops is ridiculous.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That man? The one claiming that he's going to detonate those explosives??
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Where does the standard for execution worthy offense start and end?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. with the means, STATED INTENT, and opportunity to kill more cops, who claims to have planted explosives where civilians are, and claims to be ready to detonate those explosives??? Fucking duh.
If a criminal says, "I have a gun, I shot one person, and I'm going to shoot someone else" then yeah, you kind of take them at their goddamned word.
What, you expect cops to ask the fucker to pinky-swear he won't kill anyone else?
Fucking naive thinking like that would get more people killed.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Vengeance feels great, but there is a lack of logic at the core of your response that I will no longer try to dissuade you of. You have made your points and I mine. No point in repeating them further.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Odd that you make so many logical fallacies yourself, yet indict others for the same.
(e.g., "so if a criminal lies in addition to committing his or her crime, they should be executed on sight?" Two fallacies in one: Reductio ad absurdum and the propositional fallacy, Affirming the Disjunct. Space provided free of charge below to rationalize a distinction lacking a relevant difference to better validate your bias)
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)They had every reason to believe he wasn't bluffing.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Do you believe that a dead bomber, with no chance to tell anyone where the bombs may have been placed, is preferable to a live one who would at least offer the possibility of determining where the bombs theoretically were?
What if he had left bombs in areas outside of downtown and someone came across one and mistakenly detonated it? The hypothetical bombs are a red herring. The real issue is the execution of an American citizen, even one guilty of a heinous crime, without an arrest or conviction. Yes, he was a bad guy. Yes, he was a criminal suspect in a shoot out with police. Yes, he made threats against the police.
No, killing him by remote detonation was NOT the only option left. Two wrongs will not bring back the dead. Vengeance was served in Dallas, not justice.
LuvLoogie
(6,992 posts)Moostache
(9,895 posts)The point here is NOT the dead man, it is the method used BY THE STATE to get there.
One is legal and law abiding.
The other is not.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You don't have to have a trial to defend yourself or others.
7962
(11,841 posts)Snipers are always aiming for the kill not the knee.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)You mean to tell me that attempting to contain a suspect is simply too dangerous and too risky and therefore fuck the Constitution, the rule of law and everything else cause this bastard has to die, NOW!
Sounds like someone else has seen too many Mad Max movies...or American Sniper embellishments.
7962
(11,841 posts)In case you didnt notice from all the coverage, there was NOWHERE to position a sniper. The ONLY other way would have been to have confronted the guy and let him keep shooting!
Even if they caught him, he wouldve gotten the needle anyway. Its Texas. This saved millions of tax dollars.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Seeinghope
(786 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(128,846 posts)but they supposedly had a several hour negotiation session with him and that might have happened during that time.
In one respect, it seems similar to what they did with Christopher Dorner in California with a decision to use a "burner grenade" to "neutralize" him.
In essence, the debate that occurred then -
On Thursday, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department announced dental records had confirmed what had been widely assumed since the showdown — that the charred body found in the cabin rubble was Dorner's. The test results brought to a definitive close the epic manhunt for Dorner, 33, who police say killed a deputy during the cabin shootout, a Riverside police officer and an Irvine couple as part of a plot to retaliate against the Los Angeles Police Department for firing him in 2009.
Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha, was critical of the decision to use the "burner" tear gas canisters."It's true, he was firing at them. But he was cornered. He was trapped. At that point, there was no rush in the sense that he was barricaded. The standard rules on barricade situations are that you can wait the person out," Walker said. "To use a known incendiary device raises some very serious questions in my mind."
Other law enforcement experts interviewed by The Times, however, said the move was justified. Even though SWAT officers were certain to have known a fire was a strong possibility, the use of the gas was reasonable in the face of the deadly threat Dorner presented, they said. Allowing the standoff to carry on into the night, they emphasized, would have added an unpredictable element to the drama that officials were smart to avoid.
<...>
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/local/la-me-dorner-fire-20130215
is starting to happen now with this case.
The sad, and perhaps not coincidental, part is that with MOVE (C4 dropped on a "bunker/compound" of a black radical group in 1985 causing the destruction of a total of 61 row homes), and Dorner (a powerful teargas incendiary grenade that can cause enough heat to ignite items in the area of its detonation used in a cabin where that black ex-cop was holed up), and now this (robot delivery of an explosive to take out a black ex-soldier), black suspects appear to be the target of "novel" lethal means of ending a standoff.
Gman
(24,780 posts)And I had a problem with the same thing then.
BumRushDaShow
(128,846 posts)Ruby Ridge and Waco.
In the case of Ruby Ridge, the standoff lasted 2 days, ending with a shootout.
In the case of Waco (Branch Davidians/David Koresh), they gave them 51 days to comply, but at the end, a fire consumed the compound.
I expect there will be plenty of discussions about dealing with similar "standoff" situations. Fortunately no C4 has been dropped on civilian homes in the U.S. in the 30 years that have passed since the MOVE debacle - mainly due to the still-continuing condemnation of this as a tactic. Perhaps the same will happen here.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)The police are then granted power to be judge and executioner?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)He refused. That was not what he wanted or he would have accepted it. He knew the alternative.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)If someone breaks into your home and is armed you can shoot them if you are licensed to do so.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But the laws are at the state level and need to be followed.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's not a 'power' granted to 'police', it's a justification to commit excusable homicide. It's applicable to the police, you, and me.
Free clue: you can use violence, even deadly violence, in defense of yourself or others, or to prevent a forcible felony.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)and I will hazard a guess that you would not be wringing your hands quite so worriedly.
BumRushDaShow
(128,846 posts)when your scenario has occurred. In fact, it is rare that a white person is given the death penalty for killing a black person.
Fact Sheet Upcoming Executions Execution Database State-by-State
Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976
Executions for Interracial Murders
White Defendant / Black Victim (31)
Black Defendant / White Victim (297)
(Execution information accurate as of May 12, 2016 following an execution in Missouri).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976
DustyJoe
(849 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Maybe the next time a shooter is finally cornered after killing a bunch of people and won't surrender, the cops should call you in to inform them that they have no right to reply to force with force until after the killer has had a trial. 
7962
(11,841 posts)Look at these posts talking about "reading him his rights" etc
Unfreakingbelievable
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Shot him either
ripcord
(5,346 posts)until they are going to be questioned because they don't pertain to a standoff or surrender situation.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)As much as we need to curb police brutality, we don't need to start being pedantic about procedures when the gun man is shooting at them, confesses he wants to kill them and refuses to stop trying to kill them.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Because that's the time when officers under pressure are most likely to throw procedure and rules and law out the window. If the state is ever allowed to kill its citizens without judicial oversight, then that is a seriously scary situation to find ourselves in.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)Jake Tapper interviewed the chief who made the decision.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/07/10/dallas-police-chief-bomb-robot-saved-lives.cn
Rex
(65,616 posts)So if the cops would have blown him away with bullets, this wouldn't be a big deal I am guessing?
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)
MichMan
(11,910 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)His mom says he was such a good boy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Blade Runner is now reality?
Troubling. Very troubling for democracy.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)should he have been permitted to kill in order to provide him with a jury trial?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)including gas and sound weapons. This was police anger dictating a "get even" response with no consideration for other approaches.
Remember the MOVE situation in Philadelphia? People and property destroyed because the police were impatient and angry.
Oh yes, they were also black victims. Probably a coincidence.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Just wondering, because another poster just compared him to Michael Brown.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What is your thought on my actual response?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)is that you're assuming this was revenge while ignoring the fact that he had already killed five people and was threatening to detonate explosives.
My thought is that you're so eager to claim that the police are always in the wrong that you're willing to risk more of them being killed in order to defend a self-professed murderer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You did not address my actual response but it does make it easier for you to manufacture a mindset that you can assign to me.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)He refuse to surrender and was threatening to detonate explosives - they had no choice but to take him out. The method they chose very likely saved the lives of police officers.
And I'm not the mind reader, that would be you, when you claim that it was all about revenge.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)my actual response mentioned that the police had other, non-lethal choices. Your response ignores that because it makes it easier to justify this deliberate execution.
I also talked about the police undergoing training in non-lethal response. You ignored that also.
This was police murder in response to murder of police. Certainly looks like anger motivated revenge to me.
mythology
(9,527 posts)could be detained. Tear gas isn't universally effective, particularly as this guy had already demonstrated knowledge of military tactics, and paying loud music at him wouldn't magically stop him from pulling the trigger when the cops charged.
People ignored your options because they are laughable under the circumstances and obviously so.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)He chose to fight instead. It was his choice.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bumper sticker philosophy par excellence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He already declined a polite invitation to surrender.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Their response was deliberate and designed to avoid the necessity of a trial. They had many alternatives which they chose not to employ.
ripcord
(5,346 posts)to shoot back at the officers as they took him down.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Same outcome.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)To surrender. He would have continued his killing spree if he hadn't been taken out.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The US has been killing US citizens overseas using drones. Extrajudicial execution.
Simply bringing the war home.
malaise
(268,930 posts)because it is the logical consequence of policies overseas
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the police "war on blacks" is also another consequence. Which wraps around the subtext that the GOP promotes regarding non-whites as not really being American. (See trump/birtherism/send them back to Africa)
Trayvon Martin received no trial. The list is nearly endless.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)There is no court process, nor was there one here.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the police did not try to wait it out or employ other tactics. They train for these situations.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Let's get that out of the way before we go further.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Now, respond to what I actually said.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Wait, don't stab me, I need to swear out a warrant, get a trial date, file motions, pick a jury, have a trial, and await a verdict before I can defend myself??
Are you fucking serious??
What section of US or state code makes you think this???
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It seemed obvious to me. But to simplify:
YES, A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.
Now, will you respond to the substance of my actual reply?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. do you think that a reasonable person would believe the fuckstain's claims of bombs planted around the area where civilians are sheltered in place? (Recall, he actually did have bomb making material at his home..) When he claimed that he would detonate the previously bragged about bombs? (Recall also the suspicious package that was found during the negotiation.)
Would a reasonable person believe that imminent grave bodily injury or death was about to occur?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I expect the courtesy of your response to my response before going further.
This is not an interrogation.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's a simple question.
Yes, or no?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Because I am still awaiting your reply to my initial response.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Would a reasonable person believe that imminent grave bodily injury or death was about to occur?
If so, then force, even lethal force, is justified.
The only way you can get out of this is to assert that someone who just shot 11 people, killing 5, who continues to shoot at you, claiming to be ready to detonate explosives around the city is not providing an imminent threat.
So what will it be? Yes? No?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I will wait. Perhaps you will respond later.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Would a reasonable person believe that imminent grave bodily injury or death was about to occur?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is "extrajudicial."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That which Is done, given, or effected outside the course of regularjudicial proceedings; not founded upon, or unconnected with, the action of a courtof law; as extrajudicial evidence, an extrajudicial oath.That which, though done In the course of regular judicial proceedings, isunnecessary to such proceedings, or interpolated, or beyond their scope; as anextrajudicial opinion, (dictum.)That which does not belong to the Judge or his jurisdiction, notwithstanding whichhe takes cognizance of it.
http://thelawdictionary.org/extrajudicial/
Unless you can introduce evidence that all victims of US drone murders have been involved in or afforded some type of judicial process, a process founded in law, you might want to reconsider your use of the word "ignorance" when attempting to respond to a comment.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2016/04/01/134494/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/
If you wish to make the case that Congress can authorize action against civilians that actually violates International Law you are making the same case that the Obama Administration makes. But the US Congress has no authority to violate or ignore the law. But having the largest war machine on the planet does allow for more freedom to act on the part of the US than the US allows to others.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)My law degree, however, not conferred by Google, leads me to suggest you familiarize yourself with Garner. After that, Boumediene and the surrounding jurisprudence.
This sniper was lawfully killed. So was Anwar Awlaki. I mourn neither of them.....only their victims.
The basic flaw in your legal logic seems to be that you think that everyone gets a day in court... They do not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I do understand the meaning of the word and fail to see the relevance, unless you dislike all of your clients.
But using your cite of Boumedienne, I fail to see why you included it. Here is what I found:
=============================================================
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in an historic
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
http://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/factsheet-boumediene-v-bushal-odah-v-us
===============================================================
Speaking as a non-lawyer, this case that you cited seems, at least to the untrained eye, to uphold the concept that even non-citizens, whether resident in US territory or not, are afforded the same Constitutional rights as US citizens in the same situation. The case also references the applicability of the Geneva Conventions for the accused. So how exactly does this support the idea that the suspect in this matter had no rights to the judicial process?
And your citation of Garner concerns a fleeing suspect and an imminent danger. In this case, the subject was stationary and the area was cleared.
Your thoughts?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Boumediene had rights because he was custodial.
Garner indicates police are obligated to limit their force to a reasonable measure of the threat facing them.
When facing a non-custodial, heavily-armed person who is shooting at them, has killed, and is claiming he can detonate remote bombs, the police had the right to act with lethal force.
You cannot flee justice, and claim it at the same time.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Yes, even non-citizens.
But in this particular case, the suspect was stationary and surrounded. Unlike Garner, where from my reading the suspect was fleeing. Could they have used gas or other non-lethal means in Dallas, and if so, why did they not?
They took the time to bring in a drone. Could they have used CS or other incapacitating gas while waiting?
This entire thing seems more reactive and motivated by anger. Just my reading.
As a side note, I was a union steward for over 30 years. I defended many people and still believe that everyone has rights.
And on another side note, would you also defend the decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki by the Obama Administration in two separate actions, or would you argue that Boumedienne applied?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with his back to police indicates that he was not a threat. That's the fucking point of the case.
Stationary, shooting at cops, threatening to blow shit up? Threat. A lethal one.
Awlaki? Completely justified given what he was involved in. His son? Tragic, but the targeting of Al-Banna was completely justified. It's horrible his son was placed in jeopardy by his father's associates.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that Anwar al-Awlaki was inciting to violence and therefore responsible for whatever deaths occurred. Being an attorney, you are familiar with the difference between an allegation and conviction. And all of al-Awlaki's associates were also similarly alleged to be guilty of various things, but in the new justice system apparently an allegation replaces any attempt at judicial process. Unless one takes the view that the entire world is now a war zone in the global war on terror!!
In Chicago, dash cam video shows Laquan McDonald walking away with his back to the police but he was shot 16 times.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Fyi.....I'll give you time to look up the conviction of Rajib Karim, who you apparently think is innocent. Read the emails between him and Awlaki.
Here. ..you can read about how Awlaki was involved in terror plot after terror plot...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026052385
Dude. Laquan McDonald was murdered.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)
I cannot believe the twists and turns people are willing to make to appear liberaler-than-thou.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Omar Mateen didn't get a trial either. He was still an active threat, just like Micah Johnson, who claimed he had explosive devices all over the city.
Gman
(24,780 posts)That's pretty important. Remember the constitution?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)until someone has been arrested and charged. He wasn't going to allow himself to be arrested, so it was a choice between a) one dead, admitted murderer or b) one dead, admitted murderer and as many police officers as he could take out in the process.
I'm more than fine with choosing "a".
Gman
(24,780 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)the shooter did, when he refused to surrender and threatened to detonate explosive devices.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)was not interested in negotiating.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That is an important detail.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)He could've surrendered and had his day in court. Instead he told police he was going to detonate his explosive devices. That's when they killed him.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He didn't meet them.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)
eissa
(4,238 posts)This is definitely not one of them for me. Live by the sword.....
malaise
(268,930 posts)and not just a citizen - an army vet.
This follows when the police are militarized.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)So fuck him, and I'm glad they blew him up, and I hope he experienced fear and pain before he died.
Mister Ed
(5,928 posts)...a volunteer from DU to go in there and apprehend the shooter.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe some of our DU'ers who feel so strongly that the police used the wrong weapon could've gone in there and taken care of it for them.
Gman
(24,780 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)He chose not to be arrested.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's ok for the police to kill you?
I'm playing devil's advocate here to point out the police executed someone without a trial. Maybe the guy would have had a valid insanity plea. But we'll never know. I think this has huge implications for many things. While this is an extreme case, The outcome is similar to what happened to Michael Brown in Ferguson.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and then I say that I'm going to detonate bombs that will kill many more, and I refuse to surrender, then yeah, it's OK for the police to kill me.
And I can't believe that you're actually comparing this piece of crap murderer to Michael Brown.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)He was negotiated with for hours after killing five people. He threatened to kill more. He was still armed and claimed to have planted bombs.
Neutralizing him was utterly appropriate.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he refused to surrender and had the potential to kill others, they are defending the public from an active threat. That's their job. The high tech method just means they don't have to be in danger themselves. A shootout could have killed more of them or others.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Mister Ed
(5,928 posts)After having already shot a dozen of them, and all the while swearing they're going to kill as many more of them as they can? And declaring that they've planted bombs all over? (Bombs can be detonated by remote control, of course)
I guess everyone who has a right to trial by jury also has a right to decline their trial by jury, and insist instead on going down in a hail of bullets. But if there's anyone who absolutely insists that it has to be a hail of bullets, and not a hail of shrapnel, then they're cutting it a little finer than I'm able to.
I would have been much happier if the cops could have shot the gun out of his hand, they way they do in the old 1950's TV westerns. Everyone would. But very, very few would volunteer to go in there and do it for them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Takket
(21,560 posts)was he basically contained and surrounded where he could no longer hurt anyone (and they could have waited him out indefinitely), or was he still firing and a risk to police/civilians?
Generic Brad
(14,274 posts)While I understand the anger and fear the police were feeling, flat out murder is still against the law. Their order to serve and protect does not include a license to kill.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Any gas that would quickly incapacitate a person-- would kill/maim them. Think chlorine or mustard gas.
ansible
(1,718 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I don't know why they couldn't have sprayed some of the blue or green stuff in the general vicinity of the gunman, who could then be escorted to the police station by Commissioner Gordon.
Oh, wait: this isn't a 1967 episode of Batman.
Sorry.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)waiting him out and taking him alive would have garnished the cops a great deal of information. I think blowing him up was a very BAD decision.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Let's wait that guy out. If he does have bombs planted everywhere, let's give him every opportunity to detonate them.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)He threatened during the negotiations he had explosive devices all over the city.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The police acted completely appropriately in this case.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)could be justified this time, we should have a thorough public discussion about the use of military weapons on our citizens.
Gman
(24,780 posts)To try to point these things out. Granted it was an extreme situation, but the outcome is the same as many other lesser incidents.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There is a first time for everything.
I oppose our local law enforcement officers having access to drones or explosives.
New Low: Sheriff’s Office Claims Infant at Fault for SWAT Team Blowing His Face Apart with Grenade
As previously covered, Bounkham “Baby Bou Bou” Phonesavanh, 19-months-old, was asleep in his crib. At 3:00 am militarized police barged into his family’s home because an informant had purchased $50 worth of meth from someone who once lived there. During the raid, a flash-bang grenade was thrown into the sleeping baby’s crib, exploding in his face.
Beyond the disfiguring wounds on the toddler’s face, the grenade also left a gash in his chest. As a result, Bou lost the ability to breathe on his own and was left in a medically induced coma for days after the incident. Bou was not able to go home from the hospital until July.
No officers were charged for their near-deadly negligence, and the department claimed that they did not know that there were children in the home. They defended their reckless actions by saying that they couldn’t have done a thorough investigation prior to the raid because it “would have risked revealing that the officers were watching the house.”
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/infant-responsible-grenade-thrown-face/
Those who are pledged to "Protect and Serve" make way too many mistakes to be trusted with military weapons, and way too many Rambo Wannabes in their ranks.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
There is concern about militarization of police, but you might want to use another figure of speech. The Hollywood-derived Rambo was all about shirtless saturation bombing wth just-so cuts and abrasions. Not some robot used by a force which had lost five people, and which was dealing with a much closer real-life Rambo who was threaening to -- yes, Martha -- bomb some more.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)My comments were NOT specific to the events in Dallas,
but about the Militarization of our local Police Departments in general.
If you had actually read my post, you would have known that.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)If we let police decide who gets Due Process we have historic evidence to show that there will NOT be Equal Protection.
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)Big difference between being bad and a Killing machine that is a lethal threat to the public.
The day they start blowing up shoplifters with drones you can get on your soapbox and preach due process.
This is not that day.
You like the shooter are dead wrong.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And you don't want to compare your judgement to mine, why not go ask the ACLU??
They'll tell you the same thing.
It's not easy to really protect civil rights, it requires you to go against human nature and personal prejudices.
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)The ACLU wasn't getting their asses shot off either last Thursday.
Using a drone to take out someone dangerous is the LAST resort not the first.
He was given the chance to give up and negotiate and chose not to.
Case closed.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)"The suspect in the deadly attack on Dallas police taunted authorities during two hours of negotiations, laughing at them, singing and at one point asking how many officers he had shot, the police chief said Sunday."
Dallas shooting suspect taunted police during 2 hours of negotiation
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I cant believe how far the right 'centrism' has taken this board.
Taunting and singing used as evidence a person needed to be killed by police...
That's really pretty awful.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)rollin74
(1,973 posts)a police sniper would have killed him if they had been in a safe position to get a clear shot.
-he had already shot a dozen people and killed 5 police officers
-he continued to shoot at police during attempts to negotiate and refused to surrender
-he stated to police that he intended to kill more officers and that multiple IEDs had been planted
the cops did what they had to do to end the situation and neutralize the threat. I'm not sure how a bullet would be somehow preferable to a robot-delivered explosive charge
MH1
(17,600 posts)How about that person's family?
I would have preferred they managed to bring him in alive. But not at the cost of another good person's life.
Sitting here at my computer a thousand miles away, I'm not going to second guess the decision made by the experts on scene in the heat of the moment.
If the shooter had not yet killed anyone, or if it wasn't 100% certain that the suspect was the actual shooter, I might feel differently. But based on those clear facts, and other information that's been presented, I have no reason to think they made a bad decision to take him out.
This is a completely different situation than an armed suspect who is not in the act of killing people.
still_one
(92,136 posts)The perpetrator had plenty of time to give himself up. Did he have explosives, could he have shot at a fuel tank in the garage causing an explosion, could he have charged out firing random bullets? A lot of unknowns.
While we as outsiders can speculate, someone assumed the responsibility and decided not to risk anymore lives
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)You take them out before they can kill anyone else and give the operator a medal.
I can't believe some of the posts here about coddling this son of a bitch into a peaceful surrender.
Did he read the cops or their rights?
He declared war and lived up to it's declaration and died by it as well.
He may have been the first to die like this but he wont be the last.
I also think cops saying surrender or we send in the drones will make the next guy think twice about not giving up.
This is a GOOD thing.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)This is a very disturbing new development in conflict resolution.
The idea that LE can now decide to level the house to end a standoff should be a concern for all.
egduj
(805 posts)But I think they wanted to get even more than anything else.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)You have to get within a short distance to use a taser, and aim carefully. By all means, tell us how to do that while a gunman with a rifle is shooting at you.
"Knock-out gas" is a TV fantasy.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)or burned up in your hold-out, or otherwise subject to being executed by the cops, then don't start executing a bunch of cops.
Easy enough to understand.
Dorner got the message, as did Johnson.
On Edit: shows what happens when "second amendment remedies" are attempted against the state by gun-humpers...many here will gladly predict and even applaud the outcome.
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)Micah Johnson had just shot 11 police officers, and was refusing to surrender (so he could be afforded due process).
In these situations you don't have the luxury of having all the information as you would days after; you're forced into taking the perpetrator at their word. If for 3 hours he's refusing to give up, and telling you he's planted IEDs (which can be remotely triggered), I would say it's prudent to kill him. It's unfortunate he forced police into that situation, but he chose death over surrender.
Regarding the methods used to kill him, I think it's disingenuous to even imply this kind of tactic is common or even sets a precedence. When you've got an armored individual in an elevated/bunker like position, it would be reckless for any SWAT commander to not consider explosives as an option.
The day police start flying armed UAVs over the country and rocketing people in non-life threatening situations, I'll have a problem with it; until then, good C4ing.
egduj
(805 posts)Perhaps it is, but from a strictly technical point of view I doubt armed UAVs will ever be employed against citizens located within the United States.
It was my understanding the only reason we use them overseas is because we don't have "boots on the ground" that can get remotely close to the targets (for a multitude of political, legal and tactical reasons). In addition, the places we fly them typically have anti-aircraft rockets which would expose our pilots to danger; that's definitely not the case here in the US.
Lastly, they're just not that great at precision targeting in population dense areas; it's not uncommon at all to read about "collateral damage" in drone strikes. We haven't seen police adopt precision air-strikes against civilians using traditional aircraft, and I doubt we'll see them employ armed UAVs ever.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Still, it has to be justified in each case, and closely reviewed. In most cases, there are better ways to handle these situations, not to mention prevention in the first place.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)If only civilians had been murdered would it be OK then?
I feel far more uncomfortable with the growing prevalence of guns in our society. That truly scares me.
Had the murderer been in the sights of snipers he would have also been killed.
I think it's time to have a conversation about drones, but in this case I agree with using one.
lastone
(588 posts)This was a excessive use of force and trial by cop, it should have been handled very much differently as we now have what many even on this forum are expressing as legitimate. Think this tactic won't be used again in less than these circumstances, I guaran-fucking-tee it. Once a precedent is set / accepted it is very rarely relinquished voluntarily. The fact that people here are already accepting this as valid is disgusting imo.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)At some point, these weaponized robots will be used in guerilla warfare / freedom fighting / terrorist activities. By non-governmental agencies and private individuals. That law enforcement was ahead of the game on this one surprises me but only slightly so. It was bound to happen.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)that's what the First Amendment allows. Couldn't have anticipated the worldwide megaphone everyone has nowadays but that same tool can, and is, being used to point out said monumental stupidity.
Urchin
(248 posts)Is it only people of color who get droned? I mean, have any white people who are either citizens or non-citizens, in the U.S.A. or in a foreign country, ever been killed by a U.S. drone?
Had the Dallas shooter been white, would they have used a drone to blow him up?
Just asking.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)and asking how many officers he had shot. He claimed to have bombs throughout the city and was threatening to detonate them.
Yeah, the would have just let him walk away if he was white.
Urchin
(248 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 10, 2016, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Many people think we shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, even though the Japanese had plenty of bombs to threaten us with.
And they also think we wouldn't have used the A bomb on Germany, because Germans are white.
And nobody's talking about letting the Dallas shooter walk away if he were white; I'm only wondering if they would have found a way to subdue a white shooter without pushing a button to destroy him.
How did we handle this sort of things before drones were invented?
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)A captured US Military contractor & captive Italian citizen were killed, although unintentionally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Weinstein
That said, I personally don't believe race was a factor in the decision to use a robot/C4.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)do you seriously think he would have reacted differently for a white shooter?
Urchin
(248 posts)Someone can be black yet still see the world as if he were white.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)
EDUCATE YOURSELF on Chief Brown
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-chief-david-brown-profile/
I'm not saying I AGREE with the decision - I find it troubling / would need all the facts (AND YES, FACTS MATTER OUTSIDE OF A STUPID RACISM BINGO CARD) but Chief Brown is a fine man, hardly one to make decisions based on color
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Response to Gman (Original post)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
FSogol
(45,476 posts)I'm sure everything would have been fine then, right?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)captainarizona
(363 posts)gman's post demonstrate why 61% of white people vote republican. When I try to convince them that liberalism is in their best interest they point to stuff like this and say you liberals are crazy and weird.
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)people like the OP never rise to the level of prominence or have any influence in what the actual party stands for.
Never going to happen..never will.
They have their far right as we have far left.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)he wasn't willing to give himself up, even tho at the least, there was certainly probably cause to arrest him. He got what he deserved.
Waldorf
(654 posts)
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)... that this would "never" occur in the U.S. Ah, well, that's why I am leery of making determinate statements about the future.
-- Mal
Rex
(65,616 posts)And nobody raised a big enough stink over it, so now there is an urban model for right here at home! FWIW, I am not sure how else they were going to get the guy without ending up with holes in their bodies.
What do you think about cops that execute people for traffic violations?
B2G
(9,766 posts)DustyJoe
(849 posts)
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Hopefully someone writes up some laws to clarify appropriate use of force with drones on US soil soon.
It's a complicated issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)The call to stop this madman is made by the officers on the ground. No one else.
Jesus, everyone thinks the word 'drone' means some sort of Robocop. A drone is just a machine, nothing more. So is a gun.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)It riles me, and most people up too much.
However, I am aware that eventually we're going to need protocol for which circumstances should allow for these types of tools to be employed, if only to assauge the concerns of citizens.
What's the minimum level of necessary proof needed to dispense such tools. These things are always left up to judgement, and when judgement is used in stressful situations, a lot of times people act rashly.
I'm not saying I'm against it. It's just a discussion worth having without the demagoguery that so often overtakes our public discourse.
How many times have innocent people been arrested or gunned down after all?
Minimize mistakes. That's all. Consistency.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is there really a difference between a gun fired directly by a finger or one fired remotely by a finger pressing a button? Or an explosive, in this case. I see them as the same thing. There was line of sight so it's not like they released some autonomous machine into the wild and hoped they hit what they aimed at.
Explosives over guns, now, that may be another matter. Did the police have these on hand? If so, why? Or did they have to request them from some other department? Militarization of the police is another topic worth discussion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I'm totally ok with that.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)I really think bi-passing due process is a HUUUUUGE mistake. Civil, democratic societies do not allow this sort of thing. It's state-sanctioned vigilante justice. This is certainly upping the "Live by the sword, die by the sword." motto. The new motto is, "Live by the gun in an open-carry sanctioned society, die by the bomb". You can arm every US citizen and think that makes you safer from tyranny, but the truth is, there are those who crave and are able to claw their way into power that will always find a way (and the funds from the uninformed citizenry) to drastically out fire-power you. It's best to do what Australia did and enact strict gun laws. Most human beings should never own a weapon.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)You had an active shooter who killed multiple people. Due process starts in court, not in the streets when you are actively trying to kill people. The "due process" argument could be made with respect to any murdering thug on the streets.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Exigent circumstances.
The police shouldn't be blowing perpetrators up except in the rarest of circumstances when other tactics have failed.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Cops used a bomb to execute a suspect.
They did not arrest him.
He was not arraigned.
There will never be a trial or sentence from a judge or jury.
It is naive to believe that because in this one case, the shooter remained dangerous and potentially lethal, that ALL cases would be the same...but once precedent is set, it is difficult to stop it from becoming standard operating procedure. Let's say that a local police department can't get taxes raised to support adding officers to the beat. A robot bomb however IS available at less than 1/5th the cost of a full-time officer. Now that precedent says the public will not be outraged by the execution of a criminal without trial or even charges, what is to stop them from using this weapon? Good will towards suspects?
The process was emotional and dangerous, but it was also short-circuited in a matter of hours. He was trapped and contained. He was not killing or holding hostages. He was not capable of killing more police from the location he died. The shooter was no longer mobile and in unknown whereabouts, he was belligerent, armed, dangerous and hostile, but also contained. Had the police simply built a perimeter around him, deployed armed robots to cut off potential escape routes (and YES, detonating a bomb to prevent an escape route IS different than intentionally sending the robot to kill), noise, lights, lack of water....all methods that could have forced a surrender, or suicide more likely. However, we got a state sanctioned and carried out execution instead. It was ordered by local officials, well aware of the fact that multiple officers had died that night and also aware of the suspect in those deaths potential to be on the business end of the explosives.
Advocating for the rule of law is NOT excusing the guilty.
It is essential citizenship in a free society. We still live in a country of LAWS. We still (presumably) live in a country with a presumption of innocence at its core - REGARDLESS of how much evidence is present against someone for a crime (INCLUDING HOLDING THE SMOKING GUN, LITERALLY), we have trials and convictions and prisons and even the death penalty to mete out justice under the law.
Picking at the edges of what those core concepts mean: the right to an attorney, the right to a speedy trial, the right to judgement under the law and not under the order of man - because of expediency, or fear, or desire for vengeance, or circumstance - is dangerous to everyone. It creates an atmosphere of permissiveness in how suspected criminals are to be treated;and in cases where guilt is obvious, it is easy to lose sight of WHY those restrictions are in place at all. It is NOT to protect the rights of THIS shooter...it is to protect the rights of a man possibly charged or suspected of a crime by mistake. Just as free speech is meaningless if we only apply it to that with which we already agree, so too is it useless to have a society under law only to discard the law when it is convenient or emotionally satisfying. It is to protect the innocent that we acquiesce to the guilty rights far beyond what they may deserve. It is to save our social soul that we restrain vengeance and vigilantes.
When we start granting license to forgo due process; simply because the odious nature of the criminal, then we compromise the intent and value of the rule of law, period. It is never OK or something to cheer and dismiss as 'necessary'. It is a horrifying slope from sanctioned killing of criminals to police investigations that end in similar manners...dead civilians, killed at the discretion of the police before and despite all possible actions to the contrary of deadly force having NOT been expended.
A cornered man, violent and hateful and armed and dangerous is STILL to be afforded to the rule of law. The police need only stop him from escape, not storm the barricades and extract him at that point. He was killed in under 8 hours from the start of the rampage. I think the rule of law is worth more than that.
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)In general I tend to agree with you; I suppose the reason I don't in this specific case (at least with the currently available information) is because of the claims of IEDs, and there still being a legitimate concern of his ability to remotely detonate them.
That said, I saw the police chief on CNN today state that the Dallas PD was transcribing the recordings of the negotiations, and would be releasing them soon. I believe those transcripts will help add context to their decision to use a robot with C4.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The guy said he had bombs ready to go off all over the city, so you say wait him out...maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. They seem to have clear rules when dealing with a menace to society and acted on them.
Clearly they decided his threat was more serious then his life.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The point is the same. I can say anything I want, it does not make it true. The police and investigators are PAID to determine the validity of these threats, not paid to kill first and clean up later.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Cops are paid to neutralize a threat, have you never seen cops in action? They kill people all the time with 'due process by bullet' why are you not outraged about that?
So it is the WAY the execution went down that bothers you, not the fact he was executed?
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I do not mourn the loss of the dead shooter as much as the willingness of so many to blithely accept that there "was no other way". That is bullshit. There is ALWAYS another way unless the lunatic is charging you like a light infantryman on Omaha Beach.
I have heard him described as "holed-up" and "threatening to blow up IEDs". That picture means something to me in the way I feel about this incident and the way it was brought to an end.
"Holed-up" implies that he was barricaded in a static position - i.e., he was no longer mobile and capable of shooting on the run. He was in contact with police - obviously because he made the threats. So, this picture no longer rings true with the image of the same shooter hours earlier moving from post to post outside the parking garage and actively assassinating police officers.
Now, if the lunatic decided to rush out of this location, guns blazing and trying to escape, THEN it is a justifiable shooting and/or bomb detonation required to stop him. Sending the robot TO HIM, detonating it remotely and while he was NOT charging or firing on officers is not the same kind of thing. Justifying them both with the same rationale is simply not possible in my mind.
So, to answer your question, it is the method of execution here that bothers me far more than the dead shooter. The acceptance of some many in a place I find generally coherent with my political views adds to my discomfort. Maybe I am wrong here...would not be the first or last time....but it FEELS wrong to just accept the idea that there was no other way besides a remote controlled bomb to end this situation, especially because the murderer was executed before even 8 hours had passed.
The asssholes on the Bundy ranch in Nevada were also armed, were also threatening (aiming and sighting an officer through a sniper scope) and that dragged on for days...then the same in Oregon after the lunatics took over the bird sanctuary. Again, standoff with armed individuals that went on for weeks.
The way this ended and the official story that it simply couldn't have ended any other way is demonstrably untrue. Defending such untrue statements is causing me a lot of discomfort to be honest, something I can't bring myself to see.
Rex
(65,616 posts)IMO, if he had NOT said there were bombs planted in the city he might have walked out of there alive. What I always find curious is how we get outraged when it happens inside our borders - but outside it just doesn't seem to bother us at all.
It is as if the rules only apply inside the nation, everything outside is someone else's problem. Until it becomes our problem. Another thing, I agree with a lot of what is posted here by fellow posters. I've come to accept that we are all not going to agree 100% on everything - even some things we all find personally fundamental in ourselves.
You don't think the cops had enough tolerance, I don't think they thought his life was worth the chance he could remotely blow up places all around the city.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Thanks for bringing some reason to a rather irrational thread.
George II
(67,782 posts)It's not like the "drone" (i.e., robot) was flying over Dallas and controlled 2000 miles away and the operator hopefully got the correct person. There was no doubt that the person killed was the correct person, there was no one else with him, and many others were in imminent danger.
What would you have done in a situation like that?
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The state has no business in carrying out non-tried criminal executions, period.
Everyone needs to stop using just the bad guy in Dallas as the reference point here...the rule of law does not exist on a case-by-case basis. It is either absolute in its application or it is a dangerous slippery slope.
Why do cops not get to execute shoplifters?
Why are people outraged (rightfully) over the execution style killings during traffic stops and questioning of unarmed black men (or ANY unarmed civilians)?
Its not OK to execute a criminal - even one who is threatening to kill more when you have essentially deprived him of the opportunity to do so. The shooter was neutralized and contained. He was bellicose and belligerent and armed, but he was not killing more cops every few minutes or even in several hours. He was by all appearances guilty as hell and doomed to be executed legally in Texas, but that does not mean its OK to skip the messy process of apprehension, arraignment, trial, sentencing and carrying out of sentence.
Things fray when good people are overcome with emotions and passion. The rule of law is the counter to that tendency and that makes it more precious to defend, even in the face of championing the rights of a monster.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)He said he had explosive devices all over the city. Such explosive devices can be detonated remotely. That admission was when they needed to take him out as quickly as possible.
George II
(67,782 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Using force, even lethal force, to defend one's self or others is not a 'non-tried criminal execution'.
When you have a person who you reasonably believe has the means, opportunity, and intent to harm you or others, using force to stop them, even killing them, is an execusable offense.
Recall, this guy claimed to have planted bombs around the area, and was threatening to detonate them. He was curious how many he had killed, and claimed he was going to kill more police officers, especially white ones.
Is there something in the above statements that leads you to believe that he wasn't serious?? That a reasonable person wouldn't have apprehended immediate grave bodily injury or death to themselves or others????
Logical
(22,457 posts)the police dying?
Wow, nice logic there.
George II
(67,782 posts)...are thinking that the man wasn't the person who shot up the area a while before.
randr
(12,409 posts)Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)The Vulcan Nerve Pinch.
Work's EVERY Time.
?w=300&h=258
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)no raised hands, no surrender, in the act fo shooting, and threatening to blow up people with bombs. The lives of many were at stake, not just the cops, and HE could have stopped it.
caraher
(6,278 posts)I'm not going to second-guess this decision, in this case. Chances are excellent Johnson was going to be dead at the end of his spree, whether via robot-delivered bomb or more familiar means.
It also raises important and timely questions about what weaponry ought to be in the hands of police, used according to what policies. The same logic that justifies this case (eliminating a deadly threat with minimal hazard to uniformed personnel) quite readily extends to routinely equipping police forces with drones carrying lethal weapons. We do need to have a conversation about whether, as a society, we want to go down that road. I am extremely hesitant to endorse this myself...
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Were just as outraged when police didn't 'wait out' Omar Mateen?
Negotiations were attempted. Neither were receptive to them. Both threatened to blow things up. The police decided to act in a attempt to prevent further civilian casualties. Where these people outraged then?
It seems the concern is in the WAY he was executed and not the fact he was executed. Cops kill (right or wrong) with 'due process by a bullet' all the time and the outrage is not like it is now that robo-cop is on the case.
I don't buy it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Those killed and injured was not given due process of the law, was not read their rights, we can't have a double standard. It is a sad day in our history the decision to stop the killing is chastised, sad day for the family members of all the lives lost, each one was precious to someone.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If the police exhausted every method to bring the perpetrator in alive and every method failed then the use of the robo-bomb was justified.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)It was a shootout. The robot was a weapon no different than the officers' guns.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)But I'm not troubled by what I know so far.
riversedge
(70,187 posts)piece of technology, then it will be used. Dangerous slippery slop IMHO.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)He killed too many as it was. I have no problem with the Police taking him out, and I don't care if it was with a drone, a rifle, or a radar-guided unicorn. The douchebag was a continuing threat, and killing him likely saved lives.
treestar
(82,383 posts)he was not in custody and awaiting trial.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Heavily armed killers getting blown up by robots just seems...right. The future looks bright.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
Skittles
(153,150 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)where the police are also the judge, jury, and executioner.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)In order for a cop (or you, or me) to be able to defend themselves or someone else?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)kill someone to defend themselves. Too many times deadly force is being used, where it is totally unnecessary.
The answer to your question is YES! They should have a court proceeding to have someone execute. Deadly force is, for the most part, never necessary.
I have been approached by people with weapons, and the best defense in any of these cases has NEVER EVER been deadly force. Not even when someone pulled a gun on me.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. and let them swear out a warrant, file motions, seat a jury, have a trial, and go through deliberations.. before they can defend themselves??
That's about the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all day.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)<sigh>... I know word choice is a deliberate rhetorical strategy, but I find this frustrating. Folks act like remotely controlled robots were just invented last year.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Just sad...
I think some people just like to be contrary despite all common sense.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)hardluck
(638 posts)I don't understand why they didn't put a big feather in the robot's arm and tickled him until he surrendered. Now mind you they shouldn't have tickled him center mass but they should have tickled him in the leg. I've seen it in movies so I know it would have worked.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)I am not one who finds one means of killing him more moral than another. In one manner the person has a rifle in his hand, in the other a remote control with a detonate button. Same act, different tools.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Doodley
(9,088 posts)US drone kills a mass murderer in Dallas - Media: That's a problem.
coco77
(1,327 posts)Giving all of the instructions on how to make a bomb. They are listing all materials needed.
Gman
(24,780 posts)There's probably YouTube video of how to make a simple bomb
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)??
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Why would anyone question this? <sarcasm>
My question was, what is a city police department doing with C4 ??
RandySF
(58,770 posts)There was no question whether he would have gone peacefully because he was not. They also didn't know what he had in store for them, like a bomb. There are plenty of abuses of power that are more worthy of debate than taking out a mass murderer.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)"A Drone was used to kill an admitted mass murder who refused to surrender and threatened to kill more"
nolabels
(13,133 posts)but i have gotten much more sophisticated in my later years. House Flies when i am angry at them are goners but the rest get put back outside. Ants around the my house of late are much more diversified and actually have enough predators to keep the manageable and out of the house. Taking the life of another living thing is necessary sometimes, so yea, safety matters
And as Alan Watts says 'Eat or be eaten', it always happens sooner or later anyway
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)You can't force rights on people that don't want them.
christx30
(6,241 posts)if you surrender yourself to the justice system.
Unless you have a way of getting a court appointed lawyer and a judge to show up at the active, dangerous crime scene to hold a trial for the guy that is shooting at the police, the threat has to be stopped first. He can stop it by giving up. But no cop is willing to die to get guy to trial, and it's wrong for anyone to expect that. If someone wants to stop the militarization of police, stop expecting them to die like soldiers in their job.
