Robot Bomb

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-09-2016, 10:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to admit that makes me feel slightly better. My concern now lies with whether this was a preconceived possibility in some procedures somewhere, or was this spontaneously thought up? There are a lot of questions I have about this and it's use in policing, because I don't think this should ever be an option. JMHO.

I'm not a law enforcement expert, but I believe most of the larger metro police departments probably have some sort of "bomb squad."  They used EOD equipment and an EOD technique used to detonate suspected bombs.  Here's how it works: the EOD squad makes their own charge, sends in the robot with the charge, places their charge as close to the suspected bomb as possible, they detonate their charge which detonates the suspected charge through sympathetic detonation.  This technique allows EOD teams to destroy suspected bombs without sending someone in wearing a bomb suit to manually place the charge or dismantle the suspected bomb.  Obviously, in this situation the intended target was a human rather than a suspected explosive device.

(07-10-2016, 08:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wouldn't for me. Just like me being against weaponized drones.

I know it's probably weird, but removing the personal element to killing another person is not something I like. It should always be a last resort, and if the personal element is removed I feel we will become more comfortable with killing. I know drone pilots have had PTSD and there is still someone pulling that trigger, but something about it being done from a position of safety takes away the  ide that this use of deadly force truly is a last resort.

Most politicians don't have any skin in the game when they send the military off to use lethal force.  In a stand off like this in Dallas, the person responsible for sending in an assault force likewise isn't personally involved with the use of lethal force.  Same applies to a lot of military commanders making decisions from a tactical control center. 

Law enforcement agencies have a legal and ethical obligation to follow the law while enforcing the law.  While I'm not naïve enough to believe 100% of law enforcement officials follow 100% of the laws 100% of the time while performing their duties, I believe the vast majority are trying to do the right thing.  Those officers in charge of other officers also have an ethical obligation to protect the health and welfare of those under their command.  Whomever was in charge had to balance accomplishing the job while also considering the welfare of the officers involved.  If the suspect refused to surrender after given multiple opportunities to do so what other tactical option did the person in charge have other then sending in an assault force?  If he did send in an assault force they would use lethal force, not nonlethal munitions, so the chances the suspect would be apprehended alive are very slim.  While it was very likely an officer(s) would be killed attempting to apprehend the suspect.  Or he could send in an EOD robot with an explosive charge which would mitigate the risk to his officers and would more than likely have the same effect upon the suspect as a ground assault, i.e. the suspect's death.  Whether they sent in a robot with a bomb or a ground assault team, the intent would be the same.  So for those reasons, I don't have a problem with the decision.

Now Bengalzona's question of why didn't they just wait him out is a valid question and one which I don't know the answer.

[Bengalbug]

(07-10-2016, 01:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not a law enforcement expert, but I believe most of the larger metro police departments probably have some sort of "bomb squad."  They used EOD equipment and an EOD technique used to detonate suspected bombs.  Here's how it works: the EOD squad makes their own charge, sends in the robot with the charge, places their charge as close to the suspected bomb as possible, they detonate their charge which detonates the suspected charge through sympathetic detonation.  This technique allows EOD teams to destroy suspected bombs without sending someone in wearing a bomb suit to manually place the charge or dismantle the suspected bomb.  Obviously, in this situation the intended target was a human rather than a suspected explosive device.



Most politicians don't have any skin in the game when they send the military off to use lethal force.  In a stand off like this in Dallas, the person responsible for sending in an assault force likewise isn't personally involved with the use of lethal force.  Same applies to a lot of military commanders making decisions from a tactical control center. 

Law enforcement agencies have a legal and ethical obligation to follow the law while enforcing the law.  While I'm not naïve enough to believe 100% of law enforcement officials follow 100% of the laws 100% of the time while performing their duties, I believe the vast majority are trying to do the right thing.  Those officers in charge of other officers also have an ethical obligation to protect the health and welfare of those under their command.  Whomever was in charge had to balance accomplishing the job while also considering the welfare of the officers involved.  If the suspect refused to surrender after given multiple opportunities to do so what other tactical option did the person in charge have other then sending in an assault force?  If he did send in an assault force they would use lethal force, not nonlethal munitions, so the chances the suspect would be apprehended alive are very slim.  While it was very likely an officer(s) would be killed attempting to apprehend the suspect.  Or he could send in an EOD robot with an explosive charge which would mitigate the risk to his officers and would more than likely have the same effect upon the suspect as a ground assault, i.e. the suspect's death.  Whether they sent in a robot with a bomb or a ground assault team, the intent would be the same.  So for those reasons, I don't have a problem with the decision.

Now Bengalzona's question of why didn't they just wait him out is a valid question and one which I don't know the answer.

How long do you wait... ? Can't let it go on for days. Clearly he wasn't going to give up. They didn't know what weaponry he had on him..

I'm sure they had their reasons. It wasn't their first or even second choice I'm sure.

But no additional loss of life- they made the right call.

[Millhouse]

(07-10-2016, 12:02 PM)Benton Wrote: To me, there's still the need to try and do it without
Using lethal force as the first approach.

Is the first approach negotiating for a surrender? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-10-2016, 01:57 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: How long do you wait... ?  Can't let it go on for days.  Clearly he wasn't going to give up.  They didn't know what weaponry he had on him..  

I'm sure they had their reasons.  It wasn't their first or even second choice I'm sure.

But no additional loss of life- they made the right call.

Good question.  Not easily answered because it depends upon a lot of different factors which will vary from one situation to another.  In other words, there is no one answer.

In my experience it would be based upon this . . .

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/423B3CC4-3606-4E1B-86A6-F37C4BC792C3-1274572553978/3-21.10/chap2.htm


Figure 2-1. Army planning process within TLP.


I'm sure law enforcement has their own decision making model. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-10-2016, 01:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Most politicians don't have any skin in the game when they send the military off to use lethal force.  In a stand off like this in Dallas, the person responsible for sending in an assault force likewise isn't personally involved with the use of lethal force.  Same applies to a lot of military commanders making decisions from a tactical control center. 

I get this, and I guess my thought process originates from the idea that having to put personnel in harms way makes the decision making more calculated, more careful. By sending in something without any humanity then there is no reason for any hesitation with regards to lethal force. It becomes the easy way out.

[Benton]

(07-10-2016, 01:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Is the first approach negotiating for a surrender? 

That would be part of it, although I dont think negotiating is the right word. Demanding surrender is more like it.

[*bfine32*]

I'm for anything that will resolve a matter of this nature without placing the innocent in harm's way. WTS, I hope they made it abundantly clear that if he did not surrender peacefully, he was signing his death warrant.

[Rotobeast]

It'd be cool if you could pump a morphine based aerosol into an area, rapidly enough.

"Suuuure.... I give up. Why not ?!?!"

[BmorePat87]

He was shooting at them. Even if they didn't know he had killed the other 5 cops, he was shooting at them. At that point, I don't see the concern with his rights. He was given a chance to surrender.

[Au165]

(07-11-2016, 11:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He was shooting at them. Even if they didn't know he had killed the other 5 cops, he was shooting at them. At that point, I don't see the concern with his rights. He was given a chance to surrender.

I don't think the bomb was even related to him shooting. Controlled explosions are used to detonate un detonated explosives. My guess based on some of the stuff they found at his house is he said he had a suicide vest on or something. Can't get close enough to risk apprehending him, so you blow up the explosive before he can.

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2016, 12:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: I don't think the bomb was even related to him shooting. Controlled explosions are used to detonate un detonated explosives. My guess based on some of the stuff they found at his house is he said he had a suicide vest on or something. Can't get close enough to risk apprehending him, so you blow up the explosive before he can.

Yea, he made threats about having explosives. My mentioning of the shooting was the reinforce the fact that this wasn't a suspect anymore, it was someone actively endangering the lives of officers.

[Millhouse]

(07-11-2016, 02:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, he made threats about having explosives. My mentioning of the shooting was the reinforce the fact that this wasn't a suspect anymore, it was someone actively endangering the lives of officers.

Yup, and it wasnt like he just robbed a bank killing a guard on the way out in a shootout. He purposely gunned down 5 cops beforehand in a clear ambush, and was ready to kill more if he had the opportunity which he made very clear by not surrendering. 

[Bengalzona]

If he had or threatened to have a suicide vest of explosives, then I am much more at ease with the use of a robo-bomb to splatter his innards into a Jackson Pollack painting on the side of a parking garage.

[*bfine32*]

I'm digging what the Dallas Police Chief said about the issue when asked the same question:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7334/tapper-police-chief-did-you-have-dallas-cop-killer-robert-kraychik?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=071016-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot

Quote:"I just don’t give much quarter to critics who ask these types of questions from the comfort and safety away from the incident. You have to be on the ground and try and determine... I’ve got former SWAT experience here in Dallas, and you have to trust your people to make the calls necessary to save their lives. It’s their lives that are at stake, not these critics’ lives who are in the comforts of their homes or offices. So, that’s not worth my time to debate at this point. We believe that we saved lives by making this decision,"

[GMDino]

(07-12-2016, 10:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm digging what the Dallas Police Chief said about the issue when asked the same question:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7334/tapper-police-chief-did-you-have-dallas-cop-killer-robert-kraychik?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=071016-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot

From what I have read about this man he deserves MUCH respect.

I think though there can be a discussion if not about the use of the bomb this time at least the thought process behind it and what it will be going forward.

[Benton]

(07-12-2016, 10:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm digging what the Dallas Police Chief said about the issue when asked the same question:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7334/tapper-police-chief-did-you-have-dallas-cop-killer-robert-kraychik?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=071016-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot

From a police perspective, I get it. But that statement shows more of the divide.

'You're not a cop, don't question what we do.'

That's part of the overall problem people are having in some of these other, completely unrelated, instances. When people hear about cops using excessive force or lethal force when it doesn't seem warranted, and then responding with 'well, you don't know better' it creates an 'them and us' environment. That's part of what needs to be fixed. Not necessarily the use of less force, but the trust between the public and officers.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2016, 10:51 AM)Benton Wrote: From a police perspective, I get it. But that statement shows more of the divide.

'You're not a cop, don't question what we do.'

That's part of the overall problem people are having in some of these other, completely unrelated, instances. When people hear about cops using excessive force or lethal force when it doesn't seem warranted, and then responding with 'well, you don't know better' it creates an 'them and us' environment. That's part of what needs to be fixed. Not necessarily the use of less force, but the trust between the public and officers.

Just do everything exactly as the officer says and you (probably, more than likely) won't get shot.  What's so hard about that?!?!  

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2016, 10:51 AM)Benton Wrote: From a police perspective, I get it. But that statement shows more of the divide.

'You're not a cop, don't question what we do.'

That's part of the overall problem people are having in some of these other, completely unrelated, instances. When people hear about cops using excessive force or lethal force when it doesn't seem warranted, and then responding with 'well, you don't know better' it creates an 'them and us' environment. That's part of what needs to be fixed. Not necessarily the use of less force, but the trust between the public and officers.

I agree we should trust LEOs to do their jobs correctly. This really wasn't much of an issue until everybody became a cameraman and posted videos for folks to construct conspiracy theories around. 

What would you do if someone filmed you at work and then started asking questions about why you do what you do at every move and suggesting you are not doing it correctly?  

[GMDino]

(07-12-2016, 11:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree we should trust LEOs to do their jobs correctly. This really wasn't much of an issue until everybody became a cameraman and posted videos for folks to construct conspiracy theories around. 

What would you do if someone filmed you at work and then started asking questions about why you do what you do at every move and suggesting you are not doing it correctly?  

Does this NOT fall under the conservative adage that if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't mind being spied on?

[Benton]

(07-12-2016, 11:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree we should trust LEOs to do their jobs correctly. This really wasn't much of an issue until everybody became a cameraman and posted videos for folks to construct conspiracy theories around. 

What would you do if someone filmed you at work and then started asking questions about why you do what you do at every move and suggesting you are not doing it correctly?  

To the bold, my profession may be a bad example of that, as it already happens constantly. At least once a day I get a letter, email, Facebook message or just stopped walking down the street asking why I've written something I did, or why I wrote it "wrong" or why I didn't include something. I'm not complaining, that's balanced by just as many liking the same thing.

I think most people that work with or for the public open themselves up to that to a degree.

Politicians do, county/city road construction crews do; media does, retail store employees do, food services. Public interaction and interpretation is part of a majority of jobs out there. But there's been a growing line when it comes to police where some don't want that, where it's not ok to question what they do or why they've done it.

To the first part, maybe that's part of the problem. I don't think things change suddenly. In this case, introducing cameras and recording devices didn't change what some cops were doing, it only made it public.