07-10-2016, 01:51 PM
(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.
