|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On July 09 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe we blew up one of Dallas the guys with a robot.
We just used a little Jihadi robot to take down a BLM extremist. This is the most politically relevant killing ever, lol. Or to anyone not trying to project their narrative. You used a robot to take out a terrorist with minimal loss of life But whatever floats your boat.
I wasn't projecting a narrative. I was pointing out how BLM, drones (which were even taking a page out Jihadi bullshit lol), police brutality, the whole bit. It's just funny to see it all mixed into one shitshow.
|
From 2015:
Here at The Watch, we’ve praised Dallas Police Chief David Brown and his staff for the department’s community-oriented approach to policing, openness and transparency about excessive force, its rejection of law enforcement as a revenue generator, and its First Amendment-friendly approach to protest.
Now, there’s some evidence of a payoff.
Dallas’ 2014 murder rate was its lowest since 1930 — the year Bonnie and Clyde met at a West Dallas house party.
And the Dallas Police Department’s preliminary count of 116 murders last year — there is one unexplained death awaiting a ruling — would be the lowest yearly murder tally since 1965. It’s also a notable drop from the 143 murders in 2013 and it’s fewer than half the murders recorded in 2004.
Police officials say their crime-fighting and crime-prevention strategies have played a major role in reducing homicides, the rarest of major crimes. Others say outside variables — medical advancements, changing demographics and better social services — deserve much of the credit.
But they all are marveling at the figures.
“I’m really amazed at how low that number has gotten,” said Dallas ISD Police Chief Craig Miller, who became a Dallas police officer in 1982 and later headed the homicide unit.
Miller said police technology, such as surveillance cameras, has helped deter criminals. He also said paramedics and better trauma care have played big roles. Dallas Fire-Rescue has touted improved response times in recent years. And officers also are now equipped with tourniquets and gauze. One officer used the aids last week to help save a gunshot victim in South Dallas.
But it isn’t just the murder rate; the overall crime rate also continues to drop in Dallas....
Source
|
Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted.
Source
|
On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source
So what? What is the problem with that?
Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target?
Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life".
While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally.
But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again.
|
Another Officer shot in the line of duty
BALLWIN, MO (KTVI)- Authorities are investigating after a police officer was shot during a traffic stop Friday morning in west St. Louis County. It happened shortly before 11 a.m. near the 300 block of New Ballwin Road, near Old Ballwin Road. According to our partners at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the wound was in the neck.
The officer, who works for the Ballwin Police Department, was transported to a local hospital for treatment. His condition is unknown at this time.
The suspect was apprehended in the 800 block of Burgundy Drive after a foot pursuit. Investigators say a handgun was recovered.
Police say he is a tall, thin African-American male who was wearing a gray tee-shirt and blue jeans. He was allegedly driving an older model blue Ford Taurus with Illinois temporary tags during the time of the shooting.
The St. Louis County Police Department will conduct this investigation.
The City of Ballwin has a population of nearly 30,000. It is located in west St. Louis County, along Manchester Road west of Highway 141.
http://fox2now.com/2016/07/08/report-officer-shot-in-ballwin-manhunt-underway/
|
On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again.
It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him.
|
Trump's Statement
Last night’s horrific execution-style shootings of 12 Dallas law enforcement officers – five of whom were killed and seven wounded - is an attack on our country. It is a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.
We must restore law and order. We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street.
The senseless, tragic deaths of two people in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.
This morning I offer my thoughts and prayers for all of the victims’ families, and we pray for our brave police officers and first responders who risk their lives to protect us every single day.
Our nation has become too divided. Too many Americans feel like they’ve lost hope. Crime is harming too many citizens. Racial tensions have gotten worse, not better. This isn’t the American Dream we all want for our children.
This is a time, perhaps more than ever, for strong leadership, love and compassion. We will pull through these tragedies.
Source
Clinton's Statement
I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them.
Source
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 09 2016 03:09 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again. It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him.
What if he's got some kinda detonator somewhere? What if he intended to blow a bunch of people up as soon as he hit the end of his bullshit?
|
Wait are people seriously upset that they used a robot to blow him up?
|
On July 09 2016 03:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again. It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him. What if he's got some kinda detonator somewhere? What if he intended to blow a bunch of people up as soon as he hit the end of his bullshit?
That's why i said "withouth risking anyone's life". But if you want the police to act on "if" scenarios, be my guest.
|
On July 09 2016 03:19 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 09 2016 03:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again. It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him. What if he's got some kinda detonator somewhere? What if he intended to blow a bunch of people up as soon as he hit the end of his bullshit? That's why i said "withouth risking anyone's life". But if you want the police to act on "if" scenarios, be my guest.
When you're got domestic terrrorists heavily armed, killing cops, and making bomb threats, the life of the criminal is definitely not a priority.
They tried talking to him and he just threatened to kill more cops and made bomb threats. There's a point where enough is enough and the line was crossed.
|
On July 09 2016 03:18 NukeD wrote:
Wait are people seriously upset that they used a robot to blow him up?
I don't think its the robot so much as the blowing him up. You have to admit the police bombing someone is pretty weird.
|
Show me transcripts, not what the cops say he said. And before you think i am doing this as some sort of conspiracy, is not, you need transparency first and foremost in why such decission was called.
|
For some reason, I can't help but picture the robot as the interrogation bot from A New Hope.
|
On July 09 2016 03:19 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 09 2016 03:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again. It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him. What if he's got some kinda detonator somewhere? What if he intended to blow a bunch of people up as soon as he hit the end of his bullshit? That's why i said "withouth risking anyone's life". But if you want the police to act on "if" scenarios, be my guest.
I think the guy spraying bullets left and right is enough "risking someones life".
I'm usually against police opening fire first and i'm aware that this stance is very debatable (and not the realitiy in the US), but are we really argueing about their right to shoot back? And for this it does not matter to me, if they shoot with their rifles, or if they send a robot and blow the guy up.
|
On July 09 2016 03:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:18 NukeD wrote:
Wait are people seriously upset that they used a robot to blow him up? I don't think its the robot so much as the blowing him up. You have to admit the police bombing someone is pretty weird.
Did they actually send a bomb to blow him up or was it a blast to knock out the door that incidentally killed him?
It's weird yea but four trained people going on a cop killing-spree targeting white people is pretty weird too.
The gunman killed in a stand-off with Dallas police said he wanted to kill white people, especially officers, the city's police chief has said.
The suspect, named by US media as Micah Johnson, 25, said he was upset about the recent police shootings of black people, Police Chief David Brown said.
Five Dallas police officers were killed and seven wounded during a march against the shooting of black men by police, officials say.
Three people are in custody.
Mr Brown said the suspect had been killed when police used explosives placed by a robot to end a tense stand-off in a building where he was holed up. Before that he had spoken to a negotiator.
So yea there was a negotiator.
Source
|
On July 09 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 09 2016 03:18 NukeD wrote:
Wait are people seriously upset that they used a robot to blow him up? I don't think its the robot so much as the blowing him up. You have to admit the police bombing someone is pretty weird. Did they actually send a bomb to blow him up or was it a blast to knock out the door that incidentally killed him?
They bombed him intentionally to kill him. That is confirmed by the PD themselves.
But I still don't see the difference between bombing him and shooting him.
|
On July 09 2016 03:25 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:19 Godwrath wrote:On July 09 2016 03:16 Mohdoo wrote:On July 09 2016 03:09 Godwrath wrote:On July 09 2016 03:06 mahrgell wrote:On July 09 2016 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Early Friday morning, a police standoff with a suspect in the killing of five police officers in Dallas came to an abrupt end on Friday morning in an unusual way.
“Negotiations broke down. We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” Dallas police chief David Brown explained in a press conference. “We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was.”
You read that correctly: “bomb robot.”
Typically, in violent standoffs involving gunfire, police wait out the suspects, or try to deploy snipers of their own to remove the threat. The general rule is that if police are not directly under threat of taking fire, they should try to bring home the suspect alive. Brown, though, said the robot was the only choice the force had.
“Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased,” he said.
The use of a robot to kill someone has taken police observers aback. Using robots to place small detonating devices next to larger bombs so that they detonate remotely has long been a tactic used by police bomb squads. And last year, a robot was used to talk a man out of suicide, after using it to deliver him a phone and pizza.
But placing a bomb on a police robot with the intention to kill a suspect—if that is, in fact, what happened—would represent a major shift in policing tactics. In fact, it may be the first “use of robot in this way in policing” in the United States, defense technology expert Peter Singer tweeted. Source So what? What is the problem with that? Why should there be a rule, that in a firefight only personally aimed guns are allowed to eliminate the target? Cops have been giving a free pass, after they shot down a guy who "may have wanted to reach for his pocket" and the officers felt "danger to their life". While here we have a guy who has openly declared that he wants to kill white cops, is engaging in a fire fight (again)... and now we have an uproar because the police killed him, because they used a "bomb robot". Okay. Makes fucking sense. Totally. But don't worry... It aint a first. There was at least one case in a hostage situation in Europe, where police actually used a gun robot to gun down the target. Must have been at least 5 years ago... Not sure I will find it again. It was more like if you have trapped the suspect, and you can wait it out withouth risking anyone's life, you would do so in the hopes of catching him alive, rather than actively trying to kill him. What if he's got some kinda detonator somewhere? What if he intended to blow a bunch of people up as soon as he hit the end of his bullshit? That's why i said "withouth risking anyone's life". But if you want the police to act on "if" scenarios, be my guest. I think the guy spraying bullets left and right is enough "risking someones life". I'm usually against police opening fire first and i'm aware that this stance is very debatable (and not the realitiy in the US), but are we really argueing about their right to shoot back? And for this it does not matter to me, if they shoot with their rifles, or if they send a robot and blow the guy up. He was trapped, and there wasn't a shootout. It was a stalemate situation where the cops decided to use a robot to kill him rather than to wait. I am not saying it was the wrong decission, i am asking why it was the right decission instead of taking it for granted.
|
On July 09 2016 03:28 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 09 2016 03:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 09 2016 03:18 NukeD wrote:
Wait are people seriously upset that they used a robot to blow him up? I don't think its the robot so much as the blowing him up. You have to admit the police bombing someone is pretty weird. Did they actually send a bomb to blow him up or was it a blast to knock out the door that incidentally killed him? They bombed him intentionally to kill him. That is confirmed by the PD themselves. But I still don't see the difference between bombing him and shooting him.
It's better than the SWAT storming the place and losing more lives. I don't really see the difference either. They tried with a negotiator so it's not like they just defaulted to killing the guy for the sake of killing him.
I'm sure they wouldn't use a bomb in that situation unless they were sure there would be no collateral damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
