Dallas police chief: You’re damned right I’d order the Code Red again

Hot Air.com ^ | July 11, 2016 | ED MORRISEY

[Kaslin]

Don’t try telling Dallas police chief David Brown about ethical dilemmas involving remote-control applications of lethal force. Critics began questioning the decision to use a robot to kill Micah Johnson after several hours of negotiation went nowhere, wondering if this would begin a slippery slope on remote-control lethal force. Brown, however, said he didn’t think twice — and would do it all over again if needed:

#Dallas PD Chief on use of robot: "This wasn't an ethical dilemma for me; I'd do it again to save our officers." https://t.co/o1hvlWKFb2

— ABC News (@ABC) July 11, 2016

As Brown notes, what’s the ethical dilemma at hand anyway? Brown knew that at least two police officers had already been killed, and Johnson was bragging about it — and asking for body counts from his efforts. He tried negotiating with Johnson, but he refused to surrender, and Brown refused to put any more of his men and women at risk in taking Johnson out.

“This wasn’t an ethical dilemma,” Brown told the press. “I’d do it again to save our officers’ lives.” When pressed again on the use of the robot, Brown emphasized the point. “I would use any tool necessary to save our officers’ lives,” he replied, “and I’m not ashamed to say it.”

Besides, Johnson had a “large stockpile” of bombs at his disposal, and police are sure he knew how to use them. Under those circumstances, it was a fair bet that any police officer sent in to kill Johnson would likely have been killed himself before getting the chance. “This wasn’t some novice,” Brown said.

LIVE: Dallas police chief says the sniper 'wasn't some novice'. https://t.co/ZsBkn9rISd pic.twitter.com/UNufXpRjj7

— Reuters Live (@ReutersLive) July 11, 2016

On Saturday, I pointed out that the real issue isn’t the method of delivering lethal force, but whether it’s justified. In this case, it clearly was, for all the reasons Brown points out here. Enough police officers got killed at Johnson’s hands, and he had been given hours of opportunities to surrender. Whether a sniper or a bomb-carrying robot took him out only matters tactically, not ethically.

Reporters wanted to pin Brown down on gun issues, but he proved a bit too adept for that. Declaring that policy wasn’t his job and he’s not interested in hypotheticals, the police chief told reporters that when legislators propose laws, he’ll comment on the specifics. Otherwise, Brown would rather remain agnostic on that, especially given the entrenched positions on all sides:

On the subject of guns, @DallasPD says the policy makers need to do their jobs https://t.co/Aa2LZ0VlCn pic.twitter.com/kjXACzLJC8

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 11, 2016

Finally, Brown did offer some advice on another social issue — protests against police. Why not just become involved in serving communities rather than block traffic and shout? “We’re hiring,” Brown added:

#Dallas Police Chief’s advice to young black men: "Become a part of the solution, serve your communities." pic.twitter.com/zAqLNdWwDe

— Fox News (@FoxNews) July 11, 2016

[submarinerswife]

Was the robot blown up or did it drop the C4 and get away before the explosion?

It would be a shame if they lost the robot.

[Paul R.]

If said lady wants to go that far, then I have a better idea: Stop policing communities who indicate they want the police to stop. Instead, the police new job is to sell drugs to community residents who want them, at an after taxes price that always undercuts the drug pushers by 20%. Split the tax money between reparations, paid directly and very publicly to “community leaders” (we’ll see what they do with it), and paying the police otherwise laid off.*

As an added bonus, this should reduce crime (no more “drug war”) and the savings from not fighting the drug war will be huge.

Sarc off....

[freeandfreezing]

You’re essentially relying upon the same argument for disarmament that the left advanced in the Cold War. The left argued that the West should stop their armaments programs because those programs only resulted in Soviet armament programs.

Not really. Your suggestion is that unhinged people rebelling against some aspects of the behavior of the government will be deterred in the same way that a foreign government would be deterred. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

[DugwayDuke]

freeandfreezize wrote: “Not really. Your suggestion is that unhinged people rebelling against some aspects of the behavior of the government will be deterred in the same way that a foreign government would be deterred. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.”

I didn’t mean to imply that ‘unhinged people’ could be deterred. My point was that these ‘unhinged people’ will not forgo using explosives because the police do not.

Your original argument is also based upon the premise that the police are responsible for the actions of these ‘unhinged people’ and that if the police would just refrain from certain actions, these ‘unhinged people’ would not react in an ‘unhinged’ manner.

[freeandfreezing]

Your original argument is also based upon the premise that the police are responsible for the actions of these ‘unhinged people’ and that if the police would just refrain from certain actions, these ‘unhinged people’ would not react in an ‘unhinged’ manner.

The "unhinged" people certainly do react to what the government does. Had the ATF simply arrested David Koresh while he was shopping, and had the ATF and FBI skipped sending in a covert surveillance team that ended up in a firefight with Randy Weaver and his son followed by a sniper who shot Mrs. Weaver then it is very unlikely that 168 people would have lost their lives in Oklahoma City at the hands of a few "unhinged" people.

I'm not suggesting that the actions of the police, or other law enforcement groups are directly responsible for the actions of the "unhinged" people, but it is smart strategically to consider what the effects of one's actions are.

Using a mobile bomb, a new type of weapon in this kind of situation, may have unintended side effects. Let's hope not.