Posted on 07/11/2016 2:59:32 PM PDT by 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
The guy got akbar’d with a remote control ied type thing.
Turnabout is fair play.
Then we need to be nice to them.
Very, VERY nice.
.......my feelings on viewing these pictures are about the same as my feelings when I view pictures of the burned up alleged remains of Hitler.
If any two people in human history deserve what they got, these two do.
agree
Yeah it is. It didn’t deliver bombs but disposed of them in its tub!
“Lethal force was authorized, the used lethal force. I don’t see the problem some are seeing.”
Probably think that using the robot was “cheating,” or something. Like the police have some ethical obligation to get within lethal range of their weapons, “mano a mano” or whatever.
I’m kinda partial to “mobilized IED”, myself.
Uh, the guy (Johnson) said HE had and had planted bombs. Besides, it’s a pretty safe bet that extremist BLM bombings are in the future, anyway, even if DPD had foamed this scum in place, or drowned him with milkshakes.
Significant numbers of the protesters are not bad people, they are misled and lied to people. The lady in Dallas who was shot (but not badly injured), and then she and her son were saved by police shielding them, was, in an interview I saw on TV, making some good points (such as, what happens to "us" (blacks) if the police decide to quit for good?) Yet she and her son had been out there with the protesters.
My guess is that such a person can be reasoned with, but, the argument has to be framed correctly.
First, the Obama Administrations own statistics show that blacks are not disproportionately killed or targeted by police, particularly given black crime rates. Police DO sometimes overreact or use unjustified force, but it happens to whites too. Lavoy Finicum is just one example.
OTOH, blacks DO get a lot of attention from police, because black crime rates are so high. In fact, real racism would be the police NOT trying to go after black crime. But black leaders do not (for the most part) explain to their people that without support from the community, the police have an almost impossible job, which can lead to tensions: Instead, some of these leaders exploit the tensions and make matters worse, to enrich or empower themselves.
Now, some BLM'ers and their supporters may say that the high crime rates themselves are indicative of poverty, hopelessness, and despair in many black communities. I do not entirely "buy" this: There are counter examples around the world where poverty does not necessarily lead to the kind of violence we see on a daily basis in, say Chicago. Further, most poor in America are much, much better off than the poor in, say, the Philippines. But... Let's just say for sake of discussion that "poverty causes crime."
This is your opening. Why is poverty in so many black communities so severe? Why have so many black youths lost the desire to do better (excluding gang membership and / or selling drugs as a way to "do better")? Is it "The Man" / whitey?
Why are there so few jobs for blacks? Who is taking those jobs? (Opening for Trump immigration position.)
Who has been in charge the last 8 years? Have things improved for blacks?
Unemployment, says Obama, and his supporters, is low. Is this believable?
Intact and stable families usually "do better", economically. Who has destroyed the black family? And why?
Now, I realize this approach won't get through to most blacks who would, say, vote for Hillary. But even 10% would be a "big win", and maybe it's that 10% that the Dallas police chief is trying to get through to, too.
Bet that hurt...
That would be a good example. So far we haven't seem them being used frequently here in the USA. We should try to keep it that way.
The choice of tactics can and does influence the behavior of the people one is fighting against, or people who may be contemplating violence. If it didn't why would our military have made so much effort to avoid behavior which would upset the people in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It isn't necessary to be nice, but it can be helpful to avoid actions which can result in growing violence.
Until some radical nut decides to send one to the shopping center or some other public place because it seems like a good idea in their crazy mind.
They have that problem a lot in the Middle East.
Because we are being led by people (especially the Obama Admin.) who have no idea how to win wars.
I'm not saying that civilians should be deliberately abused in wars, and, if they can be co-opted, great. But, we hardly avoided "upsetting Germans or Japanese" in WW2. We SMASHED them, such that very few had any fight left in them once we occupied those countries. Then, we treated the survivors humanely.
Could’ve been amusing if they’d used it.
freeandfreezing wrote: “The last thing we need are unhinged radicals deciding to use even more dangerous weapons.”
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.
The “unhinged radicals’ will resort to explosives, etc., once they realize that their current efforts are not achieving their objectives. That will happen unless we give them exactly what they want.
Megan Kelly had an interesting show last night with a cross section panel discussing these events. A certain black lady from Chicago laid out the BLM agenda: Disarm and disband the police and spend the money on reparations in the black community.
I hope the police told him a pizza was incoming for further negotiations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.