Decision to Blow up US Citizen With Robot Was Improvised in Less Than 20 Minutes

Activist Post Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Program ^ | July 13, 2016 | By Claire Bernish

[samtheman]

Quick Thinking Ping

[TigerClaws]

Sniper okay = robot okay.

[dirtboy]

While Johnson’s cold-blooded attack on random police officers in one of the most progressive and reform-minded forces in the country landed an official black mark in the annals of American history, the—as many advocates warn—egregious violation of his human and constitutional rights as the first U.S. citizen blown up in this manner earned police, themselves, a similarly notorious mark.

Oh, bullcrap. People are all in a twist because a robot bomb was used instead of a police sniper to take out someone who still wanted to continue killing. He's not more dead by a bomb than a bullet.

[SkyDancer]

But but but he didn’t have a fair trial >sob<

[goldstategop]

It saved lives.

Dallas Police Department had to protect its remaining cops on the scene.

Circumstances made it too dangerous to send in SWAT.

But talking heads know everything when in reality, they know nothing.

[Former Proud Canadian]

"...the use of the “Remotec model F-5” to deliver a pound of C-4 explosive to decimate suspected shooter Micah Xavier Johnson as he targeted police in a sniper-style attack..."

So, if the cops had simply shot him there would be no controversy?

[Tijeras_Slim]

Well, 20 minutes dealing with a well armed killer claiming to have set bombs of his own probably feels a bit different than 20 minutes in the faculty lounge of the Ron Paul Institute solving all the world’s problems.

[agere_contra]

Killing a man who has already killed five people is as ‘life-affirming’ as it gets.

The only improvement would have been if it could have blown him up before he killed anyone.

[Gadsden1st]

Was it a fully automatic robot?

[econjack]

Does this idiot really think this guy is going to let himself be taken alive? He got more due process that the officers did.

[Radix]

That decision required 30 seconds or less.

Anything more was dereliction of duty.

[Lower Deck]

A hotly-contested decision by law enforcement to use a drone robot to blow up a U.S. citizen, who allegedly carried out the murders of five police officers in Dallas, just got exponentially more controversial—because, according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown, the “whole idea was improvised in about 15 to 20 minutes.”

They only reason why they had to go with that "hotly-contested decision" was because there was no way for a sniper to shoot said U.S. citizen through the head. Since there was no doubt about the suspect and since there was every reason to neutralize him as soon as possible then why would a bomb be any worse than a police sniper?

[Boogieman]

“Already igniting fury around the country for neglecting any semblance of due process...”

So what? If a cop kicked the door in and shot him, he’d have gotten exactly the same amount of “due process”.

Due process is for criminal prosecutions, there is no due process required to stop an imminent threat to the safety of yourself or others.

Now I am worried about where this leads to with police, but not because of “due process”, not in this instance at least.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Did they really use 450g of C-4 or is “a pound of C-4” just being bandied about?

Here is a video of 400g of C-4 being set off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajmIEhK4LKc

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

Exigent circumstances ping is more like it.

[Ramius]

What’s the difference between just lobbing a grenade into the space, or using a robot to drive it in? Not much.

[Rurudyne]

A violent criminal who dies during the commission of their crimes gets all the process due.

Same with shooting rioters and looters.

[Lou L]

the fact a citizen was bombed without so much as a nod of consideration for his human, civil, or constitutional rights that has people steamed.

This "citizen" posed an immediate and present danger to police officers and civilians around him. He was actively shooting people. I assume he was given several options to surrender, where he could've been taken peacefully into custody. He apparently refused.

If a similar perpetrator was in a gunfight with police and was killed in a crossfire, would there be a difference? This circumstance and weapon used was akin to the nuclear bomb on Japan; the method was brutal, but the effect was the same: killing him potentially saved the lives of numerous police officers. I don't see a problem with it.

[Donglalinger]