Posted on 07/13/2016 9:49:10 AM PDT by b4its2late
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.”
Already igniting fury around the country for neglecting any semblance of due process, 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, has been revealed by the police chief as a hastily-plotted … whim.
Brown’s disturbing offhand comment came during a press conference in which the model of the “mechanical tactical drone”—clarified as the “Remotec Andros Mark V-A1″—was finally made public, in an apparent attempt to quell constitutional rights’ advocates ire over the unprecedented move by police.
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.
Obviously, the controversy doesn’t end with a model name—the drone isn’t the issue for most people outraged over its use; rather, 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.
As Daniel McAdams for the Ron Paul Institute keenly noted, following the now-apparent improvised and hasty decision by law enforcement to explode Johnson:
The media and opinion leaders are presenting us with a false choice: if we question the use of drones to kill Americans—even if we suspect they have done very bad things—we somehow do not care about the lives of police officers. That is not the case. It is perfectly possible to not want police officers to be killed in the line of duty but to wholeheartedly reject the idea of authorities using drones to remotely kill Americans before they are found guilty.
Noting police originally suspected a different person altogether of perpetrating the attacks, McAdams implored the country to consider the ramifications of setting such a precedent—and, considering the disclosure of the nearly impromptu decision to use this drone, that warning should be an imperative.
Perhaps we all need to familiarize ourselves with this drone’s mechanics now that this dystopic precedent has been set.
Manufactured by the military-industrial complex’s darling, Northrop Grumman, this tactical robot “is driven by a human via remote control, weighs 790 pounds and has a top speed of 3.5 mph,” as the Washington Post described. “It carries a camera with a 26x optical zoom and 12x digital zoom. When its arm is fully extended, it can lift a 60-pound weight. The ‘hand’ at the end of the arm can apply a grip of about 50 pounds of force.”
Interestingly enough, the $151,000 tactical robot provided a far more life-affirming service just one year ago.
According to Metro UK, the same model once assisted the California Highway Patrol when negotiations with a man threatening to kill himself by jumping from a San Jose overpass failed—by delivering a pizza.
Technological advancement, though overwhelmingly positive, is only as beneficent as those who put it to use—and how they choose to employ it.
In just one year, a pizza-delivering robot with the potential to save human life during bomb threats or similar situations became a casually-deployed, due process-stripping weapon of war against a U.S. citizen.
It would be prudent we take more than just a minute to critically consider that.
Quick Thinking Ping
Sniper okay = robot okay.
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.
But but but he didn’t have a fair trial >sob<
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.
So, if the cops had simply shot him there would be no controversy?
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.
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.
Was it a fully automatic robot?
Anything more was dereliction of duty.
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?
“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.
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
Exigent circumstances ping is more like it.
What’s the difference between just lobbing a grenade into the space, or using a robot to drive it in? Not much.
A violent criminal who dies during the commission of their crimes gets all the process due.
Same with shooting rioters and looters.
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.
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.