Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[Ziggurat]

The police can use deadly force to neutralise threats, but here they used it once the threat had been contained and all but neutralised

In other words, they used it when the threat wasn't neutralized, in order to neutralize it. "Contained" isn't sufficient, and "all but neutralized" means not neutralized.

because they could not be bothered continuing negotiations.

Your characterization is a gross misrepresentation.

I understand that the law means the police are evidence gatherers and should bring criminals to court.

Then you understand it wrong. The police are also empowered to stop threats.

It is the court to decide on guilt and punishment. You do not understand that.

This wasn't about either. It was about neutralizing a threat.

 

[KatieG]

WTF over?

Are you attempting to imply that mass murderers may simply be overcome by the brutality of their acts and atone for them by killing themselves?

These actors march to whatever sick music is playing in their head, shoot/stab/run over/whatever their victims till it bores them or they run out of marching music and then off themselves to deny any entity or agency control over their fate.

It takes a special kind of political/religious motivation or insanity to do this ****, and the actors that commit these acts are far enough around the bend that whatever brutality they visit on others doesn't mean anything to them. All their victims are nothing more than meat.

That's enough reason for me to want them dealt w/ in similar fashion, unless they do in fact surrender. There is -0- benefit for anyone in treating actors that commit such acts as anything more than the rabid animals that they are.

 

[marplots]

(some snipped)

It takes a special kind of political/religious motivation or insanity to do this ****, and the actors that commit these acts are far enough around the bend that whatever brutality they visit on others doesn't mean anything to them. All their victims are nothing more than meat.

That's enough reason for me to want them dealt w/ in similar fashion, unless they do in fact surrender. There is -0- benefit for anyone in treating actors that commit such acts as anything more than the rabid animals that they are.

Why draw the line at surrender if they are rabid animals deserving death?

Is it because the perp isn't the only one being evaluated here, but the authorities as well?

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes loonies like myself get the impression folk say "humans and animals" rather than "humans and other animals" for reasons that go beyond convenience and tradition. I know, it's crazy.

It's not crazy. Just silly. You took the opportunity of your "misunderstanding" to do some virtue signaling.

Putting that aside, I'd be interested in how the belief that brutalizing non-humans for kicks is profoundly unethical implies that (as you say) "human life is equal to animal life". That seems bizarre to me.

Well, riddle me this: if animal life isn't equal to human life, why is it wrong (not just "a bad idea") to kill them for any reason?

 

[Nessie]

You didn't answer my question, which was if the plan is to wait until he attacks, how many casualties are acceptable? The police plan -- one that actually worked and killed the terrorist -- anticipated zero police or civilian casualties. Potential casualties have to be evaluated when planning to take down an active shooter.

There is no numerical answer. It is the police's job to take risks and apprehend offenders. If any police die during the apprehension there are various factors at play. Were the police behind proper cover? Were their tactics sensible? Did anyone make a mistake?

The police plan did not work if like me rule of law and the role of the courts is paramount.

As it stands you are handing over power to the police to hand out death sentences without trial since they decided to kill after 2 hours of attempting to negotiate an arrest.

 

[Nessie]

Threatening someone with a weapon isn't a capital crime in this country.

Therefore, by your logic, if someone has a gun in your face, with their finger on the trigger, the cops absolutely SHOULD NOT SHOOT THEM! Otherwise you are giving the cops power to convict and punish using the death penalty for a crime that is not deserving of capital punishment.

Hell, even if the person pulls the trigger, killing you, the cops still shouldn't fire in most jurisdictions, because murder isn't a capital crime most places.

Strawman and false analogy.

 

[Nessie]

Undoubtedly, but the major difference here is that 1. Stevens acted in a criminal environment (drug dealers/users) to begin with, and 2, When LE encountered him, he did not resist or in any way attempt to harm LEO's or members of the public.

There is a quantitative difference between criminals and the actors in Dallas and elsewhere. Criminals are criminals, mad dogs are mad dogs. You don't do well by not recognizing the difference.

Here's the deal. The compound I lived in when I was in Saudi was hit by terrorists in '03. The ***** murdered the gate guards and unarmed individuals inside. I knew some of these victims very well.

When I was in Iraq in '04 I witnessed suicide bombings.

****ers that do these things, I want every single *********** one of them dead or in custody, period. I don't need to interview, understand and comprehend their motivations, backgrounds or anything else about them. That is not my job. I want every one of them dead.

BTW, no sleep last night for me again. These things weigh on me in a significantly different way from people who have voyeuristic experience only.

I know what the pain and fear and loss feels like, and the guilt that comes from thinking too much about what I might have done to see something before it happened, that may have saved an innocent life. I do not spend one fraction of a second worrying about the fate of a degenerate **** that believes murdering unarmed (or armed in the case of Dallas) people is a legitimate course of action.

I can understand from that, why you are for killing them and want revenge. Maybe you can understand why I do not feel that way and want rule of law and primacy of the courts.

 

[Nessie]

It doesn't matter how you see it; the shooter made clear he saw it as a battle to the death. He wasn't "trying to escape", he was trying to maximize the body count before being killed in a blaze of glory.

He had been trying to escape. He was cornered, contained and had stopped fighting. He was laughing, taunting and singing. That is not a blaze of glory.

 

[Nessie]

In other words, they used it when the threat wasn't neutralized, in order to neutralize it. "Contained" isn't sufficient, and "all but neutralized" means not neutralized.

Play on words. Johnson was trapped and going nowhere. He was no threat to the public.

Your characterization is a gross misrepresentation.

It is based on what the police say. They said he had stopped shooting for 2 hours. He was taunting them, laughing and signing. They say they decided on the option to blow him up rather than make any attempt to arrest.

Then you understand it wrong. The police are also empowered to stop threats.

Which they had done. Now it was time for arrest, which they gave up on far too soon and blew him up instead.

 

[Fizil]

Strawman and false analogy.

No it isn't. That is the pure consequence of your logic. Do we not give the police the ability to be judge, jury and executioner in situations like I described? Yes, and rightfully so. Your philosophy on use of deadly force naturally implies that should not be allowed to be so.

Now, you don't actually hold the position I describe, but that is only because the position you hold on police use of deadly force is inconsistent with the principle you've declared on police use of deadly force.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm still wondering how the police managed to sneak the robot up on the suspect if the suspect had such a worrisome freedom of movement or action.

Has anyone read or heard any information indicating how long it had been between the bomb being detonated and the last communication from the suspect?

 

[Ziggurat]

Play on words.

No, it isn't. The distinctions are real and important.

Johnson was trapped and going nowhere. He was no threat to the public.

You're the one playing on words. So what if he wasn't a threat to the public? He was a threat to the police.

It is based on what the police say.

And I have no reason to doubt them in this case.

They said he had stopped shooting for 2 hours. He was taunting them, laughing and signing. They say they decided on the option to blow him up rather than make any attempt to arrest.

Good. Any attempt to arrest would have jeopardized officers unnecessarily.

Which they had done. Now it was time for arrest, which they gave up on far too soon and blew him up instead.

You keep saying it was "too soon", but you don't actually have any standard by which that can be evaluated. It's completely your subjective and uninformed opinion. Why would anyone give that any weight?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm still wondering how the police managed to sneak the robot up on the suspect if the suspect had such a worrisome freedom of movement or action.

My guess is that he didn't expect the robot to be a threat to him. It's not like this was a common law enforcement tactic.

 

[crescent]

I'm still wondering how the police managed to sneak the robot up on the suspect if the suspect had such a worrisome freedom of movement or action.

Has anyone read or heard any information indicating how long it had been between the bomb being detonated and the last communication from the suspect?

He probably never saw the robot. It placed the bomb against a wall, the shooter was on the other side of the wall. A few of the less restrained news outlets have shown photos.

 

[Nessie]

No it isn't. That is the pure consequence of your logic. Do we not give the police the ability to be judge, jury and executioner in situations like I described? Yes, and rightfully so. Your philosophy on use of deadly force naturally implies that should not be allowed to be so.

Now, you don't actually hold the position I describe, but that is only because the position you hold on police use of deadly force is inconsistent with the principle you've declared on police use of deadly force.

There is a world of difference between defending yourself or others when someone is shooting in public and blowing someone up who has been trapped inside a building and has stopped shooting.

When Johnson was still shooting out in the street he was a legitimate target for the police to use deadly force on. Once trapped inside and not shooting he was no longer a legitimate target to use deadly force on.

 

[theprestige]

I'm still wondering how the police managed to sneak the robot up on the suspect if the suspect had such a worrisome freedom of movement or action.

Has anyone read or heard any information indicating how long it had been between the bomb being detonated and the last communication from the suspect?

I think this has already been answered, but here's another scenario: Draw the shooter's attention to one side, and then assault from the other side.

 

[Nessie]

No, it isn't. The distinctions are real and important.



You're the one playing on words. So what if he wasn't a threat to the public? He was a threat to the police.



And I have no reason to doubt them in this case.



Good. Any attempt to arrest would have jeopardized officers unnecessarily.

You are now suggesting that any murder suspect should be dealt with by the police by them killing them. That is what you appear to be arguing.

You keep saying it was "too soon", but you don't actually have any standard by which that can be evaluated. It's completely your subjective and uninformed opinion. Why would anyone give that any weight?

It is subjective and uniformed to claim 2 hours was enough.

 

[Cylinder]

There is a world of difference between defending yourself or others when someone is shooting in public and blowing someone up who has been trapped inside a building and has stopped shooting.

When Johnson was still shooting out in the street he was a legitimate target for the police to use deadly force on. Once trapped inside and not shooting he was no longer a legitimate target to use deadly force on.

That is, in your opinion. The law has a different view.

 

[trustbutverify]

There is a world of difference between defending yourself or others when someone is shooting in public and blowing someone up who has been trapped inside a building and has stopped shooting.

When Johnson was still shooting out in the street he was a legitimate target for the police to use deadly force on. Once trapped inside and not shooting he was no longer a legitimate target to use deadly force on.

I'm assuming you would support the arrest of the officers responsible for murder or manslaughter, correct?

 

[Ziggurat]

You are now suggesting that any murder suspect should be dealt with by the police by them killing them.

No I'm not. There are relevant circumstances here besides the fact that he was a murder suspect.

That is what you appear to be arguing.

Not if you pay even a modicum of attention.

It is subjective and uniformed to claim 2 hours was enough.

As far as I can tell, you don't believe any amount of time would ever be enough. Your objection to 2 hours as insufficient is meaningless if you cannot say what would be sufficient, and you have consistently failed to do that.