Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[DragonLady]

The way I see it, he was contained and they should have waited out till he came off whatever he was on.

24 hours. See how it's going

I guess it had to happen sometime. I agree with you!

After reading this whole thread, I'm firmly on the side of having waited the guy out.

He was trapped, he was injured, he wasn't going anywhere. Whatever threat he had posed before was gone; he was literally reduced to making loud noises.

Lethal force at that point was absolutely uncalled for. He would've either surrendered or died of his injuries, so there was no need for LE to exact revenge, re-escalate the situation, or put the final nail in the coffin.

All they needed to do was stand 'round, order a very pungent pizza, and wait.

 

[Nessie]

Arresting Johnson alive would be a major step towards sending out the message that the police are changing in response to public demand. The public demand is the perfectly reasonable black lives matter campaign and that the police are killing too many people through excessive use of deadly force and resorting to deadly force far too quickly. The evidence is they clearly are.

 

[Major Major]

Oh, maybe they could just have shot the gun out of his hands?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where?

In multiple posts already.

Play on words

You always say that when I point out the gaping logical holes in your position.

2 hours was not enough. They should have gone on till he came out shooting, gave up, passed out.

No, they should not. We do not need them to take that risk.

The negotiations had hardly got going.

They were never going to get going, because there was nothing to negotiate. There were no terms under which Johnson was going to surrender, and no terms under which the police could let him go.

Rather than being patient the police got fed up, gave up and decided to blow him up.

They were sufficiently patient for the circumstances.

Which takes us right back to trigger happy, excessively violent police over whom the original protest was about.

Way to blame the victims here, Nessie.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, maybe they could just have shot the gun out of his hands?

You've nailed the mindset on display here.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

sorry, wrong thread. Shouldn't have spent so much time at the casino the last couple of days.

 

[Nessie]

In multiple posts already.

I have looked back and do not see an answer to this "You have argued that in this case is was acceptable for the police to kill Johnson. I want to know what other circumstances you would approve of the police killing rather than arresting the suspect?", please answer.

You always say that when I point out the gaping logical holes in your position.

I am pointing out that you play on words to attack my position. You have to because greater efforts at negotiation is not unreasonable to ask for.

No, they should not. We do not need them to take that risk.

They were never going to get going, because there was nothing to negotiate. There were no terms under which Johnson was going to surrender, and no terms under which the police could let him go.

They were sufficiently patient for the circumstances.

Way to blame the victims here, Nessie.

You are acting as if there was no risk in trying to blow Johnson up, but there was risk in patient negotiation. You have no evidence to back you up. What if the bomb had failed to go off? What if it had triggered another bomb and wiped out the surrounding police? Johnson said there were other bombs. Your assertions can be countered by me making assertions.

You also repeat an assertion without evidence that Johnson would never have given up. I can counter you with an unevidenced assertion that with well trained negotiators and more time he would have given up. I can also assert with more time he would have passed out.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have looked back and do not see an answer to this

Your reading comprehension failures are not my problem.

I am pointing out that you play on words to attack my position.

No, I don't. I point out the meaning of what you say. If you don't mean it, don't say it. It's not my fault that what you write is wrong, and pointing out why it's wrong is not playing on words. Words have meaning. Use the meaning.

You have to because greater efforts at negotiation is not unreasonable to ask for.

You want infinite effort at negotiation, and anything short of that is a failure. Your standard is ridiculous.

You are acting as if there was no risk in trying to blow Johnson up

No, I'm acting like there's less risk in trying to blow him up.

but there was risk in patient negotiation.

Of course there was.

You have no evidence to back you up. What if the bomb had failed to go off?

Then you drive the robot back out to a safe location and leave it there for the bomb squad to deal with later.

What if it had triggered another bomb and wiped out the surrounding police?

You undermine your own claims here. If there was another bomb there big enough to wipe out the surrounding police from that distance (!), then Johnson was an unacceptable risk to leave alive, and the only sensible complaint is that using a bomb wasn't the right method for killing him.

Johnson said there were other bombs. Your assertions can be countered by me making assertions.

Except your assertions undermine your own position.

You also repeat an assertion without evidence that Johnson would never have given up.

Johnson's own words are strong evidence of that. So are his actions, and the history of such mass murderers.

I can counter you with an unevidenced assertion that with well trained negotiators and more time he would have given up.

Yeah, no. Your assertion is not only unevidenced, it's actually contradicted by all available evidence.

I can also assert with more time he would have passed out.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he would have attacked before that happened. The police were not obligated to wait and find out.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

OK. So it wasn't explosives used to kill him. It was explosives used as a breaching charge - legitimate use. Can we go home now?

 

[Noztradamus]

Oh, maybe they could just have shot the gun out of his hands?

Shooting? "Lash" LaRue (not a dominatrix) would have used a bullwhip.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It was explosives used as a breaching charge - legitimate use.

That wasn't the intent as described by the department itself. You should know this by now.

 

[Nessie]

Your reading comprehension failures are not my problem.



No, I don't. I point out the meaning of what you say. If you don't mean it, don't say it. It's not my fault that what you write is wrong, and pointing out why it's wrong is not playing on words. Words have meaning. Use the meaning.



You want infinite effort at negotiation, and anything short of that is a failure. Your standard is ridiculous.



No, I'm acting like there's less risk in trying to blow him up.



Of course there was.



Then you drive the robot back out to a safe location and leave it there for the bomb squad to deal with later.



You undermine your own claims here. If there was another bomb there big enough to wipe out the surrounding police from that distance (!), then Johnson was an unacceptable risk to leave alive, and the only sensible complaint is that using a bomb wasn't the right method for killing him.



Except your assertions undermine your own position.



Johnson's own words are strong evidence of that. So are his actions, and the history of such mass murderers.



Yeah, no. Your assertion is not only unevidenced, it's actually contradicted by all available evidence.



Perhaps. Or perhaps he would have attacked before that happened. The police were not obligated to wait and find out.

My standard of continued negotiation until he either gives up, passes out or comes out is reasonable because it best serves justice and it respects the concerns over excessive use of violence by the police when arresting. It whilst it carries some risk, because he was injured and contained the risk was minimised.

Your standard of kill him is unreasonable because it circumvents the rule of law and perpetuates the present controversy about excessive violence by police during arrests. Blowing him up still carries risks because he may have had explosives on him and he could have survived to keep fighting.

Our debate by assumption over the relative risks is not the most important issue here. The police resorting to deadly force against someone who is not attacking them is.

 

[DragonLady]

The police resorting to deadly force against someone who is not attacking them is.

This; especially the bolded part. Once the suspect was injured and trapped, the police needed to just back off and wait.

I appreciate they thought there might be bombs, but to me that's just more reason they should not have taken any action that could've detonated such bombs, or caused the conflict to re-escalate.

LE had all day, all week, all year. They could wait for him to either surrender or succumb. As they apparently knew exactly where to park their death bot, they knew he was contained. That one piece of information should be the bright line for ending the aggression and waiting for the next move from the suspect -if there ever is one. No matter how much the suspect in question taunts, teases, threatens or whines.

 

[Ziggurat]

My standard of continued negotiation until he either gives up, passes out or comes out is reasonable because it best serves justice and it respects the concerns over excessive use of violence by the police when arresting.

Justice must be balanced against safety, and in this case, safety wins.

Your standard of kill him is unreasonable because it circumvents the rule of law

No it doesn't. The law allows for the use of deadly force against threats. You seem confused about what "rule of law" means.

and perpetuates the present controversy about excessive violence by police during arrests.

YOU are perpetuating that controversy.

Blowing him up still carries risks because he may have had explosives on him and he could have survived to keep fighting.

You contradict yourself. You claimed he was no longer a significant threat. But now you claim he would be. That makes no sense.

Our debate by assumption over the relative risks is not the most important issue here.

Yes, it is.

 

[BStrong]

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.

Incorrect.

I've been down the road more than enough to know that revenge is a childish ******** emotion.

I do understand.

To you it's an academic question studied at leisure, without risk.

I can still smell the stink.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whether that's a common argument elsewhere, that's not the argument that was being debated between me and Tony99. Remember, Tony99 didn't simply claim that one didn't need an AR-15 for hog hunting, he claimed it was actually the wrong gun for the task. This is what he said: "If you're hog hunting with an AR-15 you are doing it wrong." But that really doesn't seem to be true at all. Hog hunting with an AR-15 is quite common, and lots of people do it quite successfully. It seems to be just fine for hog hunting.

And the AK-47 is a basic tool of elephant hunting by this standard.

 

[Ziggurat]

And the AK-47 is a basic tool of elephant hunting by this standard.

Nope. The point about lots of people using it is only part of the argument. Its relevance is that a large sample size gives more confidence in the result. But the fact that it seems to work well for the purpose is critical, and you overlooked it. While an AK47 works against elephants, it does not work well, not by my standards.

 

[Ziggurat]

This; especially the bolded part. Once the suspect was injured and trapped, the police needed to just back off and wait.

I appreciate they thought there might be bombs, but to me that's just more reason they should not have taken any action that could've detonated such bombs, or caused the conflict to re-escalate.

First off, both you and Nessie seem to be confused about the threat of explosives. The threat was not simply that he had a bomb WITH him. He said that there were IED's. This means that the police had to worry about bombs at other locations, where there might still be people, bombs which this guy might detonate at any moment. The fact that he was cornered in no way neutralized this threat. As for possibly re-escalating the conflict, that's a judgment call, based on the probability of a successful attack neutralizing him. You are in no position to second-guess the police on this score.

 

[Nessie]

Justice must be balanced against safety, and in this case, safety wins.



No it doesn't. The law allows for the use of deadly force against threats. You seem confused about what "rule of law" means.

He was not threatening anyone when they blew him up. That is the point you keep missing.

YOU are perpetuating that controversy.



You contradict yourself. You claimed he was no longer a significant threat. But now you claim he would be. That makes no sense.



Yes, it is.

Once he was cornered, contained, wounded and had spent 2 hours laughing, singing, taunting the police and not shooting at anyone, he was a minimal threat. At the time he was a minimal threat, the police blew him up with a bomb.

 

[Nessie]

Incorrect.

I've been down the road more than enough to know that revenge is a childish ******** emotion.

I do understand.

To you it's an academic question studied at leisure, without risk.

I can still smell the stink.

I worked as an unarmed security guard in Boston in 1986. There were two firearms incidents when I was working. I managed to be in the wrong play at the wrong time and see another two when I was not working. I have a better idea of the risks than most people in the UK due to having experienced being exposed to them way more than most in the UK.

I prefer an academic than an emotional solution. If revenge was not part of the reason for killing Johnson, what were the motives?