Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[Cylinder]

If revenge was not part of the reason for killing Johnson, what were the motives?

The prevention of death or serious injury to police and others while effecting arrest.

 

[Nessie]

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.

It has already been pointed out that blowing Johnson up could have triggered other bombs, or left bombs in unknown locations still to explode. You are also in no position to second guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Wrong. He was threatening other people. That's the whole point about his IED claims.

Once he was cornered, contained, wounded and had spent 2 hours laughing, singing, taunting the police and not shooting at anyone

He did shoot at police during this time.

It has already been pointed out that blowing Johnson up could have triggered other bombs, or left bombs in unknown locations still to explode. You are also in no position to second guess.

I'm not second-guessing the police. You are.

 

[Nessie]

Wrong. He was threatening other people. That's the whole point about his IED claims.



He did shoot at police during this time.

Please show your source for that.

I'm not second-guessing the police. You are.

No you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please show your source for that.

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

“We tried to negotiate for several hours. Negotiations broke down, we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect."

No you are.

How am I the one second-guessing the police if I'm accepting their decision and you aren't? You're the one who insists they made the wrong decision, not me. Do you even know what the term "second guess" means?

Oh, that's right: using words correctly is playing on them.

 

[Nessie]

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

“We tried to negotiate for several hours. Negotiations broke down, we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect."

So instead of trying to get negotiations going again, they blew him up. That makes the police's actions even worse. The bomb was used to end the situation, not to defend the police during an attack.

How am I the one second-guessing the police if I'm accepting their decision and you aren't? You're the one who insists they made the wrong decision, not me. Do you even know what the term "second guess" means?

Oh, that's right: using words correctly is playing on them.

You have anticipated or predicted (someone's actions or thoughts) by guesswork. You have second guessed. So have I. What I say was wrong was giving up negotiating and blowing Johnson up.

 

[BStrong]

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?

Ending him before he could cause any more mayhem.

The actor could have exord and try to lure in officers by either lying low and not responding to communications or by pretending to surrender, or could also be in the process of booby-trapping his own body.

If you've ever heard the expression that "I wouldn't touch (something) with a ten foot pole," that's what the reference means.

A couple of old timers had a simple explanation - "some of those dead sonsabitches will kill you every time."

My father was more blunt "if the head's still attached, don't take any chances."

The LEA's involved made a good decision in using the exord device on the actor. If the actor had an explosive vest, or had otherwise booby-trapped himself with some type of exord, chances are that the device used on him would detonate anything he had on his person.

 

[Cylinder]

So instead of trying to get negotiations going again, they blew him up. That makes the police's actions even worse. The bomb was used to end the situation, not to defend the police during an attack.

Ending the situation was the means of defending police.

 

[Nessie]

Ending him before he could cause any more mayhem.

Which reads as revenge.

The actor could have exord and try to lure in officers by either lying low and not responding to communications or by pretending to surrender, or could also be in the process of booby-trapping his own body.

If you've ever heard the expression that "I wouldn't touch (something) with a ten foot pole," that's what the reference means.

A couple of old timers had a simple explanation - "some of those dead sonsabitches will kill you every time."

My father was more blunt "if the head's still attached, don't take any chances."

The LEA's involved made a good decision in using the exord device on the actor. If the actor had an explosive vest, or had otherwise booby-trapped himself with some type of exord, chances are that the device used on him would detonate anything he had on his person.

"Could have". "If". "Chances". He was injured, cornered, could not fight his way out or hit the police in an exchange of fire, and when he was blown up he was not attacking anyone.

You are happy he the police blew him up because he killed 5 police officers, that is revenge as a motive no matter how much you deny it. It is not justice.

 

[Ziggurat]

So instead of trying to get negotiations going again, they blew him up. That makes the police's actions even worse.

You're just making up stuff as you go along, aren't you? You set out criteria for why the police were wrong, find out that you were wrong about events matching those criteria, and then basically flip your criteria by 180 degrees.

You have anticipated or predicted (someone's actions or thoughts) by guesswork. You have second guessed.

How can I have anticipated or predicted something when all of this happened in the past?

Next time you use Google to define your words, try reading the whole damn thing. The relevant definition is the second one (the one which doesn't involve time travel):

"judge or criticize (someone) with hindsight."

But I was wrong about one thing, and you were right: you aren't second guessing the police, because you don't even have hindsight.

 

[Nessie]

Ending the situation was the means of defending police.

Defending the police from an injured contained man who could not fight his way out or hit the police in an exchange of fire because the police had sufficient cover to protect them, as is the tactic for all containments.

The point of the protests that ended in this shooting is that the police too often defend themselves using deadly force against low threats and in this case when not even being attacked.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ending him before he could cause any more mayhem.

Which reads as revenge.

No it doesn't. You have some sort of weird temporal dyslexia going on. When you act to prevent something from happening, that isn't revenge, by definition.

 

[Ziggurat]

Defending the police from an injured contained man who could not fight his way out or hit the police in an exchange of fire because the police had sufficient cover to protect them, as is the tactic for all containments.

Still ignoring the IED threat, I see.

 

[BStrong]

Which reads as revenge.



"Could have". "If". "Chances". He was injured, cornered, could not fight his way out or hit the police in an exchange of fire, and when he was blown up he was not attacking anyone.

You are happy he the police blew him up because he killed 5 police officers, that is revenge as a motive no matter how much you deny it. It is not justice.

Because you don't have a clue about this type of situation doesn't mean anyone else is required to operate in the dark. What I posted was an absolute truth wrt terrorist incidents and sop for LE tactical teams and similar military units - absent absolute proof a terrorist actor is dead, you make sure they are. It has been practiced on your side of the world too, the the Iranian Embassy when the SAS went in and rescued the hostages being held by Iranian terrorists is what first comes to mind, and I'm certain that similar ROE was used in Northern Ireland.

I don't know of any examples in the UK where LE used exord on a threat, but it certainly wouldn't be any less effective there than it was in Dallas.

BTW, second bolded - why are you misrepresenting what I've posted? from Friday, post 833 in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11388239&postcount=833


To me. it doesn't make any difference if the shooter shot and killed a group of Muslims, Gays, Democrats, Republicans or accordion players.

The moment he committed those acts and didn't surrender or DIP (Die in Place) he was fair game, and anything that was done to him is on him


That's my position. Spin it the way you want, but the fact that the victims were LEO's holds no significance to me - it's the the terrorist act that separates this from a common crime that can be addressed with arrest, prosecution and incarceration.

 

[Belz...]

So instead of trying to get negotiations going again, they blew him up.

He was shooting at them.

I mean, yeah, not killing people is cool and all, but I draw the line at "he's shooting at me!"

 

[BStrong]

Still ignoring the IED threat, I see.

When someone claims they're well informed on this subject matter because they encountered a firearm twice and heard of other instances where a firearm made an appearance you can't expect them to understand the threat that exord presents in an incident like Dallas.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's extremely important for police to wait for someone to clearly demonstrate that they are a deadly threat, before they resort to deadly force. It's completely unacceptable for police to just walk up to someone and shoot them because they might potentially become a threat in the future.

So, yeah. I don't really see the problem with what the police did here.

 

[BStrong]

A New York magazine article - Why Cops Handcuff Dead People.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/04/why-cops-handcuff-dead-people.html

Lesson 8: Handcuff all downed suspects. Some officers might feel that it is not nice to handcuff suspects that have been shot, and others might believe that it is unnecessary to cuff all suspects because some are “obviously” dead. Counted among the suspects shot during incidents that officers reported during the VALOR interviews were some who appeared to be dead—for example, from multiple rifle rounds to the head—but who were still alive. As noted in the introduction, some human beings have a remarkable capacity to survive gunshot wounds. Fortunately, none of the thoughtdead offenders managed to injure any officers interviewed, but the fact that they were still alive meant that they maintained the capacity to do so. The capacity of downed suspects is hindered substantially when they are cuffed. No matter how severely injured they might be, therefore, all downed suspects should be handcuffed.

Absent the latitude to utilize military sop, handcuffing a downed individual serves to deny uninjured/lightly injured actors the opportunity to kill or injure other individuals.

Their primary source:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=2665&issue_id=52012

 

[cullennz]

A New York magazine article - Why Cops Handcuff Dead People.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/04/why-cops-handcuff-dead-people.html

Lesson 8: Handcuff all downed suspects. Some officers might feel that it is not nice to handcuff suspects that have been shot, and others might believe that it is unnecessary to cuff all suspects because some are “obviously” dead. Counted among the suspects shot during incidents that officers reported during the VALOR interviews were some who appeared to be dead—for example, from multiple rifle rounds to the head—but who were still alive. As noted in the introduction, some human beings have a remarkable capacity to survive gunshot wounds. Fortunately, none of the thoughtdead offenders managed to injure any officers interviewed, but the fact that they were still alive meant that they maintained the capacity to do so. The capacity of downed suspects is hindered substantially when they are cuffed. No matter how severely injured they might be, therefore, all downed suspects should be handcuffed.

Absent the latitude to utilize military sop, handcuffing a downed individual serves to deny uninjured/lightly injured actors the opportunity to kill or injure other individuals.

Their primary source:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=2665&issue_id=52012

Lol

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think it's extremely important for police to wait for someone to clearly demonstrate that they are a deadly threat, before they resort to deadly force. It's completely unacceptable for police to just walk up to someone and shoot them because they might potentially become a threat in the future.

So, yeah. I don't really see the problem with what the police did here.

Are you saying your logic should be the basis for deadly force law or are you arguing they didn't violate laws concerning deadly force?