Multiple police shot in Dallas protest

[theprestige]

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?

I make no pretense of logic in that post. Nor am I making any argument about the law. I do, however, think that in this case, based on the information currently available to me, the police acted prudently, ethically, morally, and even humanely. I think that what they did was in keeping with what I expect from responsible law enforcement. I think that what they did upholds the ideal of a rational, peace-loving society.

On a related note: Some people seem to think that when someone picks up a gun and starts shooting people, and then barricades themselves against assault by the police, that person has created a situation in which they are entitled to society's forbearance. That, having done what they have done, society now owes it to them to leave them in peace, unless they resume the violent acts which they have paused.

I feel it is just the opposite. I feel that such a person has created a situation in which they have given up their claim on society's tolerance. That, having embarked on a course of violence, their only recourse is to surrender and plea for mercy. Negotiation and a peaceful resolution may be attempted at the discretion of the police, but the killer is not entitled to these things. It's up to the killer, and the killer alone, to convince the police that a peaceful outcome is worth their effort.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I disagree with you over the police's motives. Minimal effort was made to arrest someone who had killed other police and instead they blew him up with a bomb. The main thing prevented by the police was the court ruling on the crime and punishment.

 

[Nessie]

Still ignoring the IED threat, I see.

You are still assuming blowing him up was the best tactic for dealing with IEDs.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I know that in Scotland the tactic is contain and negotiate and that negotiation will go on till the person either gives up, passes out or comes out fighting.

Your comparison with the Iranian Siege is faulty due to the numbers, hostages and diplomatic issues. Please show that contain and blow up was used in NI as a tactic.

The spin is mainly coming from you guys trying to make out what I have asked for is unreasonable and that contain and blow up was the best option considering you do have rule of law and that this happened during a protest about excessive police violence during arrests.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I have not said I am well informed, strawman. Making up stuff shows you are struggling with the argument I am putting forward. That is because it is not an unreasonable one.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I make no pretense of logic in that post. Nor am I making any argument about the law. I do, however, think that in this case, based on the information currently available to me, the police acted prudently, ethically, morally, and even humanely. I think that what they did was in keeping with what I expect from responsible law enforcement. I think that what they did upholds the ideal of a rational, peace-loving society.

On a related note: Some people seem to think that when someone picks up a gun and starts shooting people, and then barricades themselves against assault by the police, that person has created a situation in which they are entitled to society's forbearance. That, having done what they have done, society now owes it to them to leave them in peace, unless they resume the violent acts which they have paused.

I feel it is just the opposite. I feel that such a person has created a situation in which they have given up their claim on society's tolerance. That, having embarked on a course of violence, their only recourse is to surrender and plea for mercy. Negotiation and a peaceful resolution may be attempted at the discretion of the police, but the killer is not entitled to these things. It's up to the killer, and the killer alone, to convince the police that a peaceful outcome is worth their effort.

I think all of that is irrelevant and I am only concerned with the legal question.

 

[BStrong]

I have not said I am well informed, strawman. Making up stuff shows you are struggling with the argument I am putting forward. That is because it is not an unreasonable one.

In that case, you should review your own recent post

"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."

My actual post:

"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."

I am struggling with something.

The notion that an individual that works in law enforcement can't tell the difference between a criminal and a terrorist.

Can we agree on one thing - the ROE for criminals is different that the ROE for an active terrorist?

 

[theprestige]

I disagree with you over the police's motives. Minimal effort was made to arrest someone who had killed other police and instead they blew him up with a bomb. The main thing prevented by the police was the court ruling on the crime and punishment.

I think the main thing prevented was the further risk to human life, which is always more important than a court ruling.

If the police went in to arrest him, their lives would be in danger. This is not a risk to lightly accept. If the police wait for him to surrender, he could at any moment come out shooting, again putting lives at risk. And meanwhile, the building had not been fully cleared. He could at any moment find another victim. If he had a hostage that would make an already terrible situation much much worse. How many human lives should be put at risk, just to secure a court ruling?

Why is a court ruling even necessary, in this case? What benefit would we gain from it?

 

[theprestige]

I think all of that is irrelevant and I am only concerned with the legal question.

Why is the legal question important to you?

 

[Mike!]

Why is the legal question important to you?

Obviously they want to avoid inadvertently finding themselves in a similar situation.

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree with you over the police's motives.

Of course you do. Because you're biased against the police, and decided their motive first, then tried to fit the facts to your conclusion.

Minimal effort was made to arrest someone who had killed other police and instead they blew him up with a bomb.

You have no basis for claiming it was minimal effort. You're just making stuff up.

The main thing prevented by the police was the court ruling on the crime and punishment.

Of course. Because officer safety is irrelevant to you.

You are still assuming blowing him up was the best tactic for dealing with IEDs.

I'm assuming that the police were in a far better situation to evaluate the tactical realities they faced than either you or me. And it's pretty clear you never actually factored that into any of your conclusions, but merely shoehorned it into your foregone conclusion after being challenged on it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is a court ruling even necessary, in this case? What benefit would we gain from it?

Don't you know? Court rulings have magical, mystical powers of healing. Unless they come to the wrong verdict, in which case they're proof of the irredeemable racism of the system.

 

[Cylinder]

The reality is that congress and the courts have already weighed the benefits of bringing a person to trial versus the risks to law enforcement and the public and have articulated standards for the use of deadly force. Those standards have been discussed earlier in this thread.

This idiot, absent arrest, posed a significant threat to police and others and (as reported) any reasonably prudent and cautious person, similarly-situated, would have believed deadly force was necessary to seize the idiot without risking serious injury or death.

The police in this case (as reported) had an obligation to identify themselves, probably articulate surrender instructions and determine what level of force would be necessary to seize or arrest this idiot.

The police had no obligation to concede any terms in word or deed to this idiot -- including that of the timing of his arrest or seizure by police.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why is the legal question important to you?

Cylinder said it best.... The reality is that congress and the courts have already weighed the benefits of bringing a person to trial versus the risks to law enforcement and the public and have articulated standards for the use of deadly force.

Unlike him, I wouldn't mind a lawsuit and a round of discovery to get more info.

 

[Cylinder]

The use of force review will become a public record at some point, though I'll have to look at Texas code to see the specifics.

 

[trustbutverify]

Cylinder said it best.... The reality is that congress and the courts have already weighed the benefits of bringing a person to trial versus the risks to law enforcement and the public and have articulated standards for the use of deadly force.

Unlike him, I wouldn't mind a lawsuit and a round of discovery to get more info.

But why not an arrest of one or more cops? When I previously asked this question you said there was no basis, but if the police killed a suspect when he posed no "immediate threat", how could there be no basis for murder or manslaughter? How is that possible? Nessie was consistent when replying that the responsible party should be arrested.

 

[Nessie]

In that case, you should review your own recent post

"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."

My actual post:

"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."

I am struggling with something.

The notion that an individual that works in law enforcement can't tell the difference between a criminal and a terrorist.

Can we agree on one thing - the ROE for criminals is different that the ROE for an active terrorist?

There is not differentiation in tactics in Scotland for criminals who go on a rampage killing and terrorists. There is also no difference in the duty of the police to bring them to court. I suspect the same is true for the USA. Johnson was a mass shooter and the USA has lots of them. The tactics would be the same if Johnson had just been shooting at people in the crowd.

Why are you differentiating between Johnson and say James Holmes? When Holmes was arrested he told police about the explosives he had rigged, allowing them to act with minimal risk.

 

[Nessie]

I think the main thing prevented was the further risk to human life, which is always more important than a court ruling.

If the police went in to arrest him, their lives would be in danger. This is not a risk to lightly accept. If the police wait for him to surrender, he could at any moment come out shooting, again putting lives at risk. And meanwhile, the building had not been fully cleared. He could at any moment find another victim. If he had a hostage that would make an already terrible situation much much worse. How many human lives should be put at risk, just to secure a court ruling?

Why is a court ruling even necessary, in this case? What benefit would we gain from it?

The police had him injured and contained. He did exchange fire at one point and no one was hit. The police clearly had good cover. There was no chance of him finding another hostage.

The police put their lives at risk to arrest on many occasions. Why is this incident different?

The rule of law is an important principle. The police not using excessive violence is an important principle and it is what the protest ongoing at the time was about. As is the courts ability to impose punishment, which is denied is summary justice.

 

[Nessie]

Of course you do. Because you're biased against the police, and decided their motive first, then tried to fit the facts to your conclusion.



You have no basis for claiming it was minimal effort. You're just making stuff up.



Of course. Because officer safety is irrelevant to you.



I'm assuming that the police were in a far better situation to evaluate the tactical realities they faced than either you or me. And it's pretty clear you never actually factored that into any of your conclusions, but merely shoehorned it into your foregone conclusion after being challenged on it.

Your argument against me has descended into strawmen fallacies and your assertion that the police always know best appeal to authority fallacy.

The situation in the USA will just get worse if the police are given the approved choice of to kill instead of arrest. The protests and reaction against police excessive use of force will continue and increase.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument against me has descended into strawmen fallacies

You're objecting to me drawing conclusions about your motives, but you had no trouble doing that yourself with regard to the police.

and your assertion that the police always know best appeal to authority fallacy.

And then you follow that complaint up with a straw man of your own. I said nothing about always. But I think that in this case, they had access to a LOT more information than you, information which was critical to the decision-making process, and so your second-guessing their decision doesn't hold any water with me.

The situation in the USA will just get worse if the police are given the approved choice of to kill instead of arrest.

It's cute that you think police anywhere else in the world wouldn't be allowed to use deadly force under similar circumstances.

The protests and reaction against police excessive use of force will continue and increase.

I don't doubt that, but that would be true even if they captured the shooter alive.