So do police bomb robots read you your rights before detonating, or.....?

7/8/2016 6:21:33 PM

Is it really any different from a cop shooting the guy? It's not AI, a human still makes all of the decisions

7/8/2016 6:23:32 PM

Quote :

"So do police officers read you your rights before shooting you, or.....?"

7/8/2016 6:25:19 PM

Quote :

"Is it really any different from a cop shooting the guy? I"

Yes. Yes it is.

A bomb robot prohibitively removes the possibility of a lawful detention. I mean, unless we're just cool with cops straight murkin' fools with fucking bombs without even attempting a lawful arrest.





[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 6:30 PM. Reason : Might as well give them hand grenades.... Or maybe horseshoes]

7/8/2016 6:30:00 PM

So how is it different from a cop shooting the guy?

7/8/2016 6:32:25 PM

What's the blast radius of a bullet?

7/8/2016 6:34:13 PM

Again, in this situation, how is it different than a cop shooting and killing the guy?

7/8/2016 6:36:42 PM

Jesus Christ, you are too stupid to even argue with.

Do the ends justify the means? If your answer is yes (which it seems to be), then arguing the legal implications of killing a civilian with a fucking bomb is a pointless exercise.

7/8/2016 6:45:53 PM

Well, at least the police don't have predator drones... oh wait.

7/8/2016 6:51:03 PM

So there is no difference? If it's so simple why can't you explain it?

7/8/2016 6:51:24 PM

Quote :

" Again, in this situation, how is it different than a cop shooting and killing the guy?"

For the purposes of this discussion, no, there is no difference.

Cops shoot to kill, not to fucking "lawfully detain." You sound like one of these "why not shoot them in the leg" people. Dude just offed a bunch of cops, said he wants to kill more, and refused to surrender for hours. Not sure what this guy is arguing.

7/8/2016 8:49:45 PM

That's how I see it. No sense risking more cops lives to try to detain him or shoot him. He had plenty of chances to surrender if he wanted his jury trial.

7/8/2016 9:17:59 PM

Quote :

"I mean, unless we're just cool with cops straight murkin' fools who just "murked" a bunch of innocent people"

Yeah I'm cool with that

[Edited on July 9, 2016 at 2:05 AM. Reason : And lol at this fucking guy calling the shooter a "civilian"]

7/9/2016 2:02:58 AM

Yeah man, let's just give law enforcement more firepower to use at their discretion. I'm sure that will go over swimmingly.

7/9/2016 2:10:02 AM

Except in this situation your argument is stupid as fuck.

[Edited on July 9, 2016 at 2:13 AM. Reason : If you framed it in a larger context then it would only have been 90% as dumb]

[Edited on July 9, 2016 at 2:20 AM. Reason : I'd like to hear more about your assessment of the shooter being a "civilian" ]

7/9/2016 2:10:56 AM

cops should only kill people as a last resort. i dont know if that was the case in Dallas or not but think they should wait them out if possible

[Edited on July 9, 2016 at 8:00 AM. Reason : d]

7/9/2016 7:34:27 AM

From a civilian stand point giving the police bombs sounds problematic. They already accidently shoot civilians.

7/9/2016 7:54:44 AM

Quote :

"We cornered one suspect and we tried to negotiate for several hours. Negotiations broke down, we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect, we saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was. Other options would have exposed our officers to great danger. The suspect is deceased as a result of detonating the bomb."

Yeah, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this particular individual but I really want to know more about the situation at the time and DPD's decision process. The guy was cornered, not going anywhere, not actively shooting, and police had all the time in the world. I'd like to know what "Negotiations broke down, we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect" means. Did he try to break out from being cornered? Did officers try to move in? What were the "other options"?

Also, what was the shooter if not a civilian?

7/9/2016 11:27:11 AM

really similar to the cop killer in Cali that they had surrounded in a cabin. the cops set the cabin on fire, went on tv and said they didnt know how the fire started. everyone knew it was BS but nobody did anything about it

7/9/2016 2:07:31 PM

Quote :

" For the purposes of this discussion, no, there is no difference. Cops shoot to kill, not to fucking "lawfully detain." You sound like one of these "why not shoot them in the leg" people."

Jesus, I missed this gem. No, I am not one of those "shoot to maim" people. I know damn well that cops aim to kill, and I think they aim too goddamn often. I've been very consistent on this issue in this thread and others.

I have a very strong civil liberties bent, and I only brought the robot bomb to voice my concern of the horrifying precedent that has just been set regarding law enforcement tactics and the willingness to bypass the judicial process for American citizens.

People who defend this tactical decision are quick to use terms like, "neutralizing the threat." These are military terms. Arming the police (who are not trained in urban battle) with military grade weaponry is a horrible precedent to be set. These are law enforcement officers. They are not soldiers. The means and methods used to enforce the law should be much stricter on US soil than the rules of engagement on the battlefield (although the ROE is a different topic for a different thread).

Yes, in isolation, this decision is very easy to defend. But that's not the argument I was getting at. Perhaps I gave you too much credit in assuming that you were capable of making that distinction.

7/9/2016 4:17:58 PM

Well the problem is any civilian can easily arm themselves with "military grade weaponry" from their local gun store, so the police respond in kind. This all comes back to gun control, fix that problem and we won't need civilian police armed to the teeth.

7/9/2016 5:06:34 PM

Agreed.

Mass shootings and excessive police force are both linked to the second amendment. Which is curious, because the second amendment, in theory, was supposed to give the citizenry a means of fighting an oppressive government. But, I think it's pretty fucking clear that you can't out-arm the state.

You have a sniper rifle. They have Johnny5 delivering you claymore's to the face.

7/9/2016 5:18:35 PM

This whole discussion began with:

Quote :

"So do police bomb robots read you your rights before detonating, or....."

and now:

Quote :

"I only brought the robot bomb to voice my concern of the horrifying precedent that has just been set regarding law enforcement tactics and the willingness to bypass the judicial process for American citizens."

Dude was an active shooter. There are no rights to be read. You kill the fucker. The is no judicial process to follow. You kill the fucker. If you wanna make arguments about police militarization, police brutality, and the need for more gun control in a general sense, great. I also share those concerns, as I have also consistently posted about on this board. But to argue against the way in which they ended that active shooter situation because you think the rule of law or a judicial process wasn't followed is beyond stupid.

Quote :

"Well the problem is any civilian can easily arm themselves with "military grade weaponry" from their local gun store, so the police respond in kind. This all comes back to gun control, fix that problem and we won't need civilian police armed to the teeth."

No, that's not "the" problem. That's a problem. One of many many many problems associated with this very complex issue.

Quote :

"Mass shootings and excessive police force are both linked to the second amendment [along with a shitload of other contributing factors]"

7/9/2016 6:13:09 PM

Quote :

"Yes, in isolation, this decision is very easy to defend. But that's not the argument I was getting at. Perhaps I gave you too much credit in assuming that you were capable of making that distinction."

7/9/2016 6:23:31 PM

Quote :

"Dude was an active shooter."

It's not clear that was true when he was killed.

7/9/2016 6:23:54 PM

Yes it was.

7/9/2016 6:35:59 PM

He had been cornered for several hours in a parking garage. He and the police periodically exchanged gunfire during the standoff, but he wasn't wandering around shooting people and he wasn't sniping.

7/9/2016 6:42:11 PM

> says he wants to kill officers
> shoots at officers
> not an active shooter

7/9/2016 6:45:52 PM

You left out the part where he was cornered and contained.

7/9/2016 6:58:53 PM

dude had infinite ammo, he dropped a resupply crate and was standing over it

7/9/2016 7:00:09 PM

Quote :

"France has a 0.21 per 100K homicide rate by firearm rate. The US's is 3.43. That's 16 times the rate in France. The reality is that, even with the tragedy in Paris, they won't come close to our firearm homicide rate. I did the math once before and France would need one of those attacks something like every 6 weeks to match the US homicide by firearm rate."

The US has that rate only because of gang violence, so maybe we should talk about that. If #BlackLivesMatter maybe we could talk about black on black crime? I notice the only time liberals indirectly reference that is when they need gun violence statistics.

7/10/2016 2:56:30 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8YAK8oMEKI&feature=youtu.be&t=21s

7/10/2016 3:31:59 AM

^^lol get the fuck out of here you racist motherfucker

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/06/gang-violence-is-on-the-rise-even-as-overall-violence-declines

Quote :

"overall gangs are responsible for 16 percent of all homicides"

3.43 x .84 = 2.88

2.88 / 0.21 = 13.72

so without gang violence the US's homicide by firearm rate is only 14 times that of france! way to go united states!!!

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 8:54 AM. Reason : ,]

7/10/2016 8:49:08 AM

semi auto rifles are not the cause of the violence. its the damn war on drugs. jeeez

7/10/2016 11:10:19 AM

^

7/10/2016 11:59:40 AM

^^ except nobody is talking about semi-auto rifles right now. I'm starting to think you're a bot too.

7/10/2016 12:17:28 PM

^do what? obama mentioned them after dallas

7/10/2016 12:29:52 PM

Quote :

"semi auto rifles are not the cause of the violence"

they are not the cause

however, they are the reason why when such violence starts, it is rapidly promulgated

7/10/2016 1:53:07 PM

^^ ITT mane. Try to keep up.

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 2:04 PM. Reason : Whatever you're babbling about isn't even linked to on this page, much less discussed ]

7/10/2016 1:59:46 PM

uhh, title of the thread is gun control and our dear ruler brought up semi auto rifles couple days ago

another point about them: the tooth paste is out of the tube, there may be tens of millions of them. all you can do now is raise the price and/or create a black market. guys who think like the orlando and dallas shooters will still be able to get them if you banned them

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 2:17 PM. Reason : s]

7/10/2016 2:13:32 PM

Do you also open the front door of your house, yell something politicial out into the ether and then close it?

Next time try posting our dear leaders words if you wanna reply to them. I'm assuming you didn't because you strawmaned them up

Yup.

Quote :

" "We also know when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately, it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic.""

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 2:30 PM. Reason : King of Strawmen strikes again!!]

7/10/2016 2:23:57 PM

are you saying obama does NOT want a ban on some rifles?

7/10/2016 2:39:27 PM

Im saying you are King of Strawmen, as displayed above.

7/10/2016 2:42:43 PM

but but you never said how i was distorting his position.

whatever

7/10/2016 2:50:23 PM

It's pretty fucking obvious what you did.

I'll give you hint though.

To cause violence isn't the same thing as making violence more deadly.

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 2:53 PM. Reason : I'd like to think you're playing dumb but...]

7/10/2016 2:52:02 PM

oooh. i only brought up obama cause you posted that nobody is talking about rifles

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM. Reason : s]

7/10/2016 3:02:05 PM

Even extended generally it's a dumb strawman.

7/10/2016 3:37:42 PM

Quote :

"so without gang violence the US's homicide by firearm rate is only 14 times that of france! way to go united states!!!"

and without blacks the US homicide rate would be roughly 2 times that of France. Considering that white gun ownership severely outpaces black gun ownership, something is causing a severe racial disparity in the homicide and violent crime rates in this country.

7/10/2016 8:45:36 PM

Yeah it's called poverty, for a start.

7/10/2016 9:32:12 PM

homicide rate =/= firearm homicide rate

i took out all gang homicides from the firearm homicide rate because 1) no easily found data exists for gang firearm murders vs. non-firearm and 2) it was better to overestimate the impact of removing gang homicides than underestimate them

[Edited on July 10, 2016 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2016 9:46:49 PM