SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "All-lives-matter."-President-Obama dept.
Snipers in Dallas: [5] Cops Dead; [6] More Cops Wounded
The Atlantic reports:
Two gunmen shot eleven police officers in Dallas, Texas [at 8:58 PM July 7], killing at least four of them.
[...] At a Thursday night press conference, Dallas Police Department Chief David Brown said [...] officers had one of the suspects "cornered", but did not offer further details.
"Tonight, it appears that two snipers shot ten police officers from elevated positions during the protest/rally", Brown said in an initial statement. "Three officers are deceased, two are in surgery, and three are in critical condition. An intensive search for suspect is currently underway." The police department later said an eleventh officer had also been injured and a fourth officer had been killed.
[...] The shootings occurred during a protest against police killings earlier this week in Louisiana and Minnesota. Hundreds rallied in downtown Dallas, near the corner of Main Street and Lamar Street. Local news footage captured what sounds like several gunshots being fired, and the crowd scattering.
[...] No motive has yet been established and it's unclear whether the shooting was related to the protest.
The New York Times just broke the story about the latest in the police killings of black men. It seems the tide has been turned. [Five] Dallas police officers were killed tonight at a protest in that city over these shootings.
I am not surprised, nor am I particularly shocked. No doubt there will be more to come on this topic as the evening progresses. Hopefully something good comes out of this, but I am inclined to doubt it.
takyon: Some more details: One suspect was killed by an explosion intentionally caused by a police robot. He reportedly told a negotiator that he was upset about Black Lives Matter, the recent police shootings, and wanted to kill white people, especially police officers. He said he was not affiliated with any groups and acted alone. Other suspects have been arrested, and a "person of interest" (often identified as a suspect by the news media) was arrested early in the night after he was photographed with his unloaded AR-15. He handed his weapon to an officer shortly after the shootings, and later turned himself into the police for questioning.
President Obama spoke about the shootings shortly after arriving in Poland for a NATO conference. In part, he mentioned that, "When people say 'black lives matter,' that doesn't mean blue lives don't matter, it just means all lives matter — but right now the big concern is the fact that the data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents [...] This isn't a matter of us comparing the value of lives. This is recognizing that there is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens. And we should care about that. And we can't dismiss it. We can't dismiss it."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:24PM
Death by robotic explosion.
But really, this is an inseparable continuation of the previous day's coverage.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:18PM
Death by robotic explosion.
This is the very interesting part about this and the previous story. I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
This is also relevant to previous discussions about the justification of a drone strikes on US Citizens.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:49PM
Summary execution by bomb not being carried out by the national guard or military.
While using the military against civilians seems bad, letting cops use bombs to eliminate a perp is seriously reinforcing the 'police state' view many people, including these assailants (I'm sure they will call them terrorists, but given their targetted attack on police and only one civilian injury I cannot in good conscience place them with the likes of Daesh, Al Qaeda, Kazynski, or the Oklahoma bombers, whose tactics often primarily target civilians.) These guys appear to have known what they were doing, and if veterans as mentioned then it is truly on. I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 08 2016, @05:25PM
Would we consider it any less of a police state if some sort of noxious gas was used? Or robotic tazers continually shocking him until enforcers could pin and cuff him?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:52PM
I think the tazer thing would be really hard to do, robots just don't have the kind of dexterity to pull that off.
Noxious gas would have flushed him out and precipitated a fire fight.
Some sort of knock-out gas might have worked, especially if they could control ventilation and lock him in there (was he even inside a room or just a section of an open structure like a parking garage?) You can still die from knock-out gas. [wikipedia.org] But at least death is not guaranteed.
I would have offered to send him a soda and then spiked it with a knock-out drug. Maybe they did try it and he didn't bite.
But I'm thinking a stun grenade might have been a good first pass at a kinetic solution. If they can send in a robot, they can look at him to see if he's got equipment that would mitigate its effectiveness.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @06:13PM
I think the tazer thing would be really hard to do, robots just don't have the kind of dexterity to pull that off.
Dystopian stun gun drone [youtube.com] disagrees (not that they had one handy).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:41PM
lol no dexterity needed when the target stands absolutely motionless.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @07:35PM
I'm not ure how much dexterity is needed when the target is corned, either. My question was whether or not the target would shoot first. The drone does fire pretty soon after the guy in the video turns around, which I assume was the cue to fire.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @06:32PM
Yes. There is no question here that he needed to be captured, using death as a solution is the slipperiest of slopes. There will be no trial, the investigation will be missing a pretty large piece (the perp), and it greenlights the use of murder to quell any dissidents. This is very likely to evolve police tactics to where killing the suspect is the preferred option when the suspect is armed, which will be the final nail needed to lock us in the police state coffin. As a society we have been whipped into a fearful frenzy that denies all statistical reality, which is the first step towards accomplishing true authoritarianism / fascism. Anyone who cries foul here will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, thus a large segment of the population will be further scared into saying nothing for fear of reprisal.
This is how it works, and I would like to say we're walking blindly into it but there is a significant percentage of the population screaming about it constantly. I think the real turning point was when the POTUS got the power of a secret kill list, and drones started being used to kill at will. Every empire becomes the largest terrorist organization, raining death upon those that get in its way and not just those trying to kill those in the empire.
We have the tools to push back against this tyranny, the facebook video is one great example where the information got out before it could be hidden. I guess it is now up to the government and "powers that be" whether to reform and start considering the welfare of the people, or whether to keep running this country into the ground through fear and violence.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:12PM
Erm... Just a point of information here. Killing the perpetrator when they are armed and belligerent has always been the preferred method in these United States.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @09:29PM
True, but we sell the population on hostage negotiators talking the perp down, or that the police only shoot after they shoot first. Basically, I think that police are provided with protective gear and it is their job to stop violence. The statistics show that police don't get injured nearly as much as most other professions, so I think it is fair to say they should wait for a gun to be pointed at them at the least.
I get that this guy already killed officers, and I don't have any real qualms with the fact that he is no longer alive, I just feel its a very bad idea to let police use these methods. He wasn't an imminent threat at the time since if he popped his head out it would have been shot off. They have already militarized heavily, and using subterfuge like a cell phone bomb just seems wrong. I don't know all the details, but the slippery slope scares the crap out of me. License to kill and all that, and yes I realize officers already have that. Anyone who steps out of line and tries to fight their oppressors will be labeled a terrorist and murdered. Too easy for those in power to use these scenarios to conveniently get rid of someone.
In the traffic stop incident the cop already had his gun out and aimed, he would have been able to shoot as soon as he saw a gun coming out. Shooting first is a cowardly way to approach the situations and makes citizens very nervous since they don't know what/when a cop will "fear for their life". Reach towards your back pocket to get your ID in just the wrong way, get shot 4 times in the chest...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:39AM
Your position creates confusion in the whole issue of cops killing unarmed black young men. Key word, "unarmed". There is far to much of that.
I am pissed that cops can shoot first, and ask questions later if ever. I'm pissed that young men with no weapons at all are almost routinely gunned down. It is outrageous that cowards can fire their weapons into a man's body, just because his hands were somewhere near his waistband. FFS, I'm six feet tall, and my hands are never much further than three feet from my waistband! According to cop's stories, I present a threat to them, just by existing.
Now, in this case, an armed man had already killed 4 (soon to be five) and put 7 others out of action. Sniper or not, he was at least moderately competent with his weapons. The cops are not obligated to put themselves at any further risk to talk the guy into surrendering. I have no problem at all with "executing" him. I am just surprised that they used a robot with a bomb.
Cops in general need to be brought under control, but there must always be an option to bring down a truly dangerous man. There is simply no point in being upset that this particular individual was gunned down, or blown up, or poisoned, or killed by whatever means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:40AM
As long as he was not an immediate threat, it seems wrong to allow the police to execute him with no due process. The cops had/have the resources to starve him out and summary execution is considered a no-no in all civilized countries. Especially in a country with so many armed people, allowing the cops to summarily execute people because they are a threat or perceived as a threat is a very slippery slope to embark on. Though I guess it can be argued that any armed person or person that might be armed is a threat and should be summarily executed, which seems to be the direction that America is headed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:43PM
"The cops had/have the resources to starve him out"
You are making one huge assumption and/or presumption. We didn't know all this two nights ago, but the fact is, the man was a combat veteran. Starve him out? If/when he was ready to make a move, he fully intended to take some more cops with him. He wasn't surrendering. He stated clearly that he wanted to kill cops, especially white cops. A combat veteran need not be armed to be dangerous, and this one was armed. He refused to surrender, the cops couldn't just leave the next move to him. Doing so would have been criminally negligent. Mention was made of explosive devices - leaving him alive for an extended period of time, still armed, he may or may not have detonated his explosives.
Again, we didn't know this at the time, but his apartment was supposedly a stash for explosives. Knowing what we now know of him, a threat of explosives was a credible threat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 10 2016, @03:28AM
As long as he was not an immediate threat, it seems wrong to allow the police to execute him with no due process.
But he was an immediate threat. He just killed people and he was still dangerous.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Sunday July 10 2016, @02:43PM
The point was he was cornered enough for negotiations and phone delivery, so not much of an immediate threat. Though runaways comment about explosives is a good component.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:46PM
The point was he was cornered enough for negotiations and phone delivery, so not much of an immediate threat.
How many more innocent lives should we gamble on the unwarranted assumption that he can't kill anyone else just because he's pinned down at the moment? I don't grant your assertion here because it's idiotic and insane. Police shouldn't be risking their lives in this way for someone who had already killed five armed people and shot a number of others. So no, as long as he didn't surrender, he remained an immediate threat. It would have been wrong to give him more time to figure out how to kill more people.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:10AM
The methods used and representation of society is important. No one is sorry this guy is dead, but its like standing up for freedom of speech even when you hate what someone else is saying. I would have to get a good account of the whole situation, did they communicate with him at all? What demands were then either way, etc. I for one would like to have sent him a tapped phone to hear who he'd call, what he'd say. You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't a dozen other ways they could handle the guy with little to no risk. This is the kind of story that could be so easily spun into a movie, hopefully Hollywood won't touch it out of respect for those whose lives were lost. There are always the extreme edges of every situation, its how we change our behavior after that is really important.
But aside from that, thanks for pointing out the killing of unarmed men. It is a very important distinction with events that many choose to ignore (or are zombified to not even see).
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:45PM
"did they communicate with him at all?"
I can't answer any of your other questions, but the Dallas police chief and the mayor both stated that they were in negotiations with the shooter for quite some time. Apparently, the demands on each side were rejected by the other side. Maybe we'll get to hear those negotiations in coming days.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:57PM
Yeah, ultimately I would probably support their choice to take him out. The only real point that bugs me (beyond the ideological issue with police killing people) is wanting to know what he would have done with a cell phone, and if he was going to call for "support" then it would also have been good to find out who his compatriots are since they may go down the same road.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:10PM
Maybe. Documents about the JFK killing "which could amount to tens of thousands of pages" are still secret.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/11/25/government-still-withholding-thousands-documents-jfk-assassination/PvBM2PCgW1H11vadQ4Wp4H/story.html [bostonglobe.com]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0817/50-years-later-sealed-JFK-files-still-raise-questions [csmonitor.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:59PM
Other commentators have said that killing is preferred when the suspect is black, whereas whites—for example Ammon Bundy; James Eagan Holmes; Dylann Roof; Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.—are often captured alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lewis_Dear [wikipedia.org]
Cliven Bundy was in an "armed standoff in 2014 with federal agents" but wasn't arrested until 2016.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/cliven_bundy_arrest_2_years_la.html [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @05:31PM
From TFA:
"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,"
I like how the term "bomb robot" has been contorted in place by retrofitting a bomb disarming robot into a bomb delivering robot. I also wonder whose bomb it was.
From Fahrenheit 451:
They walked still farther and the girl said, "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"
"No. Houses have always been fireproof, take my word for it."
"Strange. I heard once that a long time ago houses used to burn by accident and they needed firemen to stop the flames.”
From parent AC:
I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
Yeah, that was bothersome to me as well. I'm wondering if the government is going to release a recording of that statement (ideally with enough context to make fudging it difficult), or if we're just expected to take their word on the divisive language that lumps most of America in with them as targets. Cops lie all the time, and have a clear incentive to do so here. Lots of people are also overtly racist, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that the cornered gunman could have said what they claim. I just don't have any reason to believe it yet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:41PM
Yeah, that was bothersome to me as well. I'm wondering if the government is going to release a recording of that statement (ideally with enough context to make fudging it difficult), or if we're just expected to take their word on the divisive language that lumps most of America in with them as targets.
Even if he straight up said that, nobody should take it at face value. The consciously expressed thoughts of people who are so motivated that they commit acts of political violence are generally a poor means of understanding their personal motivations. Being contemplative and analytical are traits that don't often go hand-in-hand with shooting sprees. That's more the province of hot-heads and the unstable - going out in a "blaze of glory" is usually the last step on a long path of increasingly disturbed behavior.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:45AM
" Being contemplative and analytical are traits that don't often go hand-in-hand with shooting sprees"
You know this - how? Maybe it would be more accurate that if any contemplative, analytical people have gone on shooting sprees, those people didn't survive to talk with psychologists and analysts.
How many published works written by racists have you read? May I suggest the Turner Diary? How about works published by convicts? Maybe you've read everything ever written by the KKK, and the Black Panthers?
I suggest that your claim is unsupported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:38AM
> How many published works written by racists have you read?
It is weird you equate going on a murder spree with being a racist.
And then you cite a bunch of racists who did not go on murder sprees.
If all racists were spree killers we'd all be dead. And I sure as hell would not want to be living anywhere near your racist ass.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:21AM
THIS murderer was indeed a racist. Many of the mass killers have been racists. But, whether the individual killer is racist or not, the challenge remains: how many of their published works have you read? That guy, Anders, wrote quite a bit. The claim that shooters lack introspection, that they lack the ability to communicate their reasons and goals lacks merit.
Some of those people are thoughtful people. The establishment doesn't want to promulgate their thinking, which is anti-establishment, so you have to dig a little bit to find their thoughts.
As for living anywhere near my "racist ass", don't worry. There is someone down the street from you who has ideas about your own worthless carcass. Maybe Michael Madison's cousin lives around the corner from you. And, Wayne Gacy's nephew lives a couple blocks over, in the other direction. There's no reason for you to feel "safe" - that's just an illusion that you allow yourself to fall into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:44AM
> THIS murderer was indeed a racist.
Maybe. But so what? There are tens of millions of racists. You are a racist. Are you plotting a spree killing?
> Anders, wrote quite a bit.
And said very little. Mostly just a regurgitation of the same stuff you masturbate to.
> The claim that shooters lack introspection, that they lack the ability to communicate their reasons and goals lacks merit.
A focus on the perceived evils in others is literally the opposite of introspection. It is pretty much all you do, so I can see why you would like to think that counts as introspection. But damn! You are the last person here, well maybe second to the mighty butthurt who has the mentality of an insecure middle-schooler, to understand introspection.
It is kinda creepy that you are here defending murdering racists as having deep self-knowledge. Its like you were insulted.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:57AM
You insist on proving yourself a complete fool.
GP's post indicated that every shooter is some kind of unthinking moron. I countered that not all of them are unthinking morons. Here you come to his defense, trying to paint me as a racist, and insisting that there is nothing to learn from any of the published works of any of the shooters.
Try pulling your head out of your arse, take a nice deep breath of fresh, oxygenated air, and THINK about what you're writing.
Then, go look for some of those published works, and read through them. Not every shooter is an idiot. Not only that, but sometimes they do make valid points. In fact, BLM is trying to make some of the same points that some of the shooters have made. Life is unfair, injustice and corruption hammers at people on a daily basis. Go, read, try to educate yourself. Those shooters didn't spring out of some other dimension. They were born into this world, and nurtured by this world. They took their ideas from real life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:24AM
I am the GP.
You are the one who made it about racism.
And now your argument is just pedantics? That not 100% of spree killers have serious mental problems because I didn't interview them all?
BFG you idiot. You are one of the least self-aware people on this site. Half your posts are so unintentionally revealing that I've actually laughed outloud out how transparent they were.
Hell your reason for bringing all this up is so fucking transparent. If the murderers in the out-groups you hate are murderers because of their surface thoughts then your hate for them is justified. If they are just nutjobs like all the nutjobs from your favored in-groups then you might start doubting your entire hate-based worldview start thinking of them as people instead of enemies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:11AM
Different AC here, and from my view of the GP's post...
... it seems that Runaway has made some good points, referencing written works by advocates of mass murder, and instead of trying to defend the original point, the grandparent poster resorts to throwing around buzzwords at Runaway's references. Sorry, there are no "magic words" (e.g. racist, bigot, intolerant, nutjob, crazy, hate) that automatically and by themselves invalidate reasoning, no matter how dispicable the reasoner may or may not be.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday July 08 2016, @08:20PM
I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
If one reaches the point that they are going to indiscriminately target any group, however large or however exclusive, they have reached a point without any real rationality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @09:37PM
And do you really believe what the police say? Or just say that to make them to look better as our saviors?
We need proof that he really said what the police say he said.
For sure that these conversations with the negotiator are recorded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:41AM
I tend not to believe murderers over cops, but hey, I'm must just be racist that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:06AM
More often than not, they're the same. Or are you saying that you tend to believe murders with badges over those without?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:15PM
I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 08 2016, @11:19PM
I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
For starters, he just killed five people and hadn't surrendered to police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @03:54AM
No shit. Of course he was a threat, we all know how to read.
The main point is how to define what an imminent threat is and how much force is necessary to subdue the suspect. It is important to discuss these things and figure out how and what should be done. The label, "imminent threat", is used to justify drone strikes (including at least one targeting a US citizen) and now for using a bomb robot to kill a citizen on US soil without a trial.
I'm no arm-chair quarterback and will not say that the wrong decision was made, but the public should be vigilant and ensure that its law enforcers are acting in its interests within an acceptable range.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:28AM
I saw this all coming years ago. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d search through all my posts and find the ones about Obamas drone executions and his sponsoring of BLM terrorist. Two creations used against eachother.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:51AM
Same here. In fact, I've openly stated that if I were a young black man in New York City, subjected to that moronic 'Stop and Frisk' bullshit, I would be organizing an insurrection. Entire neighborhoods where you, your mama, your little brothers and sisters, your wife/girlfreind are accosted, thrown up against a wall, and frisked. Maybe only once a week, maybe six times in the same day. Yeah, I'd be pretty damned interested in organizing something like this.
In view of the fact that the military is largely composed of minorities, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to put together an entire squad of people who know how to use weapons. A full squad of combat veterans, reinforced with a couple dozen outraged citizens could create some major havoc. The governor would have no choice but to call in his National Guard, but there would be a lot of dead cops before the Guard arrived on scene.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:10AM
Armed insurrection is what this was. It was one vet. Imagine more vets following suit. Sometimes these incidents remain isolated. Other times, when conditions are right, they spread like wildfire. One more big economic shock while the middle class are still on their backs from. The last one, and that's all you need.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:19AM
Ok. We'll send you in first with the armed suspect. You can cuddle him out of his killing nest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @08:45PM
I'm sure that is exactly what the cops would do if they didn't have access to a bomb-delivery robot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:42PM
There was no explosion. That report was retracted. The gunman was just firing some rounds, and killed himself.
https://twitter.com/regated/status/751303777341218816 [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 08 2016, @07:58PM
They blew up the shooter with a bomb attached to the arm of a bomb-disposal robot. Right after 3 minute mark i think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLYk-2d3NMs [youtube.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @08:25PM
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/08/dallas-shooting-suspect-killed-by-bomb-robot/ [snopes.com]
http://www.popsci.com/police-used-bomb-disposal-robot-to-kill-dallas-shooting-suspect [popsci.com]
Dallas police may be first U.S. law enforcement agency to use a robot to kill a suspect [dallasnews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @11:42PM
A bomb was the best option? If the Dallas PD wants an LRAD or ADS they've got the justification for it now...although it sounds like they're having too much fun blowing people up.
The robot should be called Rubybot...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:20AM
It's a nice story about them taking the option best suited for keeping officers safe, even if that option was a first-of-its-kind robo bombing.
Believe me, it had nothing to do with the fact that 5 officers were killed. No revenge plot here. It was simple professionalism and the best course of action.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:42AM
What troubles me about this is that the bomb was premeditated. Where did the bomb come from if not from the suspect? THE POLICE BROUGHT A BOMB TO THE SCENE? THAT'S PART OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? HOLY SHIT!
Or worse: it's not standard operating procedure, but there was enough time for an IED to be created expressly for the purpose of murdering a suspect? And everyone thought that was a good idea????
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:57AM
Apparently the bomb was C4 that they were able to detonate remotely. Not sure if that's "standard issue" but there you go.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]