Ethical debate surrounds police use of robot in Dallas!?

[righteousdude2]

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/09/the-killer-robot-used-by-dallas-police-appears-to-be-a-first/

Now the liberal left media is questioning the use of robots to takse down evil thugs on American soil! What are your thoughts on how the police ended the Dallas terrorist's life?

My thoughts are: if that will save even one life, go for it. The article in my paper insinuated that this "violated" the killers right to be presumed innocent or guilty. How ridiculous. He gave up that right to a trial when he ambushed not one but eleven cops, killing five. The argument that may be making headlines and talk shows may well be the next hot button topic to be debated worldwide.

 

[annsni]

The man verbally admitted that he was out to kill cops - white cops specifically. He was not going to come out alive by his own choice and rather than risking the lives of officers, they eliminated the threat with a robot. I don't question their choice one bit.

 

[Don]

They're muddying the argument. He could have been killed by cops shooting him; by cops lobbing a flash-bang that exploded too close to him; or, as in this case, a robot that detonated an explosive too close to him. The suspect could have survived, and would be in a hospital, and would eventually face a judge and jury.

The same "violated the killer's right to be presumed innocent or guilty" so-called argument exists even when cops shoot a suspect.

It's all hogwash.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I believe there is an ethical question.

Why not send in a robot that gives off teargas, or a gas that renders the man unconscious and he could have been taken alive. Then he could be questioned as to his motives and whether anyone else was in on his plot?

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no ethical question. the survival of the terrorist thug is not the priority. The priority is the safety and well being of innocent lives. Period.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why not send in a robot that gives off teargas, or a gas that renders the man unconscious and he could have been taken alive.

Does a "tear gas" robot exist? Or a "sleeping gas" robot? That's quite silly.

Couple of reasons why they wouldn't want to go that - even if it was possible:

(1) I suspect sleeping gas is a media fantasy. Sure it's used in TV shows, novels and movies, but I don't know if it existing as a reliable method of subduing anyone. Anesthesia literally takes a person very near the point of death where even their breathing has to be sustained. Moreover, it has to be given at certain concentrations or it is either ineffective or fatal. Remember the hostage crisis a few years ago where the Russians used a sleeping gas of some sort and killed a large number of hostages? If the Dallas police did that, can you imagine the headlines and your gut-wrenching posts about the Dallas police using "poison gas" to kill a poor man who should have been taken alive?

(2) Gas goes into the atmosphere and cannot be controlled. If they used tear gas, the gas would have blown all over and possibly affected the ability of police officers to manage the situation. Moreover, it was windy that evening (I was outside in Arlington, Texas, about 20 miles to the west) and the wind moving the tear gas through that parking garage would have been much less effective than you might imagine.

(3) As a spree shooter, this man probably did not expect to live (we know this from quite a bit of unfortunate experience) and gas would have simply prompted him to take some sort of action that would have exposed more people to significant risk of death and injury. Fourteen people had already been shot with several already dead and a couple that were about to die from their injuries. How many more innocent people needed to be shot before the police would be justified ending the situation? They had already tried to reason with him and he would have nothing of it. He was a clear and present danger to everyone there. He claimed to have bombs planted throughout the area - who knows if he had a remote detonator that he was waiting to trigger at an opportune time? There may have been more snipers and the longer they were focused on him, the more time they would give an accomplice time to act.

Then he could be questioned as to his motives and whether anyone else was in on his plot?

You assume he would be cooperative. What gives you that expectation?

There are too many Monday morning armchair quarterbacks who don't know the first thing about managing a situation like this. I'm very happy you were not in charge of this situation. We would likely have more than a few extra caskets and grieving families to support this week.

 

[Baptist Believer]

My thoughts are: if that will save even one life, go for it. The article in my paper insinuated that this "violated" the killers right to be presumed innocent or guilty. How ridiculous. He gave up that right to a trial when he ambushed not one but eleven cops, killing five.

Actually 12 officers and two civilians.

He had plenty of time to surrender and have his trial. He chose not to do that. As you pointed out, no one denied him the right to a trial.

 

[carpro]

There is no ethical question. the survival of the terrorist thug is not the priority. The priority is the safety and well being of innocent lives. Period.

Dead is dead. A sniper bullet or an explosive device. No difference at all. No more police officers lives were endangered. I applaud DPD for their efficiency .

 

[righteousdude2]

Does a "tear gas" robot exist? Or a "sleeping gas" robot? That's quite silly.

Couple of reasons why they wouldn't want to go that - even if it was possible:

(1) I suspect sleeping gas is a media fantasy. Sure it's used in TV shows, novels and movies, but I don't know if it existing as a reliable method of subduing anyone. Anesthesia literally takes a person very near the point of death where even their breathing has to be sustained. Moreover, it has to be given at certain concentrations or it is either ineffective or fatal. Remember the hostage crisis a few years ago where the Russians used a sleeping gas of some sort and killed a large number of hostages? If the Dallas police did that, can you imagine the headlines and your gut-wrenching posts about the Dallas police using "poison gas" to kill a poor man who should have been taken alive?

(2) Gas goes into the atmosphere and cannot be controlled. If they used tear gas, the gas would have blown all over and possibly affected the ability of police officers to manage the situation. Moreover, it was windy that evening (I was outside in Arlington, Texas, about 20 miles to the west) and the wind moving the tear gas through that parking garage would have been much less effective than you might imagine.

(3) As a spree shooter, this man probably did not expect to live (we know this from quite a bit of unfortunate experience) and gas would have simply prompted him to take some sort of action that would have exposed more people to significant risk of death and injury. Fourteen people had already been shot with several already dead and a couple that were about to die from their injuries. How many more innocent people needed to be shot before the police would be justified ending the situation? They had already tried to reason with him and he would have nothing of it. He was a clear and present danger to everyone there. He claimed to have bombs planted throughout the area - who knows if he had a remote detonator that he was waiting to trigger at an opportune time? There may have been more snipers and the longer they were focused on him, the more time they would give an accomplice time to act.


You assume he would be cooperative. What gives you that expectation?

There are too many Monday morning armchair quarterbacks who don't know the first thing about managing a situation like this. I'm very happy you were not in charge of this situation. We would likely have more than a few extra caskets and grieving families to support this week.

Does a "tear gas" robot exist? Or a "sleeping gas" robot? That's quite silly.

Couple of reasons why they wouldn't want to go that - even if it was possible:

(1) I suspect sleeping gas is a media fantasy. Sure it's used in TV shows, novels and movies, but I don't know if it existing as a reliable method of subduing anyone. Anesthesia literally takes a person very near the point of death where even their breathing has to be sustained. Moreover, it has to be given at certain concentrations or it is either ineffective or fatal. Remember the hostage crisis a few years ago where the Russians used a sleeping gas of some sort and killed a large number of hostages? If the Dallas police did that, can you imagine the headlines and your gut-wrenching posts about the Dallas police using "poison gas" to kill a poor man who should have been taken alive?

(2) Gas goes into the atmosphere and cannot be controlled. If they used tear gas, the gas would have blown all over and possibly affected the ability of police officers to manage the situation. Moreover, it was windy that evening (I was outside in Arlington, Texas, about 20 miles to the west) and the wind moving the tear gas through that parking garage would have been much less effective than you might imagine.

(3) As a spree shooter, this man probably did not expect to live (we know this from quite a bit of unfortunate experience) and gas would have simply prompted him to take some sort of action that would have exposed more people to significant risk of death and injury. Fourteen people had already been shot with several already dead and a couple that were about to die from their injuries. How many more innocent people needed to be shot before the police would be justified ending the situation? They had already tried to reason with him and he would have nothing of it. He was a clear and present danger to everyone there. He claimed to have bombs planted throughout the area - who knows if he had a remote detonator that he was waiting to trigger at an opportune time? There may have been more snipers and the longer they were focused on him, the more time they would give an accomplice time to act.


You assume he would be cooperative. What gives you that expectation?

There are too many Monday morning armchair quarterbacks who don't know the first thing about managing a situation like this. I'm very happy you were not in charge of this situation. We would likely have more than a few extra caskets and grieving families to support this week.

BB, we can find common ground to join hands and hum Kumbaya. Good point.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is no ethical question. the survival of the terrorist thug is not the priority. The priority is the safety and well being of innocent lives. Period.

And by killing the man the chance of gaining important information was also killed.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Does a "tear gas" robot exist? Or a "sleeping gas" robot? That's quite silly.

It would be just as easy to explode a tear gas canister remotely as an explosive device. That surely would not be a problem.

(1) I suspect sleeping gas is a media fantasy. Sure it's used in TV shows, novels and movies, but I don't know if it existing as a reliable method of subduing anyone. Anesthesia literally takes a person very near the point of death where even their breathing has to be sustained. Moreover, it has to be given at certain concentrations or it is either ineffective or fatal. Remember the hostage crisis a few years ago where the Russians used a sleeping gas of some sort and killed a large number of hostages? If the Dallas police did that, can you imagine the headlines and your gut-wrenching posts about the Dallas police using "poison gas" to kill a poor man who should have been taken alive?

I assume you were never in the military and exposed to tear gas in a training exercise.

(2) Gas goes into the atmosphere and cannot be controlled. If they used tear gas, the gas would have blown all over and possibly affected the ability of police officers to manage the situation. Moreover, it was windy that evening (I was outside in Arlington, Texas, about 20 miles to the west) and the wind moving the tear gas through that parking garage would have been much less effective than you might imagine.

We are not talking about an artillery barrage as was used in WW I.

(3) As a spree shooter, this man probably did not expect to live (we know this from quite a bit of unfortunate experience) and gas would have simply prompted him to take some sort of action that would have exposed more people to significant risk of death and injury. Fourteen people had already been shot with several already dead and a couple that were about to die from their injuries. How many more innocent people needed to be shot before the police would be justified ending the situation? They had already tried to reason with him and he would have nothing of it. He was a clear and present danger to everyone there. He claimed to have bombs planted throughout the area - who knows if he had a remote detonator that he was waiting to trigger at an opportune time? There may have been more snipers and the longer they were focused on him, the more time they would give an accomplice time to act.

So surprise him and let him live and gain useful information for him.

You assume he would be cooperative. What gives you that expectation?

What makes you think that information could not be gotten from him?

There are too many Monday morning armchair quarterbacks who don't know the first thing about managing a situation like this. I'm very happy you were not in charge of this situation. We would likely have more than a few extra caskets and grieving families to support this week.

I have not judged what the police did. I do say that considerations should be made to take a different approach in the future whereby the person can be taken alive and pumped for information.

 

[Revmitchell]

By the way not sure where the tear gas argument comes from but it is an ignorant one. Tear gas does not guarantee that it will stop a shooter. More imp[importantly this shooter was not confined inside a building and was moving around. Tear gas would have been no help. One must be confined to an enclosed area on all four sides with a roof over head for tear gas to be effective at all. Even then it is still not a guarantee. In the mean time people were being picked off. Playing armchair quarter back to the actions of police in a situation like this can only produce more ignorance unless you have been trained and are experienced in dealing with these type events.

 

[Don]

I have not judged what the police did. I do say that considerations should be made to take a different approach in the future whereby the person can be taken alive and pumped for information.

But you have judged what the police did. What makes you think they didn't take tear gas or other methods into consideration? By saying "I do say that considerations should be made," you're implying that the *only* outcome the police decided upon was to kill the suspect; then the only consideration was how to do it.

I tend to think their considerations were along the lines of "how do we keep this guy from killing more people and police officers?"

Did he have a gas mask available, that would have inhibited the effects of tear gas or other chemicals? If you don't know, then guess what? Neither did the officers on the scene at the time, trying to minimize the risk to life. Shoot, just having something to cover your mouth in a windy area will negate a lot of the effects of tear gas (and yes, I've been through a tear gas chamber, lifted the mask, said my name and social security number, etc.). So it's quite probable -- not just possible, but probable -- that they considered tear gas, but decided the risk to life of civilians and law enforcement officers was too great.

So second-guess and arm-chair quarterback it all you want. I'd have made the same call. God and I will discuss it face-to-face some day.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It would be just as easy to explode a tear gas canister remotely as an explosive device. That surely would not be a problem.

Don't be so sure. A bomb robot is DESIGNED to detonate an explosive charge to trip or disable any explosive device. I don't think the Dallas Police Department has a robot designed to properly release tear gas. The bombs are detonated by a remote electric charge. Do they even create tear gas canisters that are activated by an electric charge? If so, why do you assume the Dallas Police have them in stock? Moreover, if a robot approached him carrying a tear gas canister, he would have attacked or avoided the robot... they don't move that fast. He was taken by surprise because he probably forgot that the robots have the ability to detonate charges.

But you want them to "explode" a tear gas device... So you're fine with setting off the standard explosive charge with a tear gas canister attached instead of just the explosive charge which was enough by itself to kill the man.

You are grasping at straws.

I assume you were never in the military and exposed to tear gas in a training exercise.

Your words above were in response to my explanation of the myth of "sleeping gas." I have been under the influence of general anesthesia many times. I have also experienced pepper spray in a training session. I have not had the opportunity to experience tear gas in a training exercise. But that's irrelevant since that was not the topic of my response.

We are not talking about an artillery barrage as was used in WW I.

No, that would have been more effective. A simple tear gas canister is quite easy to avoid. Tear gas canisters are used to move/motivate people, not subdue them. If it was effective at motivating him at all, it probably would have motivated him to make one last suicidal attack, detonate his bombs (he claimed to have them planted and you have to take that seriously), or some other aggressive action.

So surprise him and let him live and gain useful information for him.

He chose an easily defendable location. I have not been in that parking garage, but I have seen it more than a few times from the outside, and it looks like an easily defendable location from its shape, construction and location. You could kill many people before they get you.

What makes you think that information could not be gotten from him?

He was uncooperative and lied to police officers. He was also murdering them, so he didn't have a very high view of them.

I have not judged what the police did.

Sure you have. We are both exercising judgment. Perhaps you haven't condemned them, which is the real issue.

I do say that considerations should be made to take a different approach in the future whereby the person can be taken alive and pumped for information.

And yet you assume that "considerations" were not made to take this person alive.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jedi Knight]