The Dallas Police Department’s unprecedented use of an explosive-laden robot to kill an armed suspect ushers in a new phase in the militarization of U.S. police departments.
The tactic illustrates what police see as the new opportunities for self-defense presented by advancing technologies and the transfer of second-hand military equipment to local police departments.
But it also raises difficult ethical questions about how and when such technologies should be deployed in a civilian setting to allow police to kill a suspect while facing little or no risk. (source)
A kind of drone (another word for robot) essentially dropped a bomb on an American citizen. A civilian.
In some ways, we have entered a new era because clearly other police departments are impressed with the result and already have the equipment.
The reasoning will be to end an active shooter situation without further loss of life.
Think about it: It's a first. It seems we have crossed a kind of Rubicon here similar, in some ways, to other firsts such as the first use of gunpowder, the Gatling gun, or the atomic bomb.
Sounds scary, perhaps, but there may be upsides. Imagine an American with streets patrolled by robocops. Think about the recent shooting of a black driver in Minnesota. An officer, perhaps fearful of young black males, suspecting (imagining) that the driver was about to produce a weapon, opened fire. Substitute a robot. No fear for its life. No attitudes regarding black men. No nervousness or jumpiness. No itchy trigger finger. It might have turned out much differently. Even if the driver was a bad guy. What would be the point of shooting? It's a fucking robot.
“The further we remove the officer from the use of force and the consequences that come with it, the easier it becomes to use that tactic,” said Rick Nelson, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former counterterrorism official on the National Security Council. “It’s what we have done with drones in warfare.”
“In warfare, your object is to kill,” he added. “Law enforcement has a different mission.”
Other law enforcement officials supported the decision, suggesting they could take a similar approach if the situation called for it. At a news conference on Friday, New York’s police commissioner, William J. Bratton, said that while he was waiting to find out precisely what the Dallas police did, “we have that capability.” (source)
This is the only instance I've heard of where a perp was killed just to get it over with even though he wasn't actively shooting and was cornered.
Can you think of one?
Do we now kill baddies just so we can all go home rather than trying to apprehend them first?
The approach used in Dallas is basically a variant of shooting the bad guy in the back.
Walter Scott. He was running away, not shooting a gun, pulled a knife, or weilded a lead pipe. The cop had is name and address and his registered vehicle but elected to shoot him several times and then place the taser next to his body
I'm not sure what your point is. That was against his department's policy. He's been charged.
"An unarmed man who was shot and killed by an Arizona police officer in January cried, complied with police orders and begged for his life before the fatal firing, according to a newly released police report.
Mesa Police Officer Philip Brailsford has been charged with second-degree murder for the death of Daniel Shaver, a 26-year-old Texas man. Authorities have declined to release Brailsford’s body cam footage from the deadly encounter."
Maybe it's just me but that post sounded a bit racist. Did you mean it that way or is there some other POV I'm missing.
I meant it as a reflection of reality.