
Dallas Police Used Robot with Bomb to Kill Ambush Suspect: Mayor - uptown
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-used-robot-bomb-kill-ambush-suspect-mayor-n605896
======
eximius
Wow. This feels incredibly wrong. I know it is just an extension of the
militarization of American police, but should they be allowed to issue a death
sentence like that? I argue no. Expend the time and resources to non-lethally
incarcerate him.

~~~
anonymousguy
Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for
intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and
vocally claimed to plant bombs and kill more police. There is no greater
justification for police to immediately terminate a life, whether that
justification is legal or due to exigence.

If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further
harm, then so be it and congratulations.

~~~
callahad
> _If this is what it took to end the suspect 's life, thereby preventing
> further harm_

Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established: that
killing the suspect was necessary to prevent further harm. It seems like most
of the discussion here is questioning that point: if the suspect had been
located and surrounded, was there a credible threat of further harm? If there
was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal
ways to apprehend the suspect?

~~~
cthalupa
He was still shooting at police officers and their attempts at non-lethal
measures such as flashbangs were not working.

~~~
haslhuny
Did they attempt flash bangs? I haven't heard that?

------
breck
Like everyone else I don't have any details on this beyond what's been
reported. But I for one think this -may- have been a great decision to end the
standoff without risking the lives of any more officers.

For those that are saying "there was no imminent threat", that is incorrect.
One relevant data point, see the 2009 standoff in Oakland, where 2 SWAT
officers died when they moved in on a cornered suspect
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_poli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_police_officers)).

This seems to me like a good application of technology in this extremely rare
type of situation.

~~~
poof131
I agree. While using a lethal robot is scary, it is really no different than
giving a police sniper the okay for a shot. Except in this case there was no
possibility of a sniper shot.

This individual was likely well trained. He fires and maneuvers. He has a good
stance and chooses targets. He is clearly an accurate shot. He is aggressive
and circles his target. He is calm under fire. [1]

His skill level is damn scary and likely superior to many of the police he was
up against. Makes me think of the Special Ops guys I worked with in Iraq. If
he escaped somehow from the garage, he could have killed could more.

While this robot technique is a bit scary, if I was responsible for stopping
him, I would probably have done the same thing. No way you can charge in to
stop him. Not only is he well armed, he may have a bomb. You don’t rush
entrenched people with assault rifles, it’s not Call of Duty. You use
grenades, explosives, air-strikes, etc.

Perhaps a non-lethal option could be developed. This would be ideal. But this
robot bomb may have been improvised on the spot by the police to deal with
this incident. Without a non-lethal robot to shoot a tranquilizer, release
gas, or stun the suspect, I see no other way to stop him.

[1] [https://streamable.com/pgpb](https://streamable.com/pgpb)

~~~
haslhuny
The point is that the police could have waited. They proactively murdered this
man for no reason at that point in the situation. If this individual was
white, Hispanic or even Muslim... they would have waited.

~~~
poof131
They could have waited for him to escape through the ventilation systems and
kill more people? They could have waited for him to detonate the entire
building and bring it down on everybody’s head, with more police inside and
media watching? Either are possibilities they could have waited for and
everyone would be second guessing those scenarios just like people are second
guessing this one now. I don’t like the idea of robot bombs killing people,
but when someone is shooting at police and not negotiating, I do support them
taking out the threat and wouldn’t call it murder. Self-defense or defending
innocents are probably better terms. And your statement that they would have
waited if he was a different race is ridiculous. So you know better what would
have happened than the african american chief of the Dallas police? You’re not
helping the situation in this country by making these uninformed statements.

~~~
someguydave
There is a point when you present such a threat to public safety that a
military solution is required. Hardened criminals who are obviously on a
murder spree have given up their right to due process. If he had peacefully
surrendered he would have had a trial and his due process (and hopefully
hanged for his crimes).

------
simonsarris
If this catches on I am sure we'll see a shift in language from calling them
"bomb disposal robots" to "threat disposal robots", or "danger mitigation
robots", or something similar.

The chilling bit is that this was a death sentence for a _suspect of non-
imminent threat,_ which opens a pretty big can of worms. (What if it was the
wrong guy? What if there was a hostage near him? etc)

~~~
mikeash
The language in the police department's announcement that I heard on the radio
was really curious. I can't find a transcript so I'm going by memory, but it
was something like, "The suspect was deceased by a robot carrying a bomb." It
was really passive and euphemistic language. I thought it was weird that they
couldn't just say straght-up "our officers killed him." I'd have no problem
with that statement if the killing was justified, but they seemed to want to
soften it as much as possible.

------
mccoyspace
While aerial lethal robotic forces have been used for years, this is the first
time I've heard of ground-based lethal robots.

It's amazing that it's happened first not by the military in a war situation,
but by domestic police forces against it's citizenry.

~~~
jonknee
It may also be the first use of a robot to kill a suspect in the US. We like
our aerial killing machines, but only in other countries.

~~~
macintux
I genuinely wonder how the secret service is going to protect against armed
drones.

~~~
24gttghh
Counter-drones that are also armed, with nets. Or net-launched bazookas. Or
directed radio-jamming devices.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Bullets/flak work better than nets.

~~~
angersock
Maybe?

Then again, if you're using it indoors or in a stadium or whatever, you don't
want to injure other people if your AA misses the drone. Nets are more
reasonable and safer for bystanders. Oh, and lighter.

------
Houshalter
Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of
police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.

~~~
PietdeVries
Well... If you have to chose between sending in your troops/colleagues or a
robot, what would you pick?

~~~
daedalus_j
Tear gas, flashbangs, water cannons, a nice safe armored vehicle... All
appropriate (ish) police tools.

IEDs: rather less so.

~~~
was_boring
Exactly. If they can have a robot with a bomb, then they can have a robot with
tear gas + flashbang.

This is the Dallas police department, they have equipment capable of dealing
with this situation -- to include armored cars and ballistic shields.

I hope the legal process is explored in this case.

------
KON_Air
I wonder how they made the robot blow people up, it doesn't seem like there
are any factory made "Turn your expensive toy into sucidie bomber" kit. Jurry-
rigging on the scene using moving parts to pull a pin of a grenade? Or did
they use a last resort "let's blow it up when we clear the premises" kind of
defusal kit? Or did they already had a custom kit with directional explosives?

The robot in question, incase anyone cares about the robot;
[https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-
systems/dragon-...](https://www.qinetiq-na.com/products/unmanned-
systems/dragon-runner/)

~~~
mikeash
There's a brief mention in the article of non-lethal measures being used in
previous cases. I wonder if maybe they tried to do the same here, but it went
wrong. For example, maybe the explosive was only intended to incapacitate, but
was accidentally too powerful, or the suspect was too close, or some other
factor caused it to be lethal instead.

------
tzs
According to the story at the NY Times, during negotiations the suspect had
said he wanted to kill white people, particularly police, that the end was
near, and that he had bombs throughout the garage and surrounding area.

~~~
mikeash
That last part is particularly weird to me: if they thought he could be
telling the truth, wouldn't they want to keep him alive in case they could get
him to talk about those bombs?

~~~
tzs
He would likely be someone who could tell them a lot of useful information
about the bombs, such as where they are and how they are triggered. That would
be very useful to help figure out what areas to evacuate and how to disarm the
bombs.

On the other hand, depending on where they are and how they are triggered, it
could be that he is able to trigger them himself and is just waiting to try to
get as many police surrounding him as possible before he suicides and takes
them with him.

So whether it is best from a safety standpoint to just keep him surrounded and
wait it out hoping he surrenders, or it is better to take him out (and do so
in a way that would not give him time to do something like trigger a bomb)
really would depend on what can be figured out about those bombs and his state
of mind when they are talking to him.

Until there is an investigation, and publication of transcripts or recordings
of the conversations between him and the negotiators, I don't think those not
involved have enough information to figure out the situation.

I'm particularly curious about how much planning was behind the attack on the
police and who the attackers were. In particular, was it (1) a spur of the
moment thing, or (2) something that was planned, but the planning only started
a couple days ago, or (3) something planned long ago and they were just
waiting for a good opportunity to act, which the protests yesterday provided?

------
danso
I predict a lot of unwarranted attention will be devoted to the fact that a
"robot" (i.e. The robots are killing us!) was used, even though it was remote
controlled and functionally not much different than if officers had lobbed an
explosive grenade at the suspect. To me, it's more interesting that lethal
force was used in a non-hostage situation -- did the suspect threaten to
detonate his own bombs (which would make this more like a hostage situation)?
Though I suppose concern over the use of robots is warranted...in the same way
that drones have allowed for the conduct of a proxy war...would police have
gone for the lethal option if it required officers to be put in harm's way?

------
jbapple
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing)

------
mc32
The reports so far is that talks had broken down and the suspect threatened
officers. At that point they could have waited longer, which could have lead
to either more fruitful talks or a stalemate. At that point they could send in
a SWAT or a robot to take the guy out. Both result in a dead suspect. One
could result in injury or more to officers, if suspect had other weapons
explosives and wasn't going to surrender. The other you send in the robot to
take the suspect out.

The only difference is that one you have people with triggers, the other you
have a remote person with a button. The result is the same.

When we begin using robotic fighters in wars, the same question will arise.
And we'll make the same decision. We'll send the robots instead of human
soldiers to minimize danger to our people, rather than give equal footing to
the person or people not us.

I must say, I didn't expect this to happen so soon, but on the other hand, it
was a practical decision --with lots of open questions, as well as precedence.

------
2sad2bbad
The Dallas police keep emphasizing it is the first time they used a robot to
kill someone in order to avoid talking about the elephant in the room. I
accept that it may be the first time they used a robot as a delivery vehicle
of the C4 (highly explosive bomb material). I do not appreciate, however, them
not admitting to the previous bombing of the organization known as "Move",
here in Philadelphia. They dropped the C4 bomb from the air. Dallas and Philly
would make it two times, that I know about. I suspect that before they allow
that area where they killed that black man in Dallas to be seen by the public
, they will have all kinds of construction crews in to clean up the
destruction for the cover-up. I suspect the news media and law enforcement
agencies and the like are complaicent in the cover-up, possibly for peace
sake. I don't feel peace can be accomplished with half truths, though. I do
not know of C4 even being used on the terrorists in the United States! A
robot, a helicopter...no matter how it was delivered, C4 was only used 2 times
and it was used on black men, black women, and black children. Here in
Philadelphia you could smell the houses burning for miles. I really do
appreciate ethical police. I mourn the loss of all innocent parties. I hope
everyone makes it home to their loved ones. However, I hope we can soon be
done with this David Brown show. He is not special. I don't think anyone who
could authorize a kill by the use of C4, outside of a war zone, no matter how
it is delivered, is not special at all... or brave; (Nor was the shooter
special or brave.) Speaking of "poor poor" David Brown, I will say this about
any job that deals with the public, everybody is not suited for every job. If
some police feel the job they signed up for puts too many demands on them
within the community they serve for a mere 44,000 or so a year, perhaps that
is not the fit for that person and they should quit as soon as possible. Many
other people have left better jobs for less.

------
noonespecial
If it seems oddly excessive, this might be the point. Cops are always
"enthusiastic" in their response to cop-killers. I think they intentionally
sought out a way to end the standoff with a little extra extravagance. An IRL
sharks with frikin lasers moment.

The entire thing, from the shooting of the unarmed man by police to this end
seems to be one long chain of ridiculous over-reactions. I sense a theme.

~~~
whamlastxmas
Remember that rogue cop a few years back that killed a few other cops and
tried to flee the country?

In their efforts to find them, eight cops open fired on a truck with two women
inside. Over 100 rounds fired, and the women thankfully survived despite
multiple gunshot wounds. And of course millions of dollars were awarded to
those women and none of the officers were fired as a result.

And remember how that situation ended? The cop killer holed up in a cabin in
the woods by himself surrounded by hundreds of cops. They decided to burn the
place down with the cop killer in it.

Only a few cops are actively over-aggressive and hot headed, but that nearly
every other cop stands by as they let the suspect burn alive (or over a
hundred rounds fired at a truck without any probable cause) says all that
needs to be said.

------
cprayingmantis
I watched the press conference, it was heavily implied that the man was
threatening them with IEDs. Who's to say that they weren't sure if he had an
explosive vest on? Listen I'm all for due process and bringing people in
alive, but I am not for putting the lives of law enforcement in danger unless
it's for the greater good.

------
known
Let Black Police deal with Black Suspects;

[http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34529611](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
scotland-34529611)
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

------
haslhuny
Finally finding like minds. I felt sick when heard how the two hour standoff
in a parking garage with one person who police did not have a clear shot so
neither did the suspect...wtf? The chief said they gave him 2 options, really?
There are only two?

------
ceejayoz
Does the EOD tech running the robot get paid leave like a shooting
investigation? Is it an officer-involved bombing?

I'm guessing this situation needs a bunch of new procedures and definitions
now.

