Cops have bombs?

[SVT-40]

No this was not combat.
The police do not and should not participate in combat.
Love it when our friendly overlords regale us with tales of combat. Because ya your junkie with a 9mm is exactly like getting ****ing mortared or ambushed. Yea.
The last cops I can think of that have a claim to a combat type situation would be north Hollywood shootout cops.

Douche.

[PSLguy]

Cops have had bombs for years as well as fully automatic weapons, .50BMG semi autos, etc. In short, they have the right tools for the job at hand.

They didn't blow up the building. They detonated a small explosive to kill (yes kill) an armed, barricaded suspect who had demonstrated an eagerness to kill cops.

Their actions were within the law and I support them 100%

[SVT-40]

[NIB]

Major law enforcement agencies have had EOD teams as far back as the 1980s and they use explosives often to set off bigger bombs.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

[SoCalDep]

Police have been using "military" tools for... Forever.

Police have been using "military" vehicles since... We used vehicles.

These arguments are stupid and show a complete lack of historical and contextual knowledge.

There are pictures in the CHP academy of motor officers in the 1940s with Thompsons.

Modern law enforcement is less militarized than it has ever been. Even with SWAT teams, the military in large part copied LE rather than the other way around so maybe we should complain about the innovation of LE or the policitization of the military.

If a suspect is creating an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury then lethal force is clearly authorized by the courts up to and including the supreme court. Those suggesting LE should have waited... I must ask... How long and for what? Do we wait for him to shoot and kill again? To find an angle to shoot another innocent person? To find a way to escape? To decide to force a confrontation where more innocent lives could be lost?

Many of these arguments are stupid. Don't be stupid. It generally makes people think you are stupid and they tend to disagree with you.

[PSLguy]

SoCalDep,

Couldn't agree with you more. Cops today, just like our military have to ride on the knife edge.

As a veteran (albeit desk jockey), I can see this in today's ROE. Second guessors are everywhere.

This is one place you shouldn't have to defend yourself or fellow officers. Yet, they persist..... sigh....

[Mentiroso]

Every large police department in this country with a Special Weapons/tactics
program has high explosives in their arsenal. Most of them use them for breaching hardened doors. Fortunately Dallas PD also had a robot & was quick-thinking to use it & explosives to prevent further loss of officer lives.

I understand they possess explosives for these reasons, but explosives used as a weapon is a first.

Some situations can go from a barricaded situation to a combat situation.
This situation was a combat situation.

Yes, he was barricaded in a fortified location, and had the tactical advantage over the police. He was continuing to shoot at police and it was a matter of time before he would kill or wound another person.

In that situation a controlled explosive device is the perfect tool for the job.

I disagree this was a combat situation, the officers possess armored vehicles, equipment.

Wait him out? It is Texas, No waiting, Justice is final, no need for a trial that wastes more of the taxpayer dollars. Period. God I Love Texas

You cannot be serious. We live in America where we are promised due process. Look into the Innocence Project. Turns out we convict innocent people regularly to long prison sentences.

Personally I'm an "all is fair" sort of a guy when someone is trying to do me harm. I consider being shot at as harmful. (You start it; hopefully I finish it).

Respectfully
Kyle

I agree he was a threat, but had access to limited ammo, weapons and necessary logistics.

The OP's post seems almost laughable, asking why the police need such equipment after what we saw last night.

Re: the "bomb" question, as others have mentioned the police have various types of explosives to breach doors, walls and render other explosives safe.

I understand the use of explosives, but do not understand condemning the shower to death without due process. Seems like that is what started this whole mess.

[Mentiroso]

Maybe the OP thinks the police should have just shot the sniper in the leg.

No. I do not believe that he should be shot in the length, but when Dallas P.D. had almost endless resources, why execute the man?

Not very different than one of us using our CCW to neutralize a threat. This person was obviously a threat, barricaded himself and was not going to be taken alive so that, to me constitutes a threat that needed to be neutralized although not sure why they couldn't just use a flash-bang and move in? I wasn't there, I am not a cop and I am sure that would entail more risk to the officers though. I don't have a problem that they neutralized this threat in this way.

CCW holders do so for fear for their life. In this case where PD.s have every advantage why not take other measures?

Why would anyone have "mixed feelings" about taking him out? He murdered five cops and shot eleven people, then continued to shoot at cops while refusing to surrender. Screw that POS, he's not in charge of jack or s, we don't need to "wait him out".

The P.O.S. you speak of served our country in Afghanistan. I believe he deserved a trial. Remember his actions are not much different than those of patriots who fought against the crown. We glorify them...right?

No this was not combat.
The police do not and should not participate in combat.
Love it when our friendly overlords regale us with tales of combat. Because ya your junkie with a 9mm is exactly like getting ****ing mortared or ambushed. Yea.
The last cops I can think of that have a claim to a combat type situation would be north Hollywood shootout cops.

Thank you. This was far from combat. This term is almost as misused as "rare" in the marketplace.

I don't like to see or hear anyone killed either and most certainly dislike hearing about cops shot and killed by a crazy nut job. But, wait this lunatic POS out to accomplish exactly what?

To Capture him later after he shoots a few more people and then have a long and costly trial and most likely ending up having to house and feed him for the rest his life???

He killed 5 people and shot a score of others, not to mention those people were all cops in uniform walking the street doing their job.
I am glad they took him out the fastest way they could and it makes no difference to me how they take out a bad guy who is a menace to society.

Cost should never be a concern when we are trying to establish guilt. If so, imagine how many people would be convicted at arrest?

That's all fine and dandy but we don't have cops execute people.

I am 110% pro death penalty; if I was given the switch, I would clear out death row like a flashbulb tomorrow.

But if we want to be better than the criminals, then we have to obey our own rules, such as a trial.

If we default to their level, then we justify their acting at that level.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are examples of not waiting people out. The Freemen and their retarded "just us" township was an example of waiting.

We can wait, fairly try the suspect, and fry him if guilty.

We are supposed to be better than them, remember?

Exactly. Why have constitutional rights if we will always look for reasons to supersede them? Cost, threat... should never be a reason to forgo those rights.

But that could also be argued in reverse. If a cop murders an innocent person, either because he's racist or simply having a bad day, does this sign his death warrant?

That's why we are in this mess.

we are better than them. we did not lie in wait to murder men and women who are sworn to protect the innocent.

i understand your point but in this particular case, i am totally fine with law enforcement officers avenging their fallen brothers and sisters... even though i dont think that was the case here. they simply felt ending the threat of a bomb was more important than any of their officers being further endangered.

There should be no exceptions!!!

You see, while I agree that murder should be awarded the death penalty, I am not for people taking the law into their own hands. If a person murders a cop, they should stand trial, just as a cop should if they murder someone wrongly. If we have a bunch of people running around handing out private justice, then we don't have any law and order.

Agreed!

I think blowing the ****er apart is awesome.

I will start the debate of police having explosives a little later, when I'm done laughing.

Spoken like an idiot.

[Mentiroso]

Fallacious argument. You need to arrest someone before they stand trial. Force is authorized, both to effect the arrest and to stop mayhem. If someone decides they won't be taken alive, that's not the police handing out punishment. The police have always been authorized to used force, including deadly force, to effect and arrest and stop an ongoing shooting spree.

As a man who took an oath to defend the constitution, you sure are quick to find exemptions.

They didn't execute him. They "detonated to stop the threat".

The rest was just an unfortunate side effect. [emoji10]

Bro....

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk

I could see this setting an interesting precedent. If saving lives regardless of the cost is the ultimate goal, don't be surprised when departments start asking for grenades and m203's.

Exactly, the precedent it sets is dangerous.

You must have lived without TV or news for your entire life if you didn't know that cops have explosives. Every big city has a bomb squad with explosives.

I know they have explosives. However there is a difference between explosives to breach or detonate and building bombs to kill suspects.

OP, get a grip on reality and please drop the "militarization of police" mantra.

It is a fabrication devised and promoted by Bias Stream Media. [more below on that]

Any real concerns over a shifting role of OUR police. Should be for "Us v Them". Where police become less protectors of citizens, and more protectors of political agendas. This is a gun, and gun rights forum. LibTurd politicos and their lap dog Bias Stream Media promote "Us v Them" because they must have OUR police in their camp, before they can make "Gun Control" work at an enforcement level.




Sarde, the Bias Stream Media is often "intentionally ambiguous". Then they can stray from actually reporting facts as known. And interject their own biases and agendas into their own so called journalism. And claim "absence of malice".

They created the militarization falacy to foment divisiveness between police and citizens. Just as they do with many volatile subjects. The more divisiveness, unrest, and violence, they can create. The more TV face time and sound bytes they use to cover their creations.

As to DPD having a "bomb" or HE device and using it to take out a dangerous mass murderer, without further loss of life. Other than his.

GOOD ON THEM For tackling a dangerous task and flushing a murderous turd into the septic tank of hell in an expedicious manner.

Would they have used the same tactic, if the turd was targeting black citizens, or asian citizens, or latinos, or any other than White Cops, in his mass murder scenario?

IMHO, Yes, I believe they would.

Vilify the turd, not the brave cops that stopped him.

Pres O-hole wasted no time vilifying the weapon the turd used. Don't vilify the weapon the cops used to stop the turd.

Applause for the fine officers of DPD. And condolences for the lives lost.

JM2c

Seriously? Law enforcement have access to tools they do not need. For example, L.A. unified school district having armored vehicles and grenade launchers... Look it up. They have NO justification for sick equipment such is why they returned it.

Lighten up Francis! Next you'll be saying, "why couldn't the police shoot him in the leg and give him a puppy."

Yea, it's that dumb!

"Time?" Why didn't the police wait him out? Are you freaking serious? The guy was actively firing on the police. Just how long are they supposed to be taking rounds before you give your blessing to do something? And where exactly do you think those rounds are going? They could easily go into neighboring buildings where maybe somebody is working late or cleaning an office...or any of a dozen other scenarios, including killing an officer.

Police have had explosives for years...decades even, to blow locks and doors and whatever. Is there some rampant misuse of explosives by police going on that I've missed in the media? No? Then chill out! Wait until there's something real to complain about.

And what the ever loving hell is the difference anyway between the police using a sniper to take the guy out or a robot and explosives? If you had read that the police fought it out with the guy and he was killed by police gunfire or a sniper, you wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Actively firing from a confined location with a limited of ammo. I guess, waiting him or seems ridiculous.

There's no such thing as "militarization of police".

This is a mainstream media created phrase to dramatize reality.

Tell me you want law enforcement limited on the equipment they need if they ever come to help you. Go ahead.

As for a "bomb" I am guessing they improvised a flash bang to their cop-bot (patent pending ) drove it up to the idiot and boom.

Bro...

I was surprised to hear the Dallas Chief of Police announce that they took out one of the shooters with a bomb. I can think of a number of scenarios where using explosives is appropriate, but I don't know the circumstances of this specific application, and I would like to know more about this situation. In general, I do not want to see police using explosives on humans.

Agreed. It kind of goes against LAW ENFORCEMENT. You know, arrest the guy and let the courts decide.

[Mentiroso]

Look there is a difference between using explosives to breach or detonate AND BUILDING BOMBS TO KILL HUMANS. Law enforcement has a difficult role where they need to apply RESTRAINT. The fact that they have not, has created the problem we find ourselves in.

[Mentiroso]

I get to second guess LEO's decisions, because our constitution guarantees me that right. You do not have to agree with me, but I am concerned when we would rather kill a suspect than bring them to justice.

POLICE DO NOT GET TO BE JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER. We sentence too many innocent people who are later exonerated to start killing suspects without at least allowing them to exercise their right to a jury of their peers.

[Mentiroso]

The basis of my argument is constitutional rights and my perceived violation of them by militarization of police.

Again, I am disgusted by the murder of the LEOs and do not advocate violence.

Now for the armchair commandos who advocate and puff their chest at killing the suspect. Serve your country or learn constitutional law. You will learn a greater respect for what "rights" means.

[Doheny]

Cops have bombs?

Feel better now that you got all that out of your system?

[Mentiroso]

Feel better now that you got all that out of your system?

No. But I do believe state and federal law prohibits the illegal manufacture of bombs, and I do not believe local law enforcement has the legal right to manufacture bombs (with the exception of federal agencies). So, this is new and dangerous legal area we have entered.

Again, please understand the difference between explosives and bombs before commenting.

[calm_head_prevails]

Look there is a difference between using explosives to breach or detonate AND BUILDING BOMBS TO KILL HUMANS. Law enforcement has a difficult role where they need to apply RESTRAINT. The fact that they have not, has created the problem we find ourselves in.

I respect your opinion and I humbly disagree. Peace Officer's have an obligation to society to stop the escalating threat of violence. I'm not familiar with TX since I live in Kalifornia, but my understanding of use of force is based on the escalating actions of the person being arrested. My understanding of deadly force is that it's vague and based on the circumstance. In this situation if the bomb tactic didn't work (which it did) and the shooter still escalated the altercation then peace officers have an obligation to increase their level force to stop that threat. Whether the threat is stopped with bullets, explosive device, hit by a car, walked over by an elephant or firebombed. The suspect was forcing the officer's to up-the-ante and the officer's must stop the threat because that is their duty and they have no choice but to win buy either: 1) Use of force to gain compliance; 2) Suspect complies.

I'm not a LEO but I am somewhat familiar with PC 835, PC 843 and have the basic understanding of Graham v Connor. I'm also smart enough to know that if someone is being detained or fleeing from a felony arrest, society empowers police through the Constitution to get the job done. I'm sure the officers would have also backed off the force if the suspect was not constantly shooting at them.

I think the officers showed amazing restraint by waiting so long considering the firefight the suspect was causing.