Cops have bombs?

[ARDude]

No due process for the perp. Judge, jury and executioner?

If someone is shooting at you, are you the Judge, jury and executioner?

Nope. You are none of those. You are a person defending yourself.

[blasterp7]

It struck me as a little odd as well, but I don't suppose you can ambush 11 police officers, declare your intent to kill more, and then complain they didn't fight fair when they take you out unconventionally.

You are sounding like a reasonable person in a world of increasingly unreasonable people

[HardwoodRods]

Sure, but if he was holed up in a surrounded, deserted parking structure, then there was no need to quickly neutralize.

Remember the rule of law works both ways. The need to quickly neutralize violent people was probably the same thinking that drove Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Okay let's look at the "blast:. If they had made a decision to breach for a second entry point, and the blast pattern from the breech had killed him, would we be having this discussion? Very Doubtful.

[Erion929]

You have no more rights when you ambush and slay humans.

Blow. Him. Up.

[Epaphroditus]

That John Africa business was certainly over the top (amazing how many don't have a clue about this incident). I remember watching the news while it was going down ...

In the heat of the moment second guesses and Monday morning QB is pointless. This is why dedicated training with a serious mindset is critical. When SHTF it's too late to start pondering the whys and wherefores.

How many departments train for sniper team attack? Can't train for every scenario ...

[heidad01]

He did have his due process.
1- He killed and injured a whole lot of people right in front of hundreds of witnesses. That is proof of multiple murders with menace.
2- He barricaded himself and said that he wants to kill more people, specifically police officers.
3- He refused to come out and go to Court, talk to a Bail Bond's man, etc.
4- He got killed which is what he deserved.

What part of the due process is missing here??

[Mentiroso]

Johnny 5 is ALIVE!!!!

There is no problem that can not be solved with plastic explosives.
The shooter took himself there. Show no mercy to save lives.

CMBrowning, you went there so now I will. How can a man who quotes Ephesians state "show no mercy to save lives" when God himself is merciful and says to show mercy?

Ephesians 2:4 (ESV)


4 But[a] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,.

And John 3:16.

I am calling you out. You my friend are a HYPOCRITE.

Matthew 10:38

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

[Mentiroso]

Police have used explosives such as hand-grenades for a long time. Back in the 20's or 30's they were used against some big name gangsters and bank robbers. In the 60's and 70's they were used against some Black militants like the Black Panthers and SLA. A group called MOVE was bombed from a helicopter in the 1980's in Philadelphia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

.

Thank you, I was not aware.

This situation was not just a barricaded static suspect. He was violent, uncooperative and an ACTIVE shooter.

Once the decision was made to neutralize the situation, it doesn't matter if a team was used to breach the area, or a sniper was used, or in this case an explosive.

The result is the same....suspect is neutralized.

Some people here think that he should've been waited out, that he has a right to be arrested. Well, that is the suspect's choice. He could have cooperated, but he didn't. He escalated the situation.

Wait until he runs out of ammo? If someone attacks your home, are you gonna wait till they run out of ammo? He could have 1000 rounds of ammo easily. That's just 1 ammo can full of loose rounds.

Yes, waiting until he runs out of ammo is not a ridiculous proposition, what about water? What are we talking three days? Less depending on the parking structure temperature.

So for you guys who against him being blown up, would you have been ok with a police sniper taking him out if they had the chance?

I do not have an issue with snipers taking him out. My concern is police departments creating bombs (IEDs) and employing them.

If someone is shooting at you, are you the Judge, jury and executioner?

Nope. You are none of those. You are a person defending yourself.

Different scenario bro. I am not a SWAT team with multiple levels of armor, vehicles, personnel and equipment.

Okay let's look at the "blast:. If they had made a decision to breach for a second entry point, and the blast pattern from the breech had killed him, would we be having this discussion? Very Doubtful.

I would not. We would not be discussing this scenario if that wetter the case.

You have no more rights when you ambush and slay humans.

Blow. Him. Up.

Bro, we still have rights regardless.

He did have his due process.
1- He killed and injured a whole lot of people right in front of hundreds of witnesses. That is proof of multiple murders with menace.
2- He barricaded himself and said that he wants to kill more people, specifically police officers.
3- He refused to come out and go to Court, talk to a Bail Bond's man, etc.
4- He got killed which is what he deserved.

What part of the due process is missing here??

The right to counsel, right to face their accuser, right to a fair trial... bro you cannot be serious.

[Citadelgrad87]

Thank you, I was not aware.



Yes, waiting until he runs out of ammo is not a ridiculous proposition, what about water? What are we talking three days? Less depending on the parking structure temperature.



I do not have an issue with snipers taking him out. My concern is police departments creating bombs (IEDs) and employing them.

Different scenario bro. I am not a SWAT team with multiple levels of armor, vehicles, personnel and equipment.

I would not. We would not be discussing this scenario if that wetter the case.

Bro, we still have rights regardless.

The right to counsel, right to face their accuser, right to a fair trial... bro you cannot be serious.

Bro, your right to a trial doesn't trump every other consideration. He was offered safety if he gave up. instead, he chose to start shooting again. Criminals dont get the luxury of deciding if and when they will be arrested.

As long as he was offered the option of a peaceful arrest and trial, its up to him to choose wisely.

[elSquid]

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.

Apparently you haven't bothered to learn ConLaw either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

So that is when police are legally able to shoot a fleeing felon in the back; basically to reasonably prevent further bloodshed of innocents or other police officers. Keep that standard in the back of your mind: killing a dangerous fleeing felon is legal. The felon has no "right to a trial" at that point; the safety of the general public and police officers supersedes pretty much all at that point.

Was it reasonable to kill the suspect in Dallas?

- the suspect had apparently shot and killed many people
- the suspect had apparently engaged police from his last location
- the suspect had refused surrendering to police
- effecting a lawful arrest would definitely put the lives of other officers in jeopardy.

Killing the suspect was clearly reasonable and legally justifiable.

-- Michael

[pacrat]

Bro, we still have rights regardless.

The thing with rights, and those that espouse them. Is that any persons individual rights END. Where another person's rights begin.

The terrorist turd, of his own free will, decided that "his" supposed right to murder people. [nowhere in the BoR, that i read] Over shadowed his victim's right to life.

The right to counsel, right to face their accuser, right to a fair trial... bro you cannot be serious.

The terrorist turd COULD HAVE exercised those rights at any time. He chose not to. All he had to do was lay down his rifle and ask for an attorney. As was his right.

He himself, of his own free will, chose martyrdom.

Now he is a GOOD terrorist turd martyr.

BOOM, and done, his wish is granted, and the world is a safer place for his passing.

[Mentiroso]

Apparently you haven't bothered to learn ConLaw either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

So that is when police are legally able to shoot a fleeing felon in the back; basically to reasonably prevent further bloodshed of innocents or other police officers. Keep that standard in the back of your mind: killing a dangerous fleeing felon is legal. The felon has no "right to a trial" at that point; the safety of the general public and police officers supersedes pretty much all at that point.

Was it reasonable to kill the suspect in Dallas?

- the suspect had apparently shot and killed many people
- the suspect had apparently engaged police from his last location
- the suspect had refused surrendering to police
- effecting a lawful arrest would definitely put the lives of other officers in jeopardy.

Killing the suspect was clearly reasonable and legally justifiable.

-- Michael

Michael, I am aware of the Garner case. However, effecting a lawful arrest may/may not put lives at risk. Think about barricaded suspects who are armed. In almost every scenario SWAT employs less-lethal agents. I am a Ca. DOJ CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR who used to teach in SoCal. SWAT = sit wait and talk.

[elSquid]

Think about barricaded suspects who are armed. In almost every scenario SWAT employs less-lethal agents.

But there are exceptions...for example when a sniper may shoot a bad guy who has a hostage and is likely to hurt said hostage. What happens to the suspect's due process and right to a trial then?

-- Michael

[orangeusa]

You can bet they didn't make this decision lightly.

I am guessing, but I bet DPD consulted other agencies.

QUESTION FOR LEO'S
Aren't there checks and balances required even to call out a SWAT team?

.

[CinnamonBear723]

You can bet they didn't make this decision lightly.

I am guessing, but I bet DPD consulted other agencies.

QUESTION FOR LEO'S
Aren't there checks and balances required even to call out a SWAT team?

.

Yes there are criteria for SWAT call outs. This situation for sure fit the bill. As far as blowing that A-hole up, I'm all about it and I think it was a sweet move. He made it pretty clear he wasn't going quietly so why put more officers at risk and why waste time. There's a time and place for waiting out a barricaded suspect but this wasn't one of them. It's not like the world lost a decent law abiding citizen.

And for the nay sayers that think police don't need this type of equipment I challenge you to watch the videos and see the level of training they had. I would argue law enforcement isn't prepared enough and need better equipment and heavier armor. And clearly having explosives came in handy.