So, now it's ok for our police to use bombs..

Increasingly Police look more and more Military.

According the Constitution, military is never to be used against our civilian population.

On top of that I see National Guard at JFK airport anytime security is up.

When the cops start blowing up Jews maybe you might get a response to that comment.

Because unlike you, I'm not a P S Y C H O !!!!!

How was the perp not able to evade or shoot the robot as it approached?

There are very, very few details as to how this things was used.

Police robots are designed to bomb other bombs. They're experts in the usage of directional charges, and they're far from novice at clearing areas and evaluating the surrounding environment, for instance determining the location of relevant utility lines. When they sent their EOD bot in, they had already evaluated the situation and had estimated the dangers to be acceptable. It wasn't guesswork.

The police already knew this wouldn't be the case. They didn't simply cross their fingers and hope for the best. The bomb squad knows how to handle these things safely.

Their changing equipment and methodology is a result of the changing environment. As the threat to the stability of the order grows, so too must the tools and methods of the enforcers of the order.

So, just how were they expected to get close enough to apprehend and detain this armed and unhinged individual in order to give him his due process? He voluntarily gave up his right to due process.

Last Edited by Suzy Q on 07/09/2016 01:59 PM

there is NO law that justifies bombing someone.

law states force used to negate injury and put a person to trial.

period.

The perp was in an isolated corner of a parking garage, with no external openings, several stories up, so no snipers could get a shot at him. there are no gas lines in a parking garage.

And for folks asking about where they got the charges, a PD like Dallas with a full time tactical unit will have the ability to do explosive entries, through solid walls, like Orlando SWAT did, So they will have plenty of det cord and c4 available. And of course an EOD unit will have charges to BIP suspicious objects. So making a charge to take this guy out, could be put together in minutes.

For folks saying, they have now destroyed evidence or we now no longer have a body to ID, just don't know anything about explosives. Evidence is never destroyed by an explosion, it may be scattered but never destroyed. And bodies aren't just vaporized, even those with suicide vest, leave their bodies behind. Of course, I'm not talking about, what happens when a JDAM hits say a mortar crew, they are pretty much vaporized. But you will still find arms, feet maybe a torso. Definitely testable material for DNA.

I think it's most likely they used a small C4 charge, taped to something like a vertical metal plate, like those fire depts put under their trucks support arms. This would be held by the robots arm, so it with the charge in the center, faces the suspect. They wouldnt have even needed to get with 15-20 feet of the guy. This plate would focus the shockwave with a lensing effect, killing him by shock wave damage. His body would externally look like he had fallen asleep, but his internal organs would be shattered. Being in a corner, with solid walls would have only magnified the effect, meaning the needed charge could have been much smaller, then if he was in the open.

I speculating on the type of charge from my experience and training, but I just wanted to put out there that's it's possible to take him out, without causing too much damage to anything that isn't soft organ tissue.

I have zero problem with this technique, but then I'm retired LEO with 13 years on my depts SRT, so maybe I'm biased. This was an extreme situation that called for an extreme resolution. I don't think it sets any kind of precedent for wider use. But trust me, this technique wasn't just thought up last night. Units like mine, and Dallas SWAT are trained to take on worst case scenarios, so lots of out of the box techniques are talked about, experimented with, etc. it's what the public are paying us for.

Oh yeah... I do not think this one was posted yet too...

Executive Order -- United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation's inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state's inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.

Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation's inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.

(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;

(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;

(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;

(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and

(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.

(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;

(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;

(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and

(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.

(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.

(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.

(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.

(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.

(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 1, 2016.

He recused his right.

Aren't they trained to apprehend armed unhinged individuals?

To what extent?

ok,so since the country is dead broke,we will no longer pay lawyers or judges or cops. the prez has final say to use an army of drones n robots to control criminals. if u havent paid a fine they will come destroy your home,just tear holwes in it. enuf holes the tax $4 u pay for the repair work will in fact equal the fine u shoulda paid. oh wait ur kid was on a school bus that was hijacked. they were driving towards a playground. instead of evacuating the area,we dropped a bomb to " stop" the bus. we missed the engine n tires n hit the gas tank by "accident" n killed your kids. ooops
thats the official story: it was to blow an access not blow the guy up. but since he wass " supposedly" the bad guy its ok??

this could b a good debate. but i think we can alll agree on a few points: 1> the prez should not b the only person making these desicions.based on the constitution and common sence.
2> there needs b more debate n open info to even decide this.
3> if robots or drones r to b used it must b special circumstances only. they can n ot replace our human cops.
4> the drones/robots should not kill suspects just because they can. even if the suspect supposedly shot ppl. if nobodies life is in immediate and emmenant danger at the moment,. life should b valued above property. and innocent til proven quilty applies.
5: considering they "accidently" blew up more than they was trying to. they said they were trying to gain access not kill the suspect. in their own words even. the technology is advanced more than training. before this is to b used on USA soil,and possably should b the planet, there must b more trainging by both the cops using the tech n more for the computers operating the drone/robot also.


feel free to add to my list. but am i wrong?????

Sorry, the law says, force can be used to stop the threat. That force level escalates in line with the suspects actions. It's called the Force Contiuum and it has ZERO to say about having to mitigate that force so the person can stand trial.

Well, maybe waiting it out. Remember that tactic?

executive orders are to b rescinded by the constitution. they are illegal. the prez does not have athority to make laws. anything less gives way to a dictatorship. n why r we paying congress??? n when did the ppl vote to kill the constitution???

Can American civilians use bombs to defend themselves now as well?

They did...

what threat??? the shooting had stopped. suspect cornered. which to me means the c ops had some control of him. he cant get awaynor can he shoot anyone at that moment. we must differentiated the moment at hand n the moments b4.
a dude gets drunk drives down the road. cops investigate. next morning the dude drives to work,passing a school. do they open fire?? do they assume he is drunk still n blow up his car???

They're fighting for dominance and control; for stability and order. You cannot simply escape the enforcers by refusal to surrender. As an uncompliant and hostile actor, they will do whatever is necessary to deprive you of your freedom, even if it means depriving you of your life. At one time, the police would even shoot you in the back if you ran from them if they thought you would get away. In a stand off, once they decide peaceful resolution is impossible, they will immediately proceed to resolve the situation through whatever means necessary.

When surrounded, you will submit, or you will die. There are no alternatives. He was under arrest the moment he was trapped and had no means of escape. He was imprisoned. The only question was whether or not he understood that. When it was determined that he didn't and wouldn't, the only remaining question was how to end it with as little loss to their team as possible. He's lucky an Apache didn't obliterate the entire structure with a barrage of hellfire missiles and 30mm chaingun. Yet, still, it really wouldn't have mattered: bomb or missile, he would've been just as dead either way.

Helicopter gunships will one day be used in such a way in America. It's inevitiable.

I do not care, the cops saved the American tax payers decades of incarceration fees.

Thank you for your post, it was well thought out and informed.

u should start new thread,that is another GOOD debate. legally i think u r considered a terrorist because u made a bomb without being licensed. like a building demo worker has to b registered,licensed,etc. but the constitution n laws under it give u the right to defend equal force.

Shooting had not stopped. They might have been talking to him for a few hours, but he would occasionally fire a round or two. When negotiations broke down, he started shooting again, a lot more. From his protected position, it would have been suiicide for any officer rounding the corner on him.

The rest of what you said is too ridiculous to comment on.

Last Edited by mport81 on 07/09/2016 02:15 PM

Why are people applauding over due process for this murderer? A man who had plans to commit suicide if the cops couldn't get at him first. Did they already forget hes dead. Yeah I'm sorry to say, he died in the heat of battle so throwing a corpse on the confession stand wont help your constitutional arguments.

if we go b he old laws u might b right.if there were 2 or more witnesses or the dude admitted to a crime then yep. however we r not under the old laws. u r innocent til proven quilty. my point thou is beyond that. when is it justified n who gets to make that decision??

in my opinion if some guy kill or rape ur child,and u have several witnesses to thisd.not just hearsay,but evidence n EYE witnessed. yep u could kill him. but if u think he did it ,or 1 person tells u then nooo. but again that b old laws.

CNN is reporting they found drugs at his house too. METH