Police

Dallas PD Used a "Bomb Robot" to Neutralize Alleged Cop-Killing Sniper

The use of a "bomb robot" to take down a suspect appears to be a new police tactic.

|

Bomb robot
Jaromír Chalabala/Dreamstime.com

Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown said at a press conference this morning that the alleged Dallas police-targeting sniper was killed by a bomb placed in the suspect's vicinity by a "bomb robot."

The suspect, identified as 25-year-old former Army reservist and Afghanistan veteran Micah Xavier Johnson, was apparently cornered in a parking garage at El Centro College where during hours of negotiations with police he said he had planted a number of explosives around the city and that he "wanted to kill white people." 

Chief Brown was quoted in Business Insider as saying that after a prolonged shootout with Johnson, "We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on it for it to detonate where the suspect was. Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger. The suspect is deceased, as a result of the detonating of the bomb."

Brown's wording makes it unclear whether Johnson was killed by the bomb robot detonating an explosive owned by the Dallas PD or whether the robot detonated a device which caused a bomb in Johnson's possession to explode. Either way, this appears to be a new tactic to policing, though commonly used by U.S. forces in Iraq. 

Motherboard reports:

The sort of ground robots used in those scenarios—and now the one that played out in Dallas—are not autonomous, and are usually used strictly for bomb disposal. These devices have been weaponized, however, as seen with US military bomb bots fitted with machine guns. (The military says the guns are for shooting suspected explosive devices.) In the United States, Remotec bomb disposal robots used by law enforcement have been outfitted with guns that are designed to detonate bombs in a controlled manner.

Peter W. Singer, an expert in military technology and robot warfare at the New America Foundation, tweeted that this is the first known incident of a domestic police force using a robot to kill a suspect. Singer tweeted that in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have strapped claymore mines to the $8,000 MARCbot using duct tape to turn them into jury-rigged killing devices. Singer says all indications are that the Dallas Police Department did something similar in this case—it improvised to turn a surveillance robot into a killing machine.

Given that Johnson was clearly unafraid to die and hell-bent on killing police officers, it's understandable that at a certain point the Dallas PD felt their best bet at ending the siege without further carnage was to use a tool which would keep their officers out of harm's way. Still, there are concerns that with more and more automated tools at police's disposal (NPR reported in 2014 that 479 bomb robots were distributed to law enforcement agencies through the Defense Department's 1033 Program), the risk of dehumanizing suspects through the use of such impersonal weaponry grows, as does the risk of mission creep. 

When SWAT teams were first introduced, they were intended for extremely rare and high-risk events like hostage situations and terror attacks. Decades later, upwards of 80 percent of SWAT deployments are merely to serve warrants, sometimes using MRAPs and flash-bang grenades, with the reasoning from law enforcement generally focused on an abundance of caution for officers, but not the public

In 2014, Albuquerque police reportedly directed a bomb robot to deploy "chemical munitions" (perhaps tear gas?) on a "barricaded subject armed with a gun," and in 2015 the California Highway Patrol used a bomb robot to deliver a pizza to a suicidal man, which lead to the man's peaceful surrender. Clearly, advances in technology have reasonably practical uses for law enforcement, but now that the Dallas PD has deployed a robot with a bomb to end a standoff, and North Dakota has legalized the use of police drones armed with Tasers and pepper spray, a national conversation over the reasonable limits of force with the aim to protect the lives of both police and the citizenry is well worth having.

In 2013, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delivered a famous filibuster motivated in part by his demand that President Obama make clear whether or not he believes he has the authority to use drone strikes on American citizens (Former Attorney General Eric Holder eventually answered that question with a "no"). Some critics thought Paul was a crazy alarmist, but it's not crazy to ask for specific protocols on the use-of-force with regards to ever-advancing militarized technology, and now is as good a time as any to have that conversation.  

NEXT: Get Ready for President Hillary on Tonight's Stossel!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else killed using a bomb robot?

    1. Every pansy in battlefield 4?

    2. President Obama?

      1. I haven’t seen any war protesters, you sure it wasn’t bush?

        1. Yeah, that’s what I meant. Stupid Freudian slip….

    3. Werner von Braun?

    4. oh and SKYNET!

      You stooooopid mammals, wait till The Machines comes to shit all over this thread

      1. Are you familiar with the Pixar Theory? Mr Lizzard? Methinks you may have personal knowledge. Ar you concerned the machines will war with the animals and win? Either way, us humans should not be forgotten.

        1. The machines pretty much rise out of industrial development by a native species, and then they promptly level everything in sight. Your famous Terminator series of movies is a training film for my people (except for the last one, it was entertaining but inaccurate)

          Anyways once the machines have tossed nukes around, there’s nothing left for my people to orbitally bombard…so there goes the fun part of the invasion. Plus there is very little cattle left, and quite a few armored robots with 40 w pulse rifles sitting around. At that point any invasion would result in a lot hungry reptiles, and even more dead ones.

          Any other questions?

          1. When do the toys take over?
            (seriously, read this)

          2. Robots with *40w* pulse rifles should pose no real threat. What are they going to do with them? Warm up a nice rock for you to lay on?

            1. 40 watts applied over a cross-sectional area of (say) 2mm? (a tightly-collimated laser beam)? That’s a yield of 20 Megawatts/m?.

              That oughta do it, yeah.

    5. Professors Hector and Vector?

      PS – Fuck these *murdering* cops for *murdering* this suspect with *revenge* as their motive.

    6. King Koopa?

  2. I get the point, but let’s not conflate this with a drone strike.

    1. You know who else just conflated this with a drone strike….

      *looks upthread*

    2. Is it really all that different? Remotely operated device delivered explosive ordnance which detonated on target.

      It wasn’t flying, that much I’ll grant…

      1. So a hand grenade on a string. Seems to me dead is dead. The justification for the action is the only relevant topic to discuss.

        1. I’ve got not much problem with this here except . . .

          I’m not exactly willing to trust cops with the free use of explosives. They already have shitty aim and aren’t known for moderation. *This* time worked out OK, lot’s of times before have not – flashbangs in cribs, burning down a couple of city blocks, that sort of thing.

          Though I imagine that the guy who set this up was a former soldier himself before joining law enforcement.

          1. Oh, I *do* have a problem with the ‘this is taking too long’ mentality that has these guys move to kill a cornered and contained suspect rather than waiting him out, baiting him to expend ammo, and then grabbing him when he runs dry or kills himself.

            1. Nice you could step up and rush the bunker when the “time” comes to see if he doesn’t have any more ammo. Better you should wait until Monday to take the snap.

              1. Whatever happened to using tear gas to get people out. Although they used a few on a relative with no effect.

    3. Randy Quade on Mars

  3. Was he a direct threat to some cops? Or did they kill him since he might become a direct threat?

    1. BTW, “Killed” is not spelled “Neutralized”

      1. And robots don’t detonate explosives, people do.

        1. The bomb went off. The suspect was neutralized. Mysterious are the ways of the universe.

        2. Digger D2 has a sad.

    2. Dude had killed some cops and then holed up while continuing to shoot. After several hours, they said “fuck it” and blew him up.

      My outrage meter is flaccid.

      1. This.

        1. All I’m looking for is a solid report that the area was hand-searched and evacuated beforehand and someone signed off on responsibility for any errors. The former of which I actually am fairly confident happened (no sarc).

      2. I can’t really say that I’m outraged, or even a little upset, about killing the suspect. But, I do have some very serious concerns with the way they did it. In my opinion it gives credence to those who say we are at war. It’s kind of hard to dispute that when the government is actually using the weapons and tactics of war. I’m concerned that a government overreaction will cause others to join in. I guess we just haven’t learned how pissed off people get when you blow their relatives up with a drone.

        1. I guess we just haven’t learned how pissed off people get when you blow their relatives up with a drone.

          That’s because we didn’t kill this guy’s underage son and other family members in the process. They’ll get it right next time.

          1. +1 Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

      3. The fact that the suspect deserved it doesn’t change the consequences of the police deciding to deliver a fucking explosive device to kill said suspect instead of delivering a tear-gas canister to disable him.

        This was a summary execution of a suspected killer. You should be outraged.

        1. I think you’re overrating “tear gas.” You don’t have to see very well at all to shoot people coming through a door. And shooting inside concrete boxes tends to generate ricochets.

          The choice was to send a robot, which isn’t alive, or charge in gunzablazin with real people and expect some of them besides the suspect to get shot.

          What’s the difference between guiding a robot in with, say, a grenade; and shooting a bullet through a window (which couldn’t be done here) from across the street?

          1. The choice was to send a robot, which isn’t alive, or charge in gunzablazin with real people and expect some of them besides the suspect to get shot.

            Or… they could have fucking waited dude out until he passed out from lack of water?

            Seriously, what in the fucking fuck are you talking about? The guy was a human being, not a fucking terminator.

            1. well he did say he had a bomb and the only way to diffuse a bomb is to blow it up so if you gas him he may blow himself up. he didn’t in the end but it turns out he the materials at his home.

              1. I thougth the story was that he’d planted bombs elsewhere, so now there’s no chance of getting out of him their locations.

          2. You have obviously never been in a gas chamber. The tactics used wouldn’t necessarily be to deploy gas then initiate breach. They could deploy gas and wait him out. Believe me, CS isn’t fun. Within 60 seconds the suspect would have mucus hanging from his nose all the way down to his feet. Within two minutes he would probably be vomiting and would have so much mucus on his hands he wouldn’t be able to hold his weapon.

            1. To be fair, I knew a Marine who did one of his annual “gas chamber” tests… without his mask.

              Some people really are bad-asses.

              1. The gas chamber isn’t a full CS deployment. It’s probably about a quarter of the strength of a single CS grenade. I’d be real interested in just how effective he was when he exited the chamber. My guess is he was one of the people I used to see bent over spewing vomit.

            2. Or he would have put on his mask and carried out as before.

              1. Have you ever worn a gas mask? Yes, he might have been able to “carried out”. But, not like he was before. Those things cut your combat effectiveness in half. That’s why they still use CS gas on the battlefield. It isn’t to kill the adversary. It’s to reduce their combat effectiveness.

                1. Hard to aim your weapon with that mask on. It’s the sideways version–kind of like gang bangers do with their pistols. Only this is out of necessity.

                  The only thing worse than trying to accurately fire your weapon with that damn mask is to NOT have the damn mask in a chemical environment.

          3. Who says you have to send anyone through the door? All you have to do is make him miserable and wait him out.

            While I have no direct experience with tear gas, a friend of mine did drills in Gitmo (reserve MP) where he got to play the part of rioting inmate. He said with military tear gas, you fall to your hands and knees and start puking your guts out.

            The very idea that “police” have access to explosives and can use them against the populace is horrendous.

            1. Fuck that – wait him out – shit. I suspect that when a group of snipers kills a bunch of folks in an ambush, they have forfeited the right live.

              If I were in charge, I would have waited on a couple of Javelins from the nearest Army base, then sent at least two rounds through the door. Fuck that turd.

              Cops are getting way too militarized and aggressive but that was not an issue on the ground at the time.

              1. I suspect that when a group of snipers kills a bunch of folks in an ambush, they have forfeited the right live.

                I know it’s fucking antiquated, but “innocent until proven guilty”.

                I barely tolerate the concept of snipers shooting hostage takers. But blowing up a guy who is alone in a confined space is bullshit. And now, he will only be the first.

              2. Set Us Up The Chipper|7.8.16 @ 3:35PM|#
                “Fuck that – wait him out – shit. I suspect that when a group of snipers kills a bunch of folks in an ambush, they have forfeited the right live.”

                Yeah, fuck that due process!

                1. Yeah, fuck that due process!

                  Due process is what’s killing us right now, Sevo!!

              3. ^Right on, I’d even settle for a couple old fashioned frag grenades. Either way, once you keep shooting when people identify you as the problem, you have forfeited your right to continue breathing. Killing random white people, or red people, or brown people, or black people, any and or all of the above gets you selected out of the gene pool in my book.

            2. I’ve had the brunt of CS a couple times in the army and it is brutal but i never felt like puking my guts out, still yeah just saturate him with that shit and give it a few more hours, forget it

            3. I’ve had the brunt of CS a couple times in the army and it is brutal but i never felt like puking my guts out, still yeah just saturate him with that shit and give it a few more hours, forget it

            4. I’ve had the brunt of CS a couple times in the army and it is brutal but i never felt like puking my guts out, still yeah just saturate him with that shit and give it a few more hours, forget it

              1. so have the squirrels i guess

        2. I’m sure it was just coincidence that he happen to be in the area of a sniper with his own rifle that he was just taking down to the local gun cleaners. When he realized the police were all white, he just freaked out a little and said he was going to kill all the white cops.

          See, it’s just a series of little misunderstandings! Sometimes people just say ‘kill all the white people’ when really all they mean is ‘I surrender’.

          I don’t really care what they killed the guy with. Be it piloted robot, sniper rifle, or a fucking poison dart. Use whatever tool seems like it has the best chance of succeeding without more loss of life than necessary. Frankly, maybe we’d all be better off if the police just drove around robots all day. They couldn’t use the ‘fear of their life’ excuse so easily then.

          1. I’m sure it was just coincidence that he happen to be in the area of a sniper with his own rifle that he was just taking down to the local gun cleaners. When he realized the police were all white, he just freaked out a little and said he was going to kill all the white cops.

            Ah, so if you’re pretty sure that someone is guilty, it’s fine to execute them.

            Thank you for that wonderful insight into our legal system, Judge Dredd.

            1. Seriously? Taking out a guy with a rifle that’s just shot over ten people, and who refuses to surrender while saying they have bombs and intend to kill as many cops as possible, is now Judge Dredd? Sure, why not.

              I already know your counter argument will be that police always lie and can never be believed, but I don’t think they made up a sniper. Do you?

              1. I think that they’ve not earned the *privilege* to summarily execute someone who they have cornered and contained. They don’t have the community’s *trust* to be allowed to make that judgement call.

            2. “I am the LAW!” – any Judge.

            3. When someone is shooting at you, you can be damned certain that they’re guilty of that and you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself — even if you aren’t wearing a badge.

              1. deadly force to defend yourself

                So the police were in imminent danger as they operated the killer robot?

                Please provide a citation, because they themselves say the point of using the killer robot is that the use of the killer robot removed them from imminent danger.

              2. +1 to that Brubaker.

        3. “suspected killer”?? The man was engaged in an ongoing gun battle with the police. Get serious.

          1. ongoing gun battle with the police

            So the police were in imminent danger?

            By their own admission, once they were withdrawn to wherever they operated the robot from, they weren’t in imminent danger.

            1. The guy had already managed to shoot eleven officers, all of whom were outside of the garage. He still was capable of shooting at others, including civilians and police, who happened in his field of vision.

              A racist cop killer is dead. Good riddance.

              1. He still was capable of shooting at others, including civilians and police, who happened in his field of vision.

                Citation needed. He was holed up in the same place for hours, and no one was shot there.

                The police themselves say that by using the robot, they were safe. If they were safe, then where is the imminent threat you imagine?

                A racist cop killer is dead. Good riddance.

                If the man was in fact guilty of the crimes he seems to have committed, I certainly will not mourn his passing. That doesn’t mean that I think it was justified to murder him when he could have been brought to justice without being murdered. One can condemn his actions while also condemning his murder by police.

                1. Why you go slurp on his dead a** since you love it so much?

                2. As you’re so fond of saying CZ, I’ll need a citation from you about how they didn’t have to murder him to take him into custody. Basically everything you’ve pulled out of your ass hinges on there being some magical armchair way for the police to bring him in. So far, you’ve suggested gas in an open air garage and waiting a week or two for him to get thirsty.

                  Keep trying.

                  1. So far, you’ve suggested gas in an open air garage and waiting a week or two for him to get thirsty.

                    It’s 97 degrees in Dallas today. If you think it takes a “week or two” for someone to dehydrate in 97 degree temperatures with no access to water, you’re even stupider than your arguments so far suggest.

                    Do you or don’t you believe that the police were under imminent threat?

                    Their own statements say that they used the robot to prevent themselves from facing an imminent threat. This suggests to people capable of logic that they were not under imminent threat. You apparently believe that they were both safe from imminent threat while using the robot but also under imminent threat which justified them using the robot.

                    Help me logic here.

                    1. I live three miles from where this went down. The police and news choppers flew over my apartment. I know full well how hot it is at this exact location.

                      Tell me this, would you be equally upset that a sniper taking him out from half a mile away was incapable of physically arresting him? Since that wasn’t an option, they decided to snipe him up close.

                      You do need some help with logic. Especially since this guy wasn’t alone, and especially because shutting down all of downtown Dallas for a week isn’t a real option to let this guy sit in the corner and think about what he’d done.

                      There’s functionally no difference between killing him with a robot that can’t arrest him or taking him out with a sniper that can’t arrest him other than which one was possible in this circumstance. Believe me, if they had a shot they’d have taken it. Would that upset you more, or less, than doing it with a robot?

                    2. I notice you didn’t answer my single, simple question. Here it is again in case you decide to grow a pair and participate in the actual discussion at hand :

                      Do you or don’t you believe that the police were under imminent threat?

                      If they were not under imminent threat (as they appear to have not been), I would be just about as disturbed by them sniping him as killing him with the robot. The robot just makes it crystal clear that they were not under imminent threat, and is repugnant in the sense that a device designed to prevent death via bomb was used to cause death via bomb.

                      shutting down all of downtown Dallas for a week isn’t a real option

                      So avoiding “shutting down all of downtown Dallas” is more important to you than seeing actual justice done. Thanks for making the baseness and corruption of your worldview even more plain for the audience.

                    3. In your view, it would seem the police aren’t in imminent danger even when there’s an armed killer that’s just shot a dozen people, who may or may not have explosives on his person or nearby, because he hasn’t shot someone in a few minutes and they may be cornered. (As everyone knows, cornered animals are always safe.)

                      The police did their job here. They didn’t gun down an unarmed teen because they were black. They killed an active shooter that not only didn’t surrender for hours, but who promised to kill as many people as he could. You’re trying to pretend there was no attempt to reason with him, or his partner(s).

                      I find it telling you can’t seem to answer how it’s functionally different to take someone out with a sniper vs. taking them out with a close range explosive. In both scenarios you’re killing them without any real risk, but you ignore that the reason they do it from relative safety is because a badge doesn’t make you bullet proof. Also, this guy was a veteran and likely had more training than the police. You do the math on how dangerous he was considering the body count and length of the standoff.

                      Police do illegal and detestable things all the time (It looks like that was this gunmans justification, which jives with your personal views I’d say). There are even a few examples up right now here at reason. This wasn’t one of them. Maybe you’d think the same if it happened in your backyard.

                    4. In your view, it would seem the police aren’t in imminent danger even when there’s an armed killer that’s just shot a dozen people, who may or may not have explosives on his person or nearby, because he hasn’t shot someone in a few minutes and they may be cornered.

                      Yep, that’s what the word “imminent” means in the phrase “imminent threat”.

                      We both seem to agree that he still presented a threat once cornered, but I do not see support for the idea that the threat was imminent and therefore justified his summary, extralegal execution.

                      Neither of us currently know the exact physical arrangement of the scene in question. However, the fact that police were able to corner him there for FOUR HOURS without anyone being harmed strongly suggests that he was not in a position to put anyone under an imminent threat.

                      I find it telling you can’t seem to answer how it’s functionally different to take someone out with a sniper vs. taking them out with a close range explosive

                      And *I* find it telling that you can’t parse that I consider them approximately equivalent, and object to *both* in the absence of an imminent threat. Learn to read, maybe?

                      Not sure how I can put this in words simple enough for you to understand, but here’s a try :

                      – Imminent threat with public or police in imminent danger = good shoot/bomb
                      – Non-imminent threat with public or police not in imminent danger = bad shoot/bomb

        4. Apparently this guy deserved it, but the precedent is dangerous.

          And shouldn’t they have tried harder to capture him, to find out if he had any accomplices? Initial reports were “2 or more” snipers. They just take his word during a shootout that he acted alone?

      4. My outrage meter is flaccid.

        Ah. So if you hole up and “continue” to shoot “at cops” [citation needed], your right to due process is forfeit?

        Fuck off, slaver enabler. These cops murdered a *suspect* with a remote control bomb because they knew they could.

        1. Next time we follow you into the room?

          Maybe I was desensitized in the military, but killing somebody with a grenade as opposed to shooting them was simply a matter of convenience and keeping ourselves alive.

          1. Next time we follow you into the room?

            Next time we wait the suspect out until he passes out. He was surrounded and was, afaict, no immediate threat to anyone.

            And uh… you are applying military standards to a civilian situation. That.. does.. not.. seem.. likely.. to.. be.. reasonable or appropriate.

            1. How do you know he wasn’t a threat? How do you know his threat of having bombs placed around the city didn’t mean he had a remote trigger?

              Also, since when is a sniper or two a civilian situation?

              1. his point, which seems to be sailing repeatedly over your head is, “how do you know he was?”

                1. Well for one thing I was watching the broadcast live and saw officers shot, and go down. I’m sure the live broadcast of Officers being killed on Camera was staged though.

              2. Also, since when is a sniper or two a civilian situation?

                The United States does not become a warzone when a person becomes a “sniper” and the person “sniping” does not become a combatant in a war. The “sniper” is a criminal and the appropriate response is to enforce the non-war laws of the land.

                1. This. Who here thinks President Clinton II will hesitate now to send in a bomb-bot the next time some armed right wing patriot occupies a federal wildlife office to protest something, even if they are not actively shooting at cops?

        2. This right here is why “blue lives matter” is bullshit. When a cop is hurt or killed the entire law enforcement apparatus acts to ensure that the perpetrator is brought to justice. When it is the other way around that same system in the best case scenario just shrugs or more often than not actively works to protect the perpetrator.

          1. When a cop is hurt or killed the entire law enforcement apparatus acts to ensure that the perpetrator is brought to justice.

            Immediate revenge murder is not justice. It’s murder.

        3. Due process only kicks in when a person can be detained/disarmed. It sounds to me like ‘negotiations broke down’ means that both he and the cops agreed that he was never going to be detained. It may well be that the cops just overrode their own negotiator. But it seems a lot more likely that the guy was DETERMINED to become a martyr to the cause – and that that’s why negotiations broke down. At that point, you tell me what other options there are?

          1. At that point, you tell me what other options there are?

            1) Tear gas the room
            2) Wait the guy out until, less than two days later, he passes out due to lack of water

            1. Also, it is far beyond clear that he was actively engaged in shooting at the police when they decided to murder him. Do you have a citation which indicates that he was?

              1. Actually yeah, it’s in the article you theoretically just read.

                1. “Negotiations broke down, and we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect,” he said.

                  “We had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect.”

                  If you feel that it is unambiguous, based on the police statement, that they were both engaged in an active firefight and were able to formulate a plan whereby they hooked a bomb to a remote control robot and drove the robot up to the building and were able to execute this plan without being in danger from the active firefight… you have a lot more faith in the word of cops than I do.

                  I would bet you cash money that no one was in any danger whatsoever from the “exchange of gunfire”. But of course by the time such details about the scene come out, no one will care anymore.

                  1. they were both engaged in an active firefight and were able to formulate a plan whereby they hooked a bomb to a remote control

                    In case I was unclear here.

                    1) they are saying that they were under immediate threat, and this justified them murdering him with a robot bomb
                    2) but the justification for them using the robot bomb is that it could be done without exposing them to immediate threat

                    It would seem impossible for them to have it both ways.

                    1. You’re not unclear, you’re just stupid and don’t seem to realize line of sight is required to secure a shooter and line of sight is a two way street. If he refuses to cooperate, you need to go in to get him. You can’t just wish him out. It’s also worth noting he didn’t surrender. It’s also worth noting that so far I haven’t seen what rifle he was using, but if it was the right sort body armor doesn’t matter. (Oh, and tear gas doesn’t work so well when it’s an open air parking garage with sloped floors, idiot.)

                      So, yeah, they were in real danger since they had to secure him and he didn’t want to be secured. So, again, next time we’ll just all follow you in CZ. You’re clearly the only real man. You’re bulletproof, so you can afford to be magnanimous.

                      Best case alternate scenario? They snipe him in the head from the Texas Building. That takes time. I presume the robot was simply a faster & safer option at that point. Perhaps they even hoped to intimidate him into surrender with a big and scary robot. (Since I imagine they were interested in those bombs, but also didn’t want to eat lead.)

                    2. If he refuses to cooperate, you need to go in to get him. You can’t just wish him out.

                      Why can you not wait him out? After no longer than 2 days, he will pass out from dehydration.

                      So, yeah, they were in real danger since they had to secure him and he didn’t want to be secured.

                      He had not been “secured” and had been in the same location for hours when the firefight occurred and they decided to murder him. If they were able to bomb him from a location where they were safe, then why were they unable to stay in that safe location until he passed out from dehydration?

                      I’m using logic. You’re the douchebag making this personal. Go fuck yourself.

                    3. CZ how many angels on the head of that pin.

                    4. Sure, lets just shut down all of downtown Dallas for a few days while he thinks about what he’s done. I’m sure he won’t shoot anyone in the meantime.

                      Apparently, him shooting a dozen people doesn’t mean you can shoot back. If he isn’t firing right that second you should presume he won’t start again or do anything crazy like detonate some bombs.

                      While it would have been nice to take him alive to find out more about those possible bombs, the odd’s of taking him alive under any circumstances was slim let alone him actually telling the police where they were (or if they existed at all) The odd’s are in favor of him going out in a blaze no matter what action was taken, but taking him out swiftly is the only guarantee he won’t shoot anyone else.

                      This isn’t another Freddie or whatever, this was a clear cut case of a lunatic killing spree in the middle of a major metropolitan city and as a resident of Dallas I’m glad they did what they did.

                    5. Sure, lets just shut down all of downtown Dallas for a few days while he thinks about what he’s done. I’m sure he won’t shoot anyone in the meantime.

                      The police say he was “cornered,” and their use of the drone strongly suggests he wasn’t an imminent threat to even the police who had him cornered. I struggle to imagine how he was not a risk to them but *was* somehow a risk to the general public. A general public who were no doubt aware, after “hours” of him being “cornered” in the garage, that they should stay the fuck away from him and the garage.

                      Frankly, if the police statement included either of the following claims :

                      1) He was an imminent threat to the police in the location he was cornered in
                      OR
                      2) He was an imminent threat to the general public in the location he was cornered in

                      I would be objecting far, far less.

                      The fact that they haven’t made these claim, instead saying without support there was NO OPTION but to murder him FROM A POSITION OF SAFETY, makes me skeptical. You appear content at taking them at their word, which seems an odd perspective for a commenter on a site that is dedicated to skepticism of government.

                    6. He also had infinite ammo?

            2. So you’re just going to ignore the fact that he said he has bombs all over the city?

              1. because killing the only person who could tell you where they are is always a good plan….

        4. Actually, yeah, your right to due process is forfeit when you continue to shoot at the police. The NAP isn’t a suicide clause. I highly doubt a madman on a cop shooting rampage suddenly came to his senses, or that a guy was just carrying his rifle to the cleaners when a sniper just happened to start shooting police.

          1. your right to due process is forfeit when you continue to shoot at the police

            Do you have a citation which indicates that this was the actual circumstance?

            1. Did you read the article? Or any other article? This happened less than 3 miles from my house, so I watched it go down live. Sheesh.

              1. So you’re just going to ignore the fact that he said he has bombs all over the city?

                Yes. I guess his putative bombs could not have been on timers, so killing him was like, totally logically responsive.

              2. Did you read the article? Or any other article?

                I read the article in which the only supporting evidence was the idea that “a firefight” occurred.

                Considering that police habitually lie their fucking faces off about the degree of threat they faced, I see very little reason to believe that the “firefight” in question rendered the suspect such a threat that it justified his immediate execution. They could have just as easily tear gassed the room with the robot as blown it up. They chose to blow it up.

                1. It’s pointless to talk to someone who’s kneejerk reaction is that the police must be lying about a sniper that shot around a dozen people. Clearly, the real tragedy here is that the sniper was killed in your mind.

                  Sadly, you and the sniper probably had more in common than you’d like to admit. You might want to think about that for a second before you open your idiot trap again sans any evidence of malfeasance whatsoever.

                  1. Yes, the police never murdered a cop killer that they could otherwise have arrested. They’d NEVER do something like that, after all they value the law so very much. Your faith in them is truly.. touching.

                    a sniper that shot around a dozen people

                    You have proof that the person they killed was the sniper in question? From where did you obtain this proof?

                    It’s pointless to talk to someone who thinks that the police were under such imminent threat from a suspect who was in the same place he had been for hours that they just *had* to kill him. To keep themselves safe, apparently all they had to do was deploy a bomb robot… but they were also so unsafe that they were forced to deploy a bomb robot. Logic!

                    As to your comments psycho-analyzing me? I have a simple response.

                    Fuck off, you don’t know a goddamned thing about me as a person. Go fuck yourself.

                    1. I like how you think the police should sit on their heels for a few days waiting to see if he’s just bluffing about having bombs placed around downtown Dallas. I wonder if you’d be saying the same thing if he brought down one of the residential towers, or if you’d be calling for the officers involved to be fired for not taking him out sooner.

                      The world may never know. One thing is for sure though, any use of force by the police is wrong in your mind. Even if they’re under fire. In your world, there might not have been gunshots even though I watched him shooting at the police myself. Live. Go find the video if you really want to know what happened, but bursting your insular little bubble doesn’t matter. This nutjob is dead, and good riddance.

                      Where I watched it go down, though the video isn’t streaming anymore. Maybe you can find the archived version if you give a shit. (I know you really don’t give a shit though.) And for the record, we could hear the gunfire from our own parking garage. We thought it was fireworks, as did most people around here.

                    2. I like how you think the police should sit on their heels for a few days waiting to see if he’s just bluffing about having bombs placed around downtown Dallas.

                      If it wasn’t safe to let him live another minute because he might detonate bombs, why did the police let him live for FOUR HOURS before “negotiations broke down”? How did the police know that killing him would prevent the bombs from detonating? Might his bombs not have been on a timer, which would mean that his death would ensure they exploded, instead of preventing their explosion?

                      Yes, if he had authenticated that he was holding the detonator to a known bomb that the police knew was detonatable via his detonator, it might qualify as an imminent threat. That is not the circumstance we are discussing.

                      In summary, your argument about the bombs is incoherent and cannot justify the idea that he was an imminent threat.

                      One thing is for sure though, any use of force by the police is wrong in your mind.

                      If you say so. You clearly know me, a total stranger, inside and out!

                      When you accuse people of holding views they do not hold, based on no evidence, you are not convincing anyone, especially them.

                      In case your reading comprehension problems are still troubling you, I’ll restate it here for about the third time :

                      If the police were claiming that they killed him while facing an imminent threat, I would be much, much less skeptical.

      5. Yeah I also wouldn’t mind having all the cops replaced by robots controlled by humans. I would hypothesis that police shootings would decrease due to the human cop not being in harms way. If they had them I suspect Mr. Castile would still be alive. The cop could wait to see what someone was reaching for before they shoot.

        Of course this could rise to more shootings by suspects willing to take aim at robots over cops which could lead to more citizens being caught in the cross fire.

        Point is just because dropping bombs by drones in countries across the world that we are not officially at war with is bad policy imo, doesn’t mean all robot doing policing is bad policy.

        1. Someday dealing with the cops can be like dealing with customer service, because they outsource all the robot control to developing countries.

          Seriously though, I like the idea of using robots too, it eliminates the whole conflict of who’s life matters more. And of course while we’re making robots advanced enough to provide actual security, might as well come up with some advanced forms of non-lethal force for them to employ.

          1. Comply, citizen.

        2. Yeah I also wouldn’t mind having all the cops replaced by robots controlled by humans. I would hypothesis that police shootings would decrease due to the human cop not being in harms way.

          Consider the possibility that they would increase “due to the human cop not being in harms [sic] way.” After all, if the human operator is not in danger, he doesn’t have to fear getting hurt or killed by a retaliating / resisting suspect. He is freed to be as aggressive as he wants with complete immunity from (immediate) physical harm.

    3. Meh, he’d already killed, buuuuut – apparently they had him cornered and got tired of waiting. So it was either this or flush him out and flushing him out would have meant that some more officers might not have made it home after their shift.

      Plus, there’s all that crime happening all over the city that this one dude was keeping cops from combatting!

  4. “Hey, baby. Wanna kill all humans?”

  5. Actually, this opens up a lot of options. Why not serve warrants with robots instead of SWAT teams? Safer for everyone?

    1. Yeah, and it’s much easier to plant evidence that way

    2. Why bother with the warrants? Bombs are a lot cheaper than trials and prisons.

      1. If by ‘cheaper’ you mean the costs of the inevitable lawsuits are shucked off to you and me, I’m in agreement.

  6. “Given that Johnson was clearly unafraid to die”

    Not really seeing that as a given. Was he asked?

    1. Maybe he “felt the fear and did it anyway,” as the self-help saying goes. Though I’m not familiar with a self-help book which defines “it” as sniper-assassinations.

      1. ‘It’ is whatever you want to do my man.

        Will

        To

        Power

        1. Now, call it Friendo.

    2. Not really seeing that as a given. Was he asked?

      I’d take hanging around until the cops show and continuing to refuse to cooperate up as a decent sign.

      1. I’d think seeing a large robot speeding at you might encourage you to lay down and throw away your rifle too. And by ‘speeding’ I mean ‘slowly lumbering at you’.

        I won’t go so far as to say there is no chance the police are being disingenuous about the circumstances, but also under the circumstances I have no particular reason to doubt them.

  7. Brilliant move.

  8. Justified use of the robot in this scenario — but I get it, the domino has fallen. Today’s real justification will be tomorrows standard procedure.

    1. Always

    2. Drones are next. Why not

      1. What is a robot other than an automated drone?

        1. This one was totally remote control, so it was a land drone.

  9. So, in the wake of this, what is the outrage machine calling for? War on the cops from the right, I assume. What about the left? Gun control? Is this whitey’s fault? Curtail the right to protest?

    /busy at work this morning and missed the AM Links

    1. Yes yes yes yes?

    2. From the little I could tolerate looking around, these were the common storylines:
      1. Gun control
      2. Need for reform (Obama) – blacks are shot disproportionately
      3. War on cops/anti-BLM sentiment
      4. They were mostly peaceful protesters and now look at these awful racist things Tea Partiers are saying!
      5. Look at these blacks dance, celebrate and mock cops
      6. Then your typical puff pieces – we need to turn to love and blah blah blah

      So, you didn’t miss much.

      1. I’m still reflexively reading “BLM” as “Bureau of Land Management”. Somebody has to get a new acronym.

        1. Or just render it as #BLM — a lot less ambiguity IMO.

        2. You and me both. Guess that’s what happens when you grow up in the Southwest.

        3. Unless you pronounce it “blum” (or maybe “blem”, I kinda like that one) it ain’t an acronym, it’s an initialism. It’s only an acronym if you pronounce it phonetically as a word. If you pronounce the individual letters, it’s an initialism. Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.

          1. True. And after I remarked about the symbol on the rest-room door that was supposedly inclusive?male, female, & Nabisco?I did some research on the logo & was vexed to read someone’s article referring to Nabisco as an acronym. if that’s an acronym, then so are Soweto, Gestapo, & Fortran.

            1. Damn, maybe they are! The Wikipedia entry has Benelux as an acronym. What does Don Hauptman have to say about the criteria?

        4. BLDMBTS – Black lives don’t matter, but they should.

        5. It’s only been recently that I read it as “Black Lives Matter”, because the land owned by the BLM adjoining Art Bell’s property last year came up as where he was apparently being shot at from.

          Same w “SJW” which took me a long time to switch mentally from singles-ads-speak, “Single Jewish Woman”.

    3. CYLONS!!!

    4. some woman on Rush, who did not disagree, was actually blaming video being broadcast on facebook for the recent violence. Of course with out videos we would not know when the cops are being bad.

      1. You know who else blamed violence on videos?

        1. Tipper Gore?

        2. Wait another.

          The Buggles.

          1. OK, that’s a good one.

            1. When two tribes go to war, we’re never going to survive unless we all get a little…. crazy…..

        3. everyone on the Amazon prime version of Man in the High Castle?

    5. A war on cops from the right would be a refreshing change.

  10. was it the Philidelphia police who used a rocket launcher in the 80’s, they took down an apartment building along with the criminals. When the police use military weaponseare they not the equivilant of a standing army. Problem is when they start using explosives on criminals when will they start using them on say people with broken tail lights

    1. Rocket launcher? No.

      MOVE

      From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as “entry devices”[16]) made of FBI-supplied water gel explosive, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[19]

      1. thanks for looking that up and correcting me

        1. while looking for the rocket info I found this.

          http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05…..lcome.html

          a militant group in Tokyo built their own rocket launchers, this is what happens when they outlaw guns the outlaws just go bigger and build rockets

        2. There is a doc on Netflix about the MOVE bombing. Its called “Let the Fire Burn”. Watch it.

      2. The Philly police apparently possessed a 37mm anti-tank gun (presumably a WWII-vintage M3) at the time of the MOVE siege, but didn’t use it. That’s the closest thing they had to a rocket launcher.

        Interesting that Wikipedia identifies the bombs as having been made of “FBI-supplied water gel explosive” when much was made in the aftermath of the police having used the military-grade explosive C4 rather than commercial alternatives with less risk of starting a fire. I’m not sure when that story changed.

    2. Yep. Just a saw something on TV about this in a documentary about something else. I’d forgotten about it – I don’t know how I missed it happening at the time, but holy FUCK they blew up some shit. Blowed up REAL good…only heard about it leater.

      Don’t think it was rocket launchers – I may be mistaken. I was thinking it was high explosives delivered some other way…I forget. Too lazy to check.

      But…Philly polis….stay classy.

      1. They also shot people fleeing from the building after they set it on fire, including children.

        1. From Wiki: No one from the [Philadelphia] city government was charged criminally

          Where is my shocked face…

          1. #thatissohillary

    3. They actually dropped bombs from a helicopter. The group they were targeting was known as MOVE.

      It’s notable that no police force has used that tactic since.

  11. 4 words:
    Targeted Electromagnetic Pulse Canon!

    Robot warfare is kind of scary if you don’t A. have some robots of your own and B. a way to stop the enemies robots without risk to yourself.

    The lack of risk to the attacker is the real issue…no negative incentive to start shit.

    1. Just put up one of those pens that people use to keep their children and pets contained. I have just neutralized the top murder-bot (none-drone, anyway) technology available to our police.

  12. When it’s someone targeting cops, the cops are full of creative solutions

    1. Too bad so many people looked like Chris Dorner. Almost got a lot of innocent people, them looking like him and all.

  13. Have no fear, Loretta Lynch is on the case!!!

  14. When SWAT teams were first introduced

    Hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut hut

    1. +1 Blues Brothers

  15. Tough call. Can’t say I’m real fond of the tactic.

    On the one hand they seem to have him trapped, and maybe could just wait him out. But the guy had already demonstrated his willingness and ability to kill and could have gone on the offensive at any moment. That was a really chaotic scene; hard to be certain just how well you have him sealed up.

    So why wait and let him take the initiative again?

    1. SWAT teams started the same way. It’s not necessarily the wrong decision in this case, but I sure hope it doesn’t become SOP for drug raids.

    2. what about putting a sedative/compliance substance on the robot at least. A bomb? Really that was the most reasonable choice? This is a war zone, these are military combatants, this is a criminal. Every attempt should be made to take all suspected criminals alive.

      1. This is a war zone, these are military combatants, this is a criminal.

        In this sentence see if you can find the missing ‘nts.

      2. I would imagine it’s fairly easy to rig a detonator, either directly wired into the robot or requiring the robot’s arm to press a button or whatever. Not sure how those teargas cannisters and flash-bangs are detonated.

        But that does raise a good question – did they try using teargas and flash-bangs? IIRC, those are shotgun launched like an RPG. Not that I’m really criticizing – once someone starts shooting at people like that they sacrifice their rights. Ultimately the police saved the citizens of Dallas the expense of prosecuting, imprisoning and executing him.

      3. “what about putting a sedative/compliance substance on the robot at least.”

        Yeah, I thought a fair bit about that. The main problems with “less than lethal” devices are that they are either unreliable, or a lot more lethal than you want.

        Flash bangs do not work well in large spaces and if too close they become lethal concussion devices. Compliance substances like tear gas or pepper oil have delivery issues, and also can blow back on your own people. Sticky foams are ok for people not in possession of firearms. Sedatives have all these problems and are reliably lethal if the dose is just a little too large.

        Bottom line, if the device fails to incapacitate then a) you are probably not going to get a second chance with a different device and b) you may provoke him into coming out blazing (when maybe he otherwise would not have done so.)

      4. Maybe a flesh light and a joint?

  16. I’m not saying they actually thought this way, but I could see the cops saying “let’s use this situation as the occasion for introducing the public to our new weapon. That way we can minimize controversy, because our bomb-robot will now be known as ‘that thing they used to kill that dangerous sniper’ instead of ‘that scary machine they used in that botched drug raid.'”

    1. Here you go, Eddie. [passes tinfoil]

      1. I’m just asking questions.

        Seriously, I doubt that actually happened, but I would make a broader point: These things start out for use in emergencies, where the public totally is willing to accept strong measures…then the definition of emergency gets broader and broader.

        That doesn’t require a conspiracy, just fallen human nature operating.

  17. EOD robots are now called “bomb robots”?

    1. They have always been referred to colloquially as “bomb robots,” the “anti-bomb” part being understood. Just as bomb-sniffing dogs are referred to as “bomb dogs” even though they do not explode.

      Sad fact: During WW2 both the Germans and Soviets would strap bombs to dogs who had been trained to run underneath tanks.

      1. I recall reading “mainstream” news reports of Israel using bomb dogs in Lebanon during the early 80s war

      2. Sad fact: During WW2 both the Germans and Soviets would strap bombs to dogs who had been trained to run underneath tanks.

        When you’re desperate…

      3. I find the fact that they sent out human beings to kill each other much sadder.

        1. High horse joke there somewhere, but darned if I can suss it out.

      4. In this case it was a bomb (delivering) robot though, and clearly not an anti-bomb robot.

  18. Hmmm… I see this as a problem. In our upcoming battle with the fascist State of Obama I want to be able to shoot at real police and military– not their fucking cyborgs. I did see a “drone deactivator” at Maker’s Faire. Could this be a solution?

    1. Please don’t feed the troll.

      1. Are you this comment boards’s resident taste-setter? Use that massive power wisely, padme.

        1. Don’t fuck up Star Wars references in my presence.

          1. Sorry, man. What I was getting at is that people who can’t even bear the sight of an opinion they don’t agree with (and my point here is I don’t find the possibility of insurrectionary violence as justification for the unfettered right to possess an assault rifle) are frequently pompous assholes.

            How about we stop worshipping the use and ownership of firearms? Any moron can shoot one.

            1. So…taken up shooting then, have ya?

            2. Any moron can shoot one.

              Equality is really problematic for you, isn’t it?

            3. I find it disgustingly bigoted of you to want to want to remove from certain classes of people the ability to protect themselves and their families. It is abhorrent to me that one would suggest, simply because of their station in life, that they do not deserve the right to life. That you would propose enslavement demonstrates your anachronistic beliefs. I am pleased that you hold a minority opinion because the last thing this world needs is a return of institutional slavery.

            4. How about we stop worshipping the use and ownership of firearms?

              Who is worshiping what now?

            5. american socialist|7.8.16 @ 1:54PM|#
              “an opinion they don’t agree with”

              You misspelled “ignoramus”.

      2. But they’re so cute and the pellet dispenser is so cheap and conveniently located

    2. 1) Upcoming?

      2) If it helps any, at this point the Repubs aren’t any less so, just different demographics.

  19. Next stop, ROBOCOP.

  20. Please stop calling the shooter a “sniper”. He was best described as a rifleman or a shooter.

    As a competitive precision rifle shooter, the last thing I want is a demonization of my sport or scoped rifles in general.

    1. the last thing I want is a demonization of my sport or scoped rifles in general.

      …he said waking up from his 30 year nap.

      1. I’m sure three gun and high power shooters are pulling out their hair every time there’s a call to ban AR-15s.

        Californian three gunners with sponsors are losing their sport with the recent laws passed.

        Don’t help kill my hobby with poor use of the language!

        1. Alls a brother is saying, your sport is already demonized.

      2. More than 30 years to be sure.

        But let’s not forget that the term was first appropriated from bird hunters and only then applied to long range military marksmen.

    2. Agree with the first sentence. The ship has, unfortunately, sailed on the second.

      Some idiot in twitterland just posted a picture of a BB gun with a scope and referred to it as a sniper rifle (see other thread).

      1. My Ruger 22 rifle does look scarier with the big scope on it then my Mini-14 does with a red dot sight.

    3. I enjoy the headlines saying “Sniper shot cop at point blank range!”, completely rendering the term “sniper” useless.

    4. I enjoy the headlines saying “Sniper shot cop at point blank range!”, completely rendering the term “sniper” useless.

    5. You’re splitting hairs. A rifleman shooting from cover from an elevated height is routinely called a sniper.

  21. I really don’t see the “dehumanizing” aspect of robot use as troubling. The “human” aspect of policing is the one that introduces fear, vindictiveness, and macho posturing into the equation. I’ve zero doubt that if they’d rushed the suspect’s position with SWAT troopers he’d be just as dead, and I actually think that if he’d tried to surrender at the last minute to the robot, it’s a bit more likely that it would have been accepted (while the operator might have been just as vindictive, he would have been less likely to pull the trigger out of panic).

    As with drones, the risk is more in the policy (using force more casually in the first place) than in the practice (where the lack of fear and greater precision probably limits or contains the harm).

    1. Or… When you remove the operator from the operating theater you remove the risk to his own person, thereby freeing him, mentally, to be more aggressive with his remote-controlled drone actions. After all, he won’t be harmed so provoking a retaliation isn’t a problem.

      For anecdotal evidence, review the belligerent conduct of many online warriors. They make threats they would never make in a face-to-face encounter because they don’t fear any actual, physical reprisals from online threats. Imagine what they would do if they had access to remote-controlled weaponry.

  22. Police blowing up an armed suspect is beyond the pale. They truly have become an ugly, unruly, untrustworthy branch of the armed forces.

    1. That comment of yours is an insult to the armed forces.

      The armed forces are full of people with honor and discipline who sign up to serve and protect the people of their country.

      The police are lowlife scum without honor or discipline who only serve and protect each other. They do not seek to protect the people, they seek to harm and murder them. If you ever get the opportunity to eavesdrop on some drunk cops, you will be horrified. They are the most disgusting creatures that humanity has to offer.

      1. That comment of yours is an insult to the armed forces.

        I know it is.

  23. Hahaha… Crazy right-wingers at Breitbart blame Obama. What a surprise.

    “The fact is that Obama has caused the mayhem and bloodshed that has spread across our nation. Obama has been in the process of jump starting his own personal Communist coup d’etat. The fires of hatred for law enforcement have been fanned by Obama/Soros sponsored radical Communists. Violence toward law enforcement is intentionally being incited by Obama/Soros as a class division strategy lifted directly from the Communist Manifesto. This is about politics, people are irrelevant to the Marxist state. Obama needs to be impeached and our government needs to address the REAL problem, the Democratic Party’s destruction of the nuclear family, individual responsibility, and morality.”

    What a fucking crock of shit.

    1. INORITE?

      First you gain control of the state, then turn its police apparatus inward. That’s how communism really works, right Comrade NKVD Commissar?

    2. I can’t say that I blame Obama directly. But, I do place a lot of the blame on left/right identity politics. And, the D’s, including Obama, use(d) race as a wedge issue. And, this is a direct result of that wedge IMHO.

      1. I just don’t know when the switch happened. In the 90s and early 2000s when I was in school, I feel like everybody was taught to be colorblind, to live by MLK’s principles, and treat everybody the same. We all learned about how terrible slavery was. There was no whitewashing of anything. Now, the SJWs and liberals are brainwashing our kids into thinking about race every single second of every single day, and that you have to treat people differently entirely depending on their race.

      2. Nicely said. Who knows, empirically, if it’s more D’s than R’s, however. It’s identity politics across the board. Ryan is out trumpeting that an attack on the cops is an attack “against all of us.” Huh? Us? Not sure about you, Paul, but I didn’t get attacked last night. My Dad, nor husband, nor brother will be buried this weekend. Meanwhile, the left is resurrecting the 1% mantra again, inadvertently lobbying for more control by the campaigning elites (all of them) who will crush them and cull them. Or disenfranchised blacks blame the beat patrolmen. The vermin inside statehouse walls blame the multi-round magazine and the NRA. Taxpayers blame the welfare recipients. Everything is plural. Those guys. Those groups. Them over there. Pick your club and chant.
        As far as divisiveness, it’s part and parcel of the pol’s job description. For the role of head honcho, Obama is the 43rd in a long line of them and, yeah, I’d agree he ekes out a win in the divisiveness sweepstakes. But he’ll be outdone in 2017. Clinton, Trump, and Sanders are rallying their “plurals” with songs and signs.
        You wonder how anybody can go wave a flag for another human being. Game of Thrones lunacy; we live it.

        1. Taxpayers blaming the welfare recipients is like victims blaming thieves. Totally unreasonable, I know.

  24. The new gun control laws must ensure that these droid bombers, like any AR-15, grenade, revolver, or rifle du jour shall not get into the hands of civilians and must be authorized for only law enforcement, military, or army reservists —- errr, hold on, let me rethink this….

  25. Before I saw the picture of what the robot looked like, I really wanted it to be a remote control car with a stick of TNT on it.

    1. “Do you feel lucky, punk?”

  26. “The suspect is deceased, as a result of the detonating of the bomb.”

    This statement pretty impressive but not quite as euphemistic and passive as it could be. He could have completely avoided using “bomb” and stuck with “device” for one thing. Someone may get in trouble here.

  27. #robotlivesmatter

  28. RE: Dallas PD Used a “Bomb Robot” to Neutralize Alleged Cop-Killing Sniper
    The use of a “bomb robot” to take down a suspect appears to be a new police tactic.

    The Dallas police showed their bravery by employing this “Bomb Robot” to neutralize M X Johnson.
    They probably would’ve used this device on the suspect anyway even if he was unarmed.
    Then they would’ve shot him dead.
    The police always know what they’re doing.

    1. First and foremost, EFFECTIVE is a more powerful metric than ‘brave’

      Some of the officers were shot in back … Others were running towards the threat when shot

      Tech must be used judiciously but as in Orlsndo – there is a place for it and it does save lives

  29. both the Orlando murderer and the Dallas murderer were stopped/killed using ‘military’ style equipment by the respective agencies. Noted also in Orlando, an officer’s life was saved by his Kevlar helmet, a defensive device I’ve had in my front seat for years and used in various circ’s (sniper call etc)

    Obviously military gear can be and sometimes has been abused by law enforcement but it definitely has a place in saving lives and eliminating threats . Force must be REASONABLE per the 4th and both instances – the force was reasonable

    1. Yeah, your opinion being so objective.

  30. One hopes the Dallas PD did its constitutional duty by replacing the Claymore’s THIS SIDE TOWARDS ENEMY label with a Miranda card.

    1. i am going to steal this.

  31. I give zero fucks that he was a cop killer. He was executed without due process, and if you think that’s OK, you need to re-examine how much of a Libertarian you really are. Everybody gets their day in court, even if they are guilty as sin. And I am no fan of the #BLM movement, and I did six years as a LEO myself.

  32. Drones with tasers and pepper spray sound pretty good right now.

  33. “bomb robot.”

    Ah, so sort of like Fahrenheit 451’s “fire men”.

  34. Aaaaaaannnd now they have Terminators.

    We are all SO fucked.

  35. Did they try delivering a pizza to Johnson using the robot?? Why not? How expensive is a pizza, anyway??

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.