Dallas Mayor: “I’m Very Happy” About Bomb Robot

The moral line between “combat” and “crime” became even more blurred in Dallas, when, just after 1am Friday, the Dallas Police Chief turned to the Mayor as the stood at Parkland Hospital and informed the mayor that the had decided to kill the suspect now holed up in a parking garage. Moreover, he would do this with an improvised explosive device attached to the departments Bomb Disposal Robot.

The Mayor approved the plan, stating later that he was “very happy” with the decision, both at the time and later, when he discovered the Dallas PD had ventured into uncharted waters, opening the debate nationwide as to Police actions in the event of a crises situation.

So let’s talk about this a bit, shall we?

First of all, this man had no intention of surviving the attack. Inasmuch as it was an attack on the DPD, it was also functionally suicide by cop, although I believe that distinction to be flawed in that his purpose was not simply to die, it was primarily to kill as many Officers as he could in the process.

Secondly, nobody – least of all myself –  mourns for this man. He made his decision, and that decision was to commit a crime. A heinous and infamous crime, which – in my opinion – he possibly believed would ignite a further outpouring of violence and animosity, all on the basis of the flawed concept that is the #blacklivesmatter movement. So let us be clear, I am neither sad nor upset that the shooter is deceased.

I am however, deeply concerned that the issues of substantive due process appear to have been – at the very least – changed by this matter, and that the overall response to that change has been, in effect, “Good, he deserved it.”

Which brings me to my final point – are we the people comfortable with the idea that the Dallas Police Department, has by its actions and approval by the local governmental authority, changed not just the procedural process for future events of this nature, but has in fact, changed the substantive due process for the entire nation, without so much as a single law being passed or signed or reviewed.

Are we truly okay with that?

Download 150x150

2016 Logo copy

3000x3000 Facebook Square Logo copy


Posted on July 11, 2016, in Constitution and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. The fundamental issue here is not the use of a robot, that is immaterial in my view. The issue is is they, “decided to kill” My problem is lethal force, for a police officer is only justifiable when there is an immediate threat, and that lethal force is the only possible response. The police chief stated they tried to take him by force but could not it was too dangerous so they retreated where they were safe and he was still contained. They sent in the drone bomb because they could be safe and still kill him. Apparently with the permission of the mayor. These statements indicate there was no immediate threat that required lethal force. Also those same robots can be fitted with tasers, CS gas canisters. Flash grenades, concussion grenades, all less than lethal means to incapacitate a suspect.

    Were they in immediate threat, was a pipe bomb of C4 the only response?
    The military mind set is conquer, win, get out alive. It needs to be this. As a soldier you don’t have the luxury of worrying about the rights and liberty of the enemy. But a police officer MUST be just as concerned about the liberty and rights of the guilty. If not we become a militarized police state where your fundamental rights are predicated on if the government sees you as a threat our not.

    There were no hostages, there was no immediate threat, he was contained, officers, and citizens fall under the same law. Lethal force can only be defensive in nature. A gun is pointed at a hostage allows a swat sniper to act. A weapon is raised against you, you are allowed to act to save your own life.

    Due process does not allow for a death sentence to be issued by any entity except a judge after a trial. In this case the use of the robot specifically protected the officers from the threat removing the defensive nature of the act and made it a offensive act. This was an assassination, nothing less.


  2. Being as the suspect had no other message than to kill, I feel there was an immediate threat to further police officers and , who knows, civilians. He refused to surrender; I see no reason why the police force should occupy their time with someone who had no purpose in life other than to try and have his 15 minutes of infamy.
    Perhaps if other forces used this method, and the media stopped giving them so much ‘air-time’, an insecure, ignoramus such as this one might be helped.


  3. Dave, my response is short. Police, as any of us, have the right to use lethal force to protect their own life or the lives of others that are eminently threatened. A bomb-wielding robot is no different to me than a sniper. For that reason, I don’t believe anything has changed.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: