Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

JULY 19, 2016 7:45 PM

Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper

BY REESE DUNKLIN
Associated Press

A bomb delivered by a police robot that killed a sniper, ending a deadly ambush on Dallas police, caused severe damage to a hallway at a downtown Dallas community college building.

El Centro College officials displayed the damage to reporters on Tuesday. Bloodstains and most debris had been removed from the blast that killed Micah Johnson, but a doorframe was blown from its wall, wires and metal hung from a ceiling without tiles, and wallboard was ripped from frames.

For about four hours, Johnson hid around a corner at the end of a hallway of classrooms after fatally shooting five police officers July 7. The standoff ended early July 8 when police detonated what they said was about a pound of C4 explosive delivered by a police robot.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article90636102.html

[Gabi Hayes]

1. who you gonna call?

myth busters!

[Lance Bass esquire]

2. That will learn ya.

Old Chinese proverb.
He who kill police with gun, get to ride the big boom.

[Uponthegears]

3. Extrajudicial execution

Pure and simple

[Lance Bass esquire]

4. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[Uponthegears]

6. Couldn't have brought dishonor

To a nicer country.

[840high]

24. yep +10

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Well, since he was still firing at the cops...

...he kind of proved his guilt.

[Uponthegears]

9. Wasn't firing

Not one shred of evidence that he was still firing at anyone. The cop's original release said he was killed for not surrendering.

[WhisCo]

8. Justified deadly force

It doesn't matter the method. If deadly force is justified, it can be delivered by knife, gun, vehicle, baton, sniper's bullet or even a bomb.

[Uponthegears]

10. Justified?

So if the cops tell you to do something and you don't do it, killing is justified?

No wonder so many DUers defend the killing of Michael Brown.

[WhisCo]

49. If you're shooting people left and right, deadly force is justified for fucks sake

[Jim Beard]

53. It would be a lot easier on people if they did not run.

You just DO NOT RUN from authority. I don't have a problem with the cops but many do and it needs to be resolved because it just makes matters worse.

[Ikonoklast]

63. Yeah, I agree. Just stand there and let them shoot you.

Who needs a trial by jury in front of a judge?


What is wrong with you people?

[Angel Martin]

68. So if the cops tell you to do something and you don't do it, killing is justified?

In many cases, yes !

If police tell you to keep your hands where they can see them, and you stuff them down your pants, in most cases that is reasonably interpreted as going for a weapon, hence a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to officers and a shooting is legally justified.

In the Michael Brown case, just the risk of being tackled by him, given that he had already grabbed for the officer's sidearm, was more than sufficient grounds to fear death or grievous bodily harm.

And the lack of understanding of this point by many on DU, BLM and others etc. is why there are so many unnecessary shootings.

(unnecessary in that if suspects had complied with police instructions, no shooting would have occurred.)

[Uponthegears]

80. Thank you for

repeating Darren Wilson's version of Michael Brown's death almost word for word.

Let's try another version. Michael and Dorian are walking down the street (technically "illegally" but in exactly the same manner as thousands of white teenage boys do) when they are summoned over to Wilson's police vehicle (why, because cops do that little power play all the friggin' time just to show young black males that they are the boss). Michael is inadequately servile and talks back when Wilson starts giving him the "what are you doing here . . . do you know I could arrest you for walking in the street instead of the sidewalk." Wilson become irate (as cops are want to do when a young black male give them disrespect) and grabs Michael. Michael struggles to get away and when he does, Wilson goes for his gun. During the struggle, shots go off inside the police vehicle. Michael pulls away and starts to run (why? . . . maybe because at this point he knows what Wilson is going to do) Wilson fires at him and yells at him to stop. Brown stops and turns back toward Wilson. Wilson continues to fire, with a final round entering the top of Brown's head as he falls.

Where, oh where, did I come up with this version? Well, to start with, it's 100% consistent with the physical evidence, absolutely 100%. Second, the first part (up to where Wilson grabs Brown) is from Dorian's statement. The second part, about the struggle, is consistent with what the eyewitnesses saw. Most saw nothing but a struggle. It is WILSON who portrays Brown as the aggressor (which is denied by Dorian). The third part is EXACTLY what is described by two of the first witnesses interviewed by the police. These witnesses, UNLIKE THE WITNESSES WHO DIDN'T INCULPATE WILSON, however, weren't just interviewed once, they were interviewed multiple times (there are three interview transcripts). Each time they were interviewed, police challenged some minor aspect of their story, e.g., "The first time I talked to you, didn't you say you were looking out your window when you saw this, now are you saying it was after you had run outside? By the time a blatantly pro-cop racist DA put them in front of the grand jury, they had been totally burnt as witnesses.

There isn't a "lack of understanding" on the part of DUers OR Black Lives Matters. There is an "understanding" that our racist criminal justice system will guarantee that the version I just told you will never get out and that people like you will go around pontificating about how Michael was responsible for his own death.

[Angel Martin]

88. The actual facts of the Brown shooting

are inconsistent with your preferred narrative

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/darren-wilson-cleared-in-michael-brown-ferguson-killing-by-justice-department/

Maybe the Brown case can be like the Duke rape case, that Newsweek editor Evan Thomas summarized as: "The narrative was right but the facts were wrong."

If facts are irrelevant to the narrative, then there is never any reason to advise people to comply with police instructions, and avoid getting shot.

[Uponthegears]

92. WHAT . . . there's a difference between

the actual transcripts and the mainstream version?

Say it ain't so.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. You equate Brown to a mass murderer armed to the teeth and issuing threats.

I have to wonder how his family would react to that. Brown was unarmed.

[MohRokTah]

21. Legitimate police action.

Pure and simple.

[Adrahil]

51. ...

[gratuitous]

73. You're 100% correct

But don't expect any support for defending quaint old documents and calling on the better angels we're supposed to have in our nature. If certain people are sufficiently mad or scared in the United States, then lives are going to be lost and the deaths will be lustily cheered in the country where our national religion is the High Church of Redemptive Violence.

[Matrosov]

79. Does the same apply to LaVoy Finicum?

He didn't get a trial either

[Uponthegears]

82. I believe the claim

regarding Mr. Finicum was that he was attempting to go for his weapon when he was killed.

As I have said many times, IF there are facts which show this guy was actively firing, if he was actively threatening harm to others, even if the cops just believed he was preparing for harming others at some point in the future, deadly force would be justified.

However, despite begging for a link to facts like those for almost 18 hours now, no one has shown that the threat faced by the cops in Dallas was is any way similar to the threat faced by the officers confronting Mr. Finicum.

[Matrosov]

87. He claimed he had planted explosive devices throughout Dallas

There was an excellent article that detailed some of the police negotiations with him. I'll try to find it again, meanwhile these have bits and pieces. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-20160708-snap-story.html

Investigators discovered bomb-making materials, rifles and a “personal journal of combat tactics” in the home of the black former Army reservist who struck during a demonstration against the shooting of two black men by police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana.

“The suspect said we will eventually find the IEDs,” Brown said, a reference to explosives. “He wanted to kill officers. And he expressed killing white people, killing white officers, he expressed anger for Black Lives Matter.”

“We saw no other option than to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension to detonate where the suspect was,” Brown said. “Other options would have exposed our officers to grave danger.”

http://fox6now.com/2016/07/11/writing-in-blood-threats-of-bombs-the-latest-on-dallas-shooting-investigation/

During his hourslong standoff with police, Johnson said he was ready to kill more cops with bombs, Dallas police Chief David Brown told CNN.

“We had negotiated with him for about two hours, and he just basically lied to us — playing games, laughing at us, singing, asking how many (police officers) did he get and that he wanted to kill some more and that there were bombs there,” Brown said.

A search of the gunman’s home revealed he had plenty of supplies to make explosives. Brown said police found bomb-making materials and a journal that suggested Johnson had been practicing detonations and appeared ready to take aim at larger targets.

It was enough, Brown said, to have “devastating effects on our city.”

From what all I've read, my understanding is that they tried to negotiate with him for several hours, when he made the threat of wanting to kill more officers and of having planted explosive devices throughout the city. Police had searched his home during the negotiations and found bomb making materials there, which led them to believe there was a good chance he wasn't bluffing. They worried about the possibility of him detonating the devices remotely, and at that point they gave him the chance of surrendering peacefully 'or else.' He said he wasn't going to be taken alive.

So I don't get the sense that they killed him out of revenge or impatience. There was urgency because of his bomb threats, and he refused the final ultimatum to surrendering. If they'd just gotten bored or had killed him while he was trying to surrender, I'd have agreed that it was an execution.

[NaturalHigh]

95. Forigve me if I don't feel sorry for that piece of shit.

[Red Mountain]

7. Did they try tear gas?

Just curious.

Looks like the police are gonna have quite a bill to pay after the party.

Haha. Of course they won't.

[Uponthegears]

12. They talked about it

But decided that would mean they read the 5th and 14th Amendments.

[True Dough]

13. I can see both sides on this one

If they had taken him out by a police sniper's bullet, there would have been much less controversy even though it would also have represented an extra-judicial killing. The guy's taunting of police and his expressions of desire to kill some more made him an extreme danger.

On the other hand, the delivery of death by robot has disturbed a lot of people. The idea of a small wheeled vehicle rolling up and exploding next to a human being doesn't sit well. Oversight should be exercised before it's used in such circumstances again, as well as policies drafted for police forces across the nation.

[Lance Bass esquire]

14. Trolling for a cop killer to boot.

Won't get any sympathy here.

99% of the peeps here say it was JUSTIFIED.

You keep fighting the good fight tho.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Hugs and Kittens.

[Uponthegears]

16. It's called defending the Constitution

But you go right ahead

[Lance Bass esquire]

17. Its called defending a cop killer.

Poor guy.

They should have brought him milk and cookies instead.

[Uponthegears]

23. "Defending" him

By saying cops don't get to kill folks for not surrendering?

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

Constitution, Amendment V

Heard of it?

[mythology]

34. By your inaccurate reading, there is nothing anybody could do that would merit

being killed before a trial. So if something like the guy on Bastille Day happened, they would more or less have let him run out of bullets, assuming they could get a nail strip down to stop him from running people over.

No right is absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there isn't a fire. You can't tell a mob that they should go kill that person over there.

[Uponthegears]

45. Did the Bastille Day

Killer pose an immediate threat. . . well yes he did. Did this guy huddling in a corner . . . not so much.

But nice job of trying to juxtapose police powers (term of art alert) to protect the public from an immediate threat with the 5th Amendment requirement for due process when such a threat doesn't exist.

[Angel Martin]

67. or you have to wait until he runs out of fuel !

The bomb was a smart alternative to another risky police operation where more officers could have been killed.

Or they decide to "wait it out", and the killer gets up above the hanging ceiling and escapes. Brilliant !

[msanthrope]

19. No....you misinterpret the 5th amendment. He got his due. nt

[Uponthegears]

25. Bring that argument

I'd love to hear it.

[msanthrope]

26. No....it is you who claim the killing is "extrajudicial." That is an extrodinary

claim and you made it first. Prove it.

[Uponthegears]

33. There was no authorizing legal proceedings

before the killing

Hence EXTRAJUDICIAL

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrajudicial

"Extraordinary" if you don't know basic dictionary definitions I guess.

[msanthrope]

35. It's unfortunate that you seem to think that 200 years of jurisprudence simply don't count.

It's kind of why we have it. You seem to be mistaken in thinking that "authorizing legal proceedings" didn't happpen.

My legal definitions don't come from online dictionaries.....they come from rulings. But, I'll play along...

What "authorizing legal proceedings" was the sniper due?

[Statistical]

38. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime ..."

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

He was holed up at a dead end no longer shooting surrounded by more than a hundred law enforcement. Law enforcement who had enough time to rig an IED to explode him.

[msanthrope]

41. Yeah.....no. He wasn't custodial. He was deemed an active threat, and refused to surrender.nt

[Statistical]

44. Deemed an active threat = we killed him because he killed cops

At the time he was exploded he hadn't fired shot in almost an hour. Active threat my ass.

[Uponthegears]

46. Exactly

[msanthrope]

50. He hadn't fired a shot because the Dallas Police declined to present him with human targets.

He threatened to detonate bombs, refused to surrender. Should they have waited to see if he was kidding about the bombs?

[Straw Man]

60. Whose ass?

Deemed an active threat = we killed him because he killed cops

At the time he was exploded he hadn't fired shot in almost an hour. Active threat my ass.

Do you think a better course of action would have been to wait until he started shooting again? Someone who (a) has killed people + (b) is armed + (c) isn't surrendering = active threat.

[X_Digger]

65. Perhaps if you'd been listening to the scanner.. you would have heard officers..

.. repeating the threats that he made, that he had bombs planted all over the area, where civilians were sheltering in place. Some officers' mics actually picked up his threats in the background as they were talking..

[Uponthegears]

39. It's called a trial

Oh, bring on your legal authorities friend. I've only practiced civil rights law for three and a half decades.

[msanthrope]

40. Yeah.....you don't get a trial if you refuse custody. you cannot both flee

Justice and claim it. That's what I always told my criminal defense clients. Since you are an attorney, I'm sure you always advised your clients that their rights were custodial.....a fugitive has no right to a trial.

[Uponthegears]

42. but a fugitive

Can't be summarily executed.

Oh, btw, you've never had a criminal client in your life.

My guess . . . Cop

Now bring on those cases "counselor"

[msanthrope]

48. No reason to believe this one was. Perhaps you could cite a case,or a law you think

this killing contravenes.

Fyi.....the accusation of being a cop makes a refreshing change from the DUERS who accuse me and the other resident lawyers of being craven bastards who laugh at their pro se pleadings.

[Uponthegears]

72. Yea

I was pretty much wrong on that whole "cop" thing. Sorry again.

As for your legal point, here's a fun one:

Harris v. Roderick, 933 F.Supp. 977 (D. ID 1996)(Whether law enforcement faced actual threat justifying use of lethal force creates an issue of fact precluding dismissal notwithstanding Plaintiff's prior participation in killing of law enforcement officer)

Apologies for the incident which gave rise to the case, but sometimes you have to have a white right winger as the plaintiff before the courts give two hoots about the Constitution.

[msanthrope]

85. Yeah....You think a Ruby Ridge lawsuit has some bearing on its incident? Um, no. nt

[Uponthegears]

86. I was willing

to accept Steve's representation that you are a lawyer. I applaud you for working to protect voter rights. I do have to tell you, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you have significant experience, education, or training when it comes to civil rights and law enforcement.

That lawsuit began when the plaintiff, one of the Randy Weaver "clan," sued the federal government and a number of agents in their individual capacity for injuries he received during the attack on the Weaver compound for violating his rights under the Fourth (by violating the "security" -- as in the right of the people to be secure in their persons -- of his body without probable cause and/or a warrant) and Fifth Amendment (by "taking" his health without due process). In moving to dismiss the lawsuit, the Government maintained (just as you do now) that, even though there had been no aggressive conduct by the clan for a number of hours/days, the fact that the "clan" had already murdered a federal agent, coupled with the fact that they were heavily armed, coupled with the fact that they had made threats against law enforcement, coupled with the fact that they would not surrender (does any of this sound familiar to you?) justified law enforcement using force and therefore the action should be dismissed.

The court disagreed, finding that even though all of these facts were essentially undisputed, the government had to present additional facts to demonstrate an actual threat of harm to innocent people to support their justification defense.

That, friend, is exactly what I have been saying.

[msanthrope]

90. To be fair, I haven't read past your first paragraph. But, I've enjoyed this subthread, where my

brief questioning of you and then dismissal of your answers has provoked defensive screeds that have revealed quite a bit about you.

Any DUer can surmise just who has experience in cross-examination.

Fyi....the other lawyer on this thread has also indicated to you their opinion of your legal acumen. I'd stop digging.

[Uponthegears]

91. Take the draw

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Execution requires the subject be under control of the authority administering the sentence.

The killer was still actively resisting.

[Uponthegears]

74. Hence the term "extrajudicial"

btw, IF the shooter was actively resisting, there are very few people (including myself) who would question the use of lethal force.

My point is that no one appears willing or able to produce some facts that show he was doing anything other than hiding behind a wall refusing to come out. That is not active resistance.

If he was still firing, heck, even if all they had was reason to believe that he was behind the wall preparing to start firing again, killing him would be justified. However, IF all he was doing was sitting there refusing to come out, it doesn't matter if he shot a hundred cops, the cops don't get to kill him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. Extrajudicial would not apply either.

My point is that no one appears willing or able to produce some facts that show he was doing anything other than hiding behind a wall refusing to come out. That is not active resistance.

Actually, it is. He possessed the means and the will to resist after having just immediately engaged in a firefight with police. Just because there was an extended pause between shots does not mean he was not an active threat at that moment.

Unless you're going to claim they completely got the wrong guy the fact he was not shooting at that very moment does not constitute killing a defenseless prisoner. His lack of shooting at the moment of his death is more than likely due to an inability to acquire a target rather than any passivity on his part. If he wanted to be treated as a passive prisoner his obligation was to surrender.

So far, you have not provided any evidence that he made an effort to do so.

Look, I'm an anarchist. In my perfect world there would even be police but that doesn't mean I'm so naïve that I can't tell when someone is an active threat, even to the police.

[stevenleser]

43. I think in this case the old addage anyone can claim anything on the internet is applicable

I know that you and jberryhill here are attorneys.

The person with whom you are responding doesn't seem to know the most basic elements of criminal law. If they are an attorney, they should sue their law school.

[msanthrope]

54. I have no doubt they are a civil rights attorney.....in the same vein that Mr. Greenwald also

claimed such.

[Uponthegears]

55. Oh my

Big with insults, small with argument.

[msanthrope]

56. Steve graciously interviewed me on last Election night...I had been working for the Obama

campaign as an election protection attorney.

Welcome to DU.

[Uponthegears]

58. For which you will be blessed

seriously

[stevenleser]

57. You've presented nothing to argue with other than claims you are an attorney.

Msanthrope and Jberryhill have proven several times in the past that they are attorneys.

Care to prove it yourself? Otherwise, your legalese attempts to justify your position arent worth anything when put up against someone like msanthrope who really is a lawyer and knows applicable case-law here.

[Uponthegears]

62. "Care to prove yourself"

Just waiting for the opportunity.

When misanthrope, or any other legal expert you're "recognizing" comes up with a case that says that police may lawfully kill a suspect who poses no threat to public safety, we can have that contest.

All we have seen so far from misanthrope are conclusory statements like, "No....you misinterpret the 5th amendment." That's not a legal argument. That's a conclusion. Aside from that, all misanthrope has provided are remarks like "He got his due" (a cute play on due as in due process) and the legally incorrect statement that 5th Amendment rights do not attach until you are in custody (while I respect the heck out of misanthrope for the work he/she does, it's 6th Amendment rights that don't attach until custody. The Fifth Amendment applies to all government takings. While there are obviously exception to every right, the exceptions to the 5th Amendment applicable here (because we aren't talking about a situation like, for example, where there can be an adequate post-taking remedy) are limited to those situations where the government is engaged in the protection of the public from a current threat)

Now if you, or misanthrope, or anyone else you think is a "real lawyer" have a single case which says otherwise, I'd love to hear it. However, if all you have is "On the internet, know one knows you're a dog," any discussion we are having is over.

[msanthrope]

69. I didn't read past my misspelled user name. nt

[Uponthegears]

71. Sincerely sorry

because spelling your user name the way you did was actually pretty clever.

[treestar]

36. There are none unless he is arrested

An active threat has to be neutralized before they kill someone else. He had a right to trial by jury, counsel, and he should have put the guns down and said so. That's all it would have taken. Instead, he kept threatening.

[Orrex]

81. Oh come on.

Why this hunger for ad hoc executions? If they'd simply waited 60 or 70 years, the shooter would have died of old age.

[msanthrope]

84. I bet they didn't even offer him pizza, or a blankie. nt

[Orrex]

94. Monsters.

[X_Digger]

64. Question: Is it unconstitutional..

When a cop, or you, or me- defend themselves or others from imminent grave bodily injury or death with force, even deadly force?

You've got a guy who's killed five, shot eleven.. continues to take pot shots at you.. and claims that he's got bombs planted around the area where you've got folks sheltering in place.. and says he's going to kill more cops and detonate his bombs..

Would a reasonable person consider that imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death to themselves or others?

[essme]

18. 99% of the "peeps" here say it was JUSTIFIED.

So what? A bunch of people in Cleveland tonight think Trump is going to be a fabulous president.

Discussing the use of lethal force by the police, particularly with the new technology, is a worthy discussion.

You can smack your forehead on that thought.

[Lance Bass esquire]

22. Please give us your contact info

So next time this happens, cops can send you in and reason with the guy.

They will gladly arm you with a copy of the constitution.




You youngin's crack me up.....keep it comin...comedy gold.

[essme]

27. I was a "youngin" when I voted in my first

election, 34 years ago. You "old n scared" ones aren't that damned cute to me.

[Uponthegears]

37. Broke open the bale, huh?

We're not talking about how to reason with crazy people. We're talking about whether cops get to kill a person who no longer poses a threat to anyone.

As I said above, I have no problem with the use of deadly force (even a bomb in appropriate situations) to neutralize a threat of death or serious bodily injury to innocent people, but I have yet to read a single description of this incident where such a risk was present, the Dallas cops said it was just because he wouldn't surrender, and you, a staunch defender of this action hasn't even tried to supply the missing justifying facts.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. You keep repeating an assertion that is very dubious: that he no longer poses a threat

to anyone. That's a statement that simply can not be accurate about a person who has just murdered several people and is actively threatening to kill more by gun and by explosive detonation. A person who is making threats, who has already committed murders and threatens to commit more is in fact posing a threat, very much so. With intention.

Additionally, the PD does not say 'it was just because he wouldn't surrender' they said it was because he continued to make threats and claimed to be wired with explosives. If you send gas into an area with a man with a detonation button, he pushes that button. He said he had such a device on his person and others staged around the area.

You don't quote the PD because to do so would make your narrative more difficult to sustain.

He was posing and literally making threats and his actions made it clear he had no compunction about carrying out deadly threats.

[Uponthegears]

77. At least you have proposed

a scenario justifying lethal force. IF what you describe is accurate, I have no problem, and more importantly the Constitution has no problem, with the use of deadly force.

Could you do me a favor, though. I have yet to see a single story where a reliable source (and, no, I am not automatically deeming law enforcement unreliable, so if you have law enforcement reports that would be great) reports that he was "actively threatening to kill more by gun and by explosive detonation" and "he continued to make threats and claimed to be wired with explosives" AT THE TIME HE WAS KILLED.

If you have a source for those statements, could you give me a link?

As I have said over and over, an immediate threat, or even possible threat, of harm to innocent people obviously would have justified the use of deadly force. I have never said otherwise. What I have argued is that, absent such a threat, cops can't constitutionally or morally just up and kill us, even if we have done something really horrible.

[backscatter712]

20. Mixed feelings on this one.

If he was still a danger - in a position where he could take more shots, or was thought to also have other weapons, perhaps pipe bombs, then killing him may have been justified.

[essme]

29. I somewhat agree with that

however, I think there need to be strict protocols in place for the use of drones with explosives. Drones with some type of tear gas might be as effective. Hard to say, but, there needs to be a reasonable, national discussion. Military grade weaponry is getting scarier, and the potential for misuse is greater than ever.

[Uponthegears]

30. Heaven forbid

A reasoned response. If he posed (or even appeared to pose) an immediate risk, deadly force was justified.

My comments are based upon the fact that no one has even tried to direct us toward or link to some facts demonstrating how he posed such a risk.

They're simply taking the position that cop killers should be summarily killed. The Founding Fathers would weep.

[Elmergantry]

28. Boom Boom..

Well you know the rest..

[link:

|

[Lance Bass esquire]

32. PT RULES! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Taking out an active shooter.

It's inane that people have some kind of issue with this.

[Uponthegears]

52. No one has an issue

with taking out an active shooter.

Now take a stab at showing how, AT THE TIME HE WAS KILLED, this guy was an active shooter.

Do it and I am with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Did he still have the gun? How long had it been since he had last shot someone?

Nope, still not feelin the outrage on this one.

[deathrind]

59. This is still...

...disconcerting.

I understand why LE did this in this particular case but the idea that explosives / blowing up the house is now an option to end a stand off is an escalation in the wrong direction for conflict resolution.

[7wo7rees]

61. I live in this city. I have lived here since 1969. We blew up

someone with 1# of C4 attached to a robot. I am sick! This is the best we could do at 2:30 am just a couple of blocks from Dealey Plaza.

Just wrong in so many directions!!

[Bonx]

78. Kill bad man with guns=fine; bomb = OMG1!1!1!

I don't get it.

[geek tragedy]

89. good robot nt

[randome]

93. If a remote-controlled device is a robot, then so is a gun.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]