Police execute man with explosives without trial(61 Posts)
I don't post on 'in the news' much, but I can't believe nobody's talking about what happened today. Obviously people are talking about the really important aspects of the incident in the US, which is that 5 police officers were murdered and that there is deep unrest about the police's institutional racism and disproportionate killing of unarmed black men. But nobody is talking about the fact that the police sent in a remote controlled bomb and executed the shooter without trial. How is this possible?
If they could get a remote control robot in there, could they not have got it to release tier gas or something to disarm him and remove the threat without actually killing him? I don't understand how they could legally do this. To be clear, I absolutely do understand WHY they did it - it seems a 'least damage' option as no more police get put at risk, I just don't understand how it's legal?
I don't quite understand the OMG ROBOT KILLER angst going on. If you shoot someone, then that also means that lethal things are coming out of a machine. Killers have been shot to death in many standoffs recently.
The shooter was using a machine to kill people. People who didn't have a trial or a chance to escape the situation. Over many hours the shooter had opportunities to give himself up and face trial. He refused. I think the police did a brilliant job in using a robot to not put any more of their innocent people at risk, and to eradicate a multiple murderer.
If there were non-lethal ways to apprehend someone who isn't surrendering (when you are in hot pursuit of an armed multiple murderer) then they could be tried. I'm struggling to think of any though (incapacitating gas in a ventilated area does not have a certain enough effect).
That said, this type of killing is different from someone being killed in a shootout, because the decision to kill is not made by a person fighting in close quarters against an armed murderer (which I kind of 'get' because the principle that you can defend yourself with force, even lethal force, if the circumstances warrant it).
It is more deliberate, authorised by someone who is not defending themselves, at a time when no-one is at direct risk. They have to weigh up the future risk of the murderer killing again, and will (I hope) be called to account for how they made that decision.
Man killers 4 police officers, injures 11 more. Says he wants to kill white people
Sure, let's let him have a fair trial.
Are you white OP? Or Black? Perhaps you should have gone in and coaxed the clearly logical thinking killer into coming out so he could "sit trial" for his ridiculous and undeserved murders and attempted murders. Yes, that makes complete sense.
OP I can't see why you have a problem with this. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
A person on a killing spree and has no intention of giving up which essentially means more people are potentially being killed.
Robot killing. I think it was bloody genius and saved someone else getting killed as they try to rep reman him.
Your problem with that is?
This really surprises me. I have been. Watching BBC news channel since 6.30 (young baby) and they haven't mentioned it at all ... reports on events, naming the shooter, but not that he's dead! Now i watch it knowing , they don't say what happened. Not that he was arrested. Nit that he was killed. They do quote him and his explanation, which rather made me assume he had been apprehended.
Poor journalism, BBC.
I don't see any OMG ROBOT ANGST in OPs post? It's fair enough question- if you can get a robot in there, would there be a non lethal way of apprehending the shooter and is lethal force legal??
I would imagine that there are strict protocols To follow to ensure that the robit is only deployed under certain circumstances. Non lethal gas would not ne a guaranteed solution, neither would tranquillisers or similar.
It's not ideal but I think it would be legal. And yes there would be a thorough debrief.
No, I'm with you, OP.
If they had a machine capable of remotely killing the gunman, they could have used a machine to remotely disable him in some way. But maybe such a machine does not exist. What's the point of inventing one, when you already have a machine able to kill him? Easier to just kill first, in the knowledge that few questions will be asked later - he was a cop killer, after all!
Texas has the highest rate of homicide in the US. It also has the highest rate of prisoners sentenced to death. What does that tell us about the way life is valued, or rather, not valued, in that state?
The gunman did not start to say he wanted to kill white people in isolation. He is a product of his society, and that society needs to grow up and start taking responsibility for all of its citizens.
I live a hop skip and a jump from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered. After that terrible tragedy, our police were put under huge politely pressure to examine and combat the institutional racism within their organisation. Have the Texas police undertaken such an examination? Does anyone think they ever will?
Oh, and I'm white, if it's relevant.
With you OP. If wouldn't have happened in the UK. But then, neither would a man on the rampage with a gun happen
not since Hungerford anyway
So would you prefer more police were sent in. Probably what the attacker was hoping for so he could blow them all up.
I think it was right.
So he would have been tried and imprisoned. For being a racist murdering bastard? Better dead.
Yes, of course he should have been tried and, if he was found guilty, imprisoned. That is call a justice system and the basis of democracy- the right to a fair trial.
Is there even any evidence they killed the right man?! Without a fair trial, who knows.
To try someone you have to be able to arrest them. Better off he died than another innocent person really
A trial would also establish WHY he did it and might mean the problem could be stopped at source.
But really the USA should ban guns.
I am completely anti death penalty but I am pragmatic in that if the only way to stop someone killing other people is to kill them then I can uncomfortably accept it is the right thing for the greater good.
I share some of sanity's concern here though. I doubt in the moment there was another option which would not result in greater loss of life. However I think the structural causes of the event need examined and addressed and sadly I don't think they will be either.
He was prepared to use further deadly force against officers trying to detain him having already shot 16 people why should the police risk further losses so this guy can have a fair trial?
I believe it was reported that he was carrying explosives on him and the controlled explosion was in response to reports of him having suspicious packages on his person that would have taken out anyone who tried to approach him, they guy was also a trained solider so would have potentially taken out a number of people during any attempt at arrest.
The police response was justified.
Tbh my sympathy lies with all the innocent people who have died or been injured here. For him - meh
My concern about a robot with a bomb is that it might kill or main innocent bystanders.
I think it's absolutely nativity to think you can avoid killing someone who is on the rampage with a gun. The killer had murdered five people and injured seven others. He needed to be killed to preserve innocent life.
Wasnt there a stand off for hours?
End of the day death without trial is a risk you take when you go around killing people with a machine gun.
Texas still has the death penalty i think so he would have been sentanced to death anyway.
As for knowing the reasons i think that is pretty obvious given it was cops they shot.
I have great sympathy for the black community and over a 143 unlawful shootings of black men by cops is disgusting and needs to stop. However i do not advocate the revenge shoiting that occured.
If they had a machine capable of remotely killing the gunman
They didn't. They used a bomb disposal robot to take a bomb to the gunman's position then exploded it. In technology terms that is one level up from strapping a bomb to a radio controlled toy car, sending it in and exploding it.
As the gunman was in a well ventilated area gas may not have incapacitated him and would have risked him opening fire indiscriminately as soon as he became aware that gas was being used.
Once a suspect poses no further threat they should clearly be arrested and stand trial. However, if a suspect is heavily armed and has shown that they are happy to use lethal force the priority is to stop them killing anyone else. Ideally this should be achieved without killing the suspect but if the suspect is unwilling to lay down their weapons that is unlikely to be possible. Sadly it is often the case that the only possible action open to the authorities to avoid further bloodshed is to kill the suspect.
A trial would also establish WHY he did it
No it wouldn't. A trial simply establishes whether or not the prosecution's evidence that the accused committed a crime reaches the required standard to convict. Why the accused committed the crime is not relevant and only generally comes up if there is doubt. If there is no doubt that the accused committed the crime there is absolutely no need for the prosecution to establish the motive.
Of course it could happen here no7. You remember Dunblane I presume?
Texas still has the death penalty i think
Yes they do. They have the highest number of prisoners on death row and execute more of them every year than any other US state.
Unlike other US states, Texas has never pardoned a prisoner on death row, despite having a board of paroles and pardons which examines cases put before it.
Join the discussion
Please login first.