Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Police execute man with explosives without trial

60 replies

FeckArseIndustries · 08/07/2016 20:47

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?

OP posts:
exLtEveDallas · 09/07/2016 11:12

I am against the death penalty on all cases, but I find myself unable to care about this death. I'm not sure why, but I think It's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" feeling. Better he is dead than causing more deaths

Original poster
FeckArseIndustries · 09/07/2016 17:55

I think some posters might have misunderstood my concern really. It wasn't so much 'OMG robot angst', it was more that (as someone put it upthread) they've basically strapped a bomb to a remote control car, driven it to him and blew him up. I get shooting someone who's shooting at you. But this is a bit different isn't it? Blowing them up? Risking terrible pain and injury presumably to him but also to anyone unfortunately nearby.

I don't know what we'd have done in the UK if it happened here. Not that! But the important thing is, it's infinitely less likely to happen here because we haven't made such a situation in society where people feel angry enough to do that kind of thing due to the institutional racism of the police and their murders of such high numbers of unarmed black men, coupled with how ridiculously easy it is for an unhinged person to get hold of a weapon legally at the local shop! Prevention is always better than cure.

Anyway, my point was, I DO understand why they did it. I know they had to stop him. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that police can literally act as judge jury and executioner, and blow someone to pieces with a bomb. Is that an ok power for the state to have?

Someone said a trial wouldn't look into why this man did it, but it would have looked at any mitigating factors such as a mental health problem. It's not certain he'd have got the death penalty, without a trial we wouldn't know.

I don't know why anyone is asking what colour I am - why do you ask? I'll answer if you like but I can't see what difference it makes.

OP posts:
Heratnumber7 · 09/07/2016 19:05

I do remember demented and Hungerford. But they were years ago, and it hasn't happened since. The tight gun laws are even tighter now. You can no longer keep a gun in your house, for example.

Heratnumber7 · 09/07/2016 19:07

prh an inquest then.

ptumbi · 09/07/2016 19:11

Jo Cox was shot only a matter of days ago Sad

iklboo · 09/07/2016 19:22

Copeland, Cumbria in 2010. , Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself

prh47bridge · 09/07/2016 19:56

Risking terrible pain and injury presumably to him but also to anyone unfortunately nearby

He was in a stand off with the police in a multi-storey car park. The only people nearby were the police.

I don't know what we'd have done in the UK if it happened here

We sent the SAS into the Iranian Embassy so I wouldn't be too sure that it would be different here.

Is that an ok power for the state to have

It is up to the state to protect its citizens. If the state cannot use lethal force in this kind of situation it is hard to see how it can discharge its responsibilities. I think it is a vital power for a state to have. It must, however, be used responsibly and only in extremis.

prh an inquest then

It is still possible to hold inquests into those the gunman killed. I don't know about the US but that would certainly happen in the UK.

LookAtMeGo · 09/07/2016 19:56

We will never know whether he really did say he wanted to 'kill white people, especially police'. US police aren't exactly known for their trustworthiness.

treaclesoda · 09/07/2016 20:06

I read this thread this morning and have thought back to it a few times during the day and come to the conclusion that it's probably preferable for him (from his own point of view) to be executed this way than after a trial. He must have known that if he was captured alive he'd be facing a long incarceration and then the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty so in a weird way I find this to be no worse than the almost inevitable legal process. But morally, I suppose it's wrong.

But do I feel sorry for him? Not particularly, he took lives and he lost his own.

LookAtMeGo · 09/07/2016 20:33

Yes I agree with that. Being blown up without even knowing it was about to happen would surely be preferable to bring captured, tortured and ill-treated whilst awaiting the death penalty or just for the next 895 years if no death penalty (obviously he'd have had the death penalty).

meditrina · 09/07/2016 20:41

The Iranian Embassy Siege is not an accurate comparison, because the known presence of hostages made a significant different to what options would be considered.

The unintended affect of this event will be that in future anyone who plans their attacks will also plan to snatch at least one hostage by the time they start running/hiding.

Mistigri · 10/07/2016 11:34

Are you white OP? Or Black?

Why is this relevant? Weird racist comment.

The OP has a good question. If there was a non-lethal way of apprehending this person without putting more police officers at risk then it should have been used. I don't know if there was an alternative, but if there was, then what happened is execution without trial.

LookAtMeGo · 10/07/2016 15:54

You're right mistigri. I thought that Hmm

LookAtMeGo · 10/07/2016 15:54

About the racist comment, I mean

ProfessorPreciseaBug · 11/07/2016 06:30

I agree with Feck and Sanity.
Someone in the plod made a decision to deny a defandant a trial by delibeately killing the defendant.... The important word is deliberate.

In the situation of a standoff and shooting, it is possible to make a mistake and shoot. However driving a remote controlled robot loaded with a bomb is no mistake. It is deliberate.

prh47bridge · 11/07/2016 09:25

Yes, they deliberately killed him. I don't think anyone is denying that. However, I do not believe the motive of the police was to deny the gunman a trial. I believe their motive was to stop him killing anyone else. That is the first priority in this kind of situation. If it can be achieved in such a way that the gunman is alive and in custody that's great and is always the first objective, which is why the police didn't go for the bomb option until attempts to negotiate a peaceful end failed. But if those on the ground dealing with this kind of situation reasonably believe that their best option for preventing further loss of life is to kill the gunman I fully support them in taking that action.

Mistigri · 11/07/2016 10:33

But what you "believe" is irrelevant prh47. There will presumably be an investigation, to determine if this was a justifiable homicide. Without knowing the details, or what alternatives were available, it's hard to know whether it was justified or not.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/07/2016 11:04

There will presumably be an investigation, to determine if this was a justifiable homicide

I hope you're right, and if it really wasn't appropriate then I hope those concerned will be hung out to dry

Unfortunately, if this is found to be justified I suspect that will never be enough for the police-are-racist-murderers persuasion. After all other cases have been judged this way, and still some insist that the dreadful death is simply down to police bloodlust, racism and all the rest

prh47bridge · 11/07/2016 11:21

Mistigri

I was responding to another poster who was expressing their belief that the police killed the gunman to deny him a trial. If that was their intention I would expect them to have done so quickly, not after a lengthy standoff during which he had adequate opportunity to give himself up.

You are correct that there is likely to be some kind of investigation. If that throws up evidence that the police killed the gunman with the specific intention of denying him a trial (as suggested by the poster to whom I was responding) I will accept that. However, I think that is unlikely.

There clearly have been cases in the US and elsewhere where police appear to have overstepped the mark and got away with it. All I am saying is that, contrary to the views expressed by some on this thread, the police have the right to kill someone if they reasonably believe that it is necessary to do so in order to protect others. On the information we have on this particular case I believe the actions of the police were justified but I accept that further information may emerge that would alter my view.

wiltingfast · 13/07/2016 13:36

Where the police were not in immediate danger, I would seriously question the legitimacy of using a robot to go in and kill the sniper.

You are also, maybe more importantly, losing an opportunity to question him, find out about his pals, not to mention the bombs and so on he said he'd planted. So arguably actually putting people in danger.

I was aghast. New low in US policing. Doubt what transpired is doing anything to ease race relations.

-What will we do with the difficult black man hiding in this building threatening to kill people?

Oh yeah. LET'S BLOW HIM UP. Shock

Really? REALLY? That's the best you can think of?

prh47bridge · 13/07/2016 15:35

The police were in danger and so were members of the general public. The gunman was heavily armed and was believed to have bombs. After two hours of negotiations it was clear he had no intention of surrendering and could come out shooting and/or throwing bombs at any time. If he had it is likely more lives would have been lost before he could be taken down. Attempts by police marksmen to take him down have failed.

You talk as if the bomb option was the police's first choice. It clearly wasn't. Given that the police appear to have tried other options first and given the situation I'm really not sure what else you think they should have done.

Tippytappytoes · 13/07/2016 15:50

Just to clear something up, he wasn't blown up. The bomb disposal robot had a shot gun mounted to the front of it which is used to fire at devices to disrupt them with a view to making them safe before a human operator approaches. It was this they used to take down the Dallas sniper not explosives.

Tippytappytoes · 13/07/2016 15:55

Apologies I read an earlier report, so ignore previous.

wiltingfast · 13/07/2016 17:19

Ah well if you think 2 hours of negotiations is trying hard enough I'm not sure what else to say?

They really bottomed out their options there.

Honestly, I've had longer lunches.

prh47bridge · 13/07/2016 18:00

What length of negotiation would you prefer? Remember that the gunman was not interested in negotiating. He was clear that he intended to kill more people and it appears he had no intention of surviving. That seriously limits the police's ability to negotiate. Normally you are trying to persuade the gunman to give up in return for guarantees of safety, etc. If the gunman is not interested in survival what can the police offer to make him stop?

If he was willing to negotiate I agree negotiations should have continued. However, according to reports he wasn't. He was merely taunting the police. It seems reasonable to conclude that, had the standoff continued, he would at some point have started shooting indiscriminately and possibly throwing bombs in an effort to kill as many police as possible before he was killed. You apparently believe it is right to expect the police to continue to place their own lives at risk in this way. I believe the police, faced with this situation, had every right to use lethal force to ensure that the gunman could not kill anyone else.

If it turns out that the police account is false and that there was a realistic prospect of a negotiated conclusion I will be happy to say the police got it wrong. However, if the police account is accurate I think the action they took was justified.