[anonymousguy]

Why? The guy was directly responsible, either solely or in a group, for intentionally assassinating uniformed police during a crowded event and vocally claimed to plant bombs and kill more police. There is no greater justification for police to immediately terminate a life, whether that justification is legal or due to exigence.

If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm, then so be it and congratulations.

[LeifCarrotson]

Did they really think that was a credible threat, or that blowing him up would stop the bombs from going off? In his position, if he could remotely detonate the bombs, he probably already would have, between the time he said he was going to and when they sent in the IED. If he could not, it didn't matter, he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave. If they were on a literal dead man switch, killing him would cause them to go off.

More importantly, it is NOT the jurisdiction of the police to pass judgement and penalties on the suspect. Deadly force is only legal when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses a significant, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Note that the threat is a future threat, irrespective of whether harm was caused in the past.

But I suspect that your reasoning becomes clouded when it's your friends and coworkers who have been shot. Giving the accused a lawyer and a chance to defend himself in court is his right, but that's hard to do when you've seen someone you love die.

[anonymousguy]

> he probably already would have

That is a huge guess. After 10 officers are shot I doubt the SWAT team was in a guessing mood.

> he wasn't going to get the opportunity to leave.

This is perhaps the most commonly fallacy I have read in this thread. Immobility does not immediately equivocate to either a reduction or increase in potential threat. The guys on the ground have to make that determination based upon the evidence available in the moment. After 10 officers were shot I am sure the suspect vocalizing additional threats likely didn't help the SWAT team believe the risk was diminishing.

[maxerickson]

How is their mood at all relevant? They are professionals whose job is to be on the right side of the line that divides appropriate use of force from inappropriate use of force.

Asking anything less than that from them is basically discarding the idea that we live in a civilized society.

[anonymousguy]

In situations like this mood is extremely relevant. Its what separates the disciplined professional from people who whine and second guess things.

What many people don't understand is that a wrong decision is better than no decision at all. The world isn't going to wait for you to call an assembly and have a cordial discussion about how to delicately make a possibly-suicidal suspect feel happy. It sure as hell isn't going to wait for to conduct an online survey to discover what makes people less sad. People are dying. The suspect is threatening to have explosives and claims to want to kill more people. The first order of business is to eliminate the threat. This is an active shooter incident. Once negotiations failed the only right decision is how to terminate the suspect. This is operational doctrine.

Stalling and feeling it out is a horribly bad decision to make and indicates a lack of professionalism for active shooter scenarios.

[maxerickson]

You didn't explain how mood should inform operational doctrine.

My claim is that it should not.

[angersock]

You misread "mood". "In a guessing mood" is another way of saying "Willing to take time to consider all options."

Operational doctrine here suggests that, with active shooter, you prioritize removing the shooter once negotiations have failed. The "probably would have" the poster is referencing is a what-if they didn't have time for.

[EdHominem]

> What many people don't understand is that a wrong decision is better than no decision at all.

100% wrong. That reasoning justifies all decisions.

This is what's wrong with our institutional thinking these days.

> This is an active shooter incident.

This stopped being an active shooter situation when they pinned him down without hostages.

> he suspect is threatening to have explosives and claims to want to kill more people. The first order of business is to eliminate the threat.

Fatally wrong again. Eliminating the threat would involve eliminating the bombs, not just the gun.

If they truly believed there were bombs they'd have had more motive to question the shooter, not less, because a single missed bomb could sit for days until triggered inadvertently.

[haslhuny]

But isn't this the whole point of BLM? The fact that the police don't treat black people the same as others? This exacerbates the argument

[callahad]

> If this is what it took to end the suspect's life, thereby preventing further harm

Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established: that killing the suspect was necessary to prevent further harm. It seems like most of the discussion here is questioning that point: if the suspect had been located and surrounded, was there a credible threat of further harm? If there was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal ways to apprehend the suspect?

[anonymousguy]

> Your reasoning is based on a premise that hasn't been established

The intention to commit further harm is evident from statements by the accused and the vile nature of the crimes. Given the potential for harm, that the negotiations failed, and threats of explosives this was the safest course of action. Whether or not the suspect was surrounded has little bearing on if the threat was reduced or increased.

> If there was time to repurpose the bomb-dispoal bot, were there not also non-lethal ways to apprehend the suspect?

That is a flawed argument in that it guesses a quantity of time to modify a robot and time to neutralize an armed suspect are equivalent. It is also flawed in that it presumes there is a choice to be made. Another flaw is that doesn't account for the fact that the robot might already have been modified earlier in case negotiations failed, and if so then the robot is already modified and immediately ready while the suspect isn't.

[cthalupa]

He was still shooting at police officers and their attempts at non-lethal measures such as flashbangs were not working.

[haslhuny]

Did they attempt flash bangs? I haven't heard that?

[nextweek2]

>thereby preventing further harm The original creation of the police was to create a deterrent, not to apprehend criminals. Prevention rather than cure.

When the police take a life we lose the ability to understand the detail of why that deterrent failed. The deterrent is more important that the cure.

Whilst the police have suspects, they don't have this one and everyone's motivations are slightly different. The death of this individual also creates a martyr for others on a similar path.

In my humble opinion they should have used a stun or smoke grenade.

[DanBC]

From the same event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36744523/dallas-police...

They said he was wanted; he wasn't one of the shooters; they're yet to apologise or delete the tweet.

[anonymousguy]

What does that have to do with my comment?

[haslhuny]

You used the correct word ... suspect. I am not a lawyer but the police murdered this man. Regardless of what he did, the police are supposed to uphold the law, where was the law? There was no imminent danger?