Dallas Police: We Killed Shooter With an Exploding Robot. What’s That All About?

Dallas Police Chief David Brown told a press conference that his department killed the shooter in the Dallas massacre by sending in some sort of robot device — and then detonating it. Huh? We’ve heard of police using robots to gather intel and defuse explosive devices [as above in unrelated incident], but killing bad guys? That’s so Robocop. And makes me wonder about plans to arm police drones. What’s your take on this?

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Nicely done, and good riddance.

    1. I agree but that is not the whole argument. The flip side is, we have the right to bear arms. Exploding robots and flame throwing drones and all. What’s that all about?

      1. avatar Mike says:

        Maybe they used a claymore?

      2. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        We have the rights to build, bear and play around with those, too.

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Tell that to the ATF and Courts, to them the 2nd,9th, 10th, and 14th Amendment exist in name only.

        2. Damn Straight! But your government doesn’t agree.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Probably an EOD drone detonating that terrorist scumbag’s bomb.

    1. avatar Joe Liberty says:

      That’s what I was thinking. “Hey you left this downstairs…LOL”
      Kablooie!

      1. avatar Sad88 says:

        LOL. Coffee and Woodford Reserve everywhere.

        1. Dumbass! You choke on that shit before you spit it out! Hate to see what you do with hot brass down your shirt!

        2. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

          Woodford Reserve at 9 am? I like the cut of your jib, sir.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          Woodford reserve goes great with cigars, making it the perfect morning beverage.

    2. avatar peirsonb says:

      I’ll buy that.

      But, generally speaking, isn’t EODs goal not to cause a boom?

      1. avatar Robert w. says:

        Actually EOD goal is usually to cause a boom, just at a time and place of their choosing to minimize casualties.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        One of the few perks of working EOD or Combat Engineering is the fact that creating booms is a job requirement.

        I miss having ready access to C4 and detcord. 🙁

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          One of the many perks of working in the Oil & Gas industry is that making things go boom is a job requirement. It’s a blast (get it?) hanging out with the boys in R&D and having ready access to RDX and detcord.

    3. avatar Mike says:

      “Yeah, because those are totally a thing.”

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Out of context quotes are out of context. The original comment implied that the robot WAS the bomb.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          Well, that’s a mighty fine line you’ve drawn there, between the entire device exploding, and what the Chief described in the video at the link in the text (they put a bomb on the robot’s arm, sent it in, and detonated the bomb, which killed the suspect).

          Folks, if you haven’t already done so, click on the linked line of text “sending in some sort of robot device” and LISTEN to the Chief describing what they did, and why. Seriously. Go, do it.

          If I could figure out a way to copy it that video clip, I would.

  3. avatar Ken says:

    Without further information there is no take on this other than uninformed speculation. I’ll wait.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      This is according to David Brown, Chief of the Dallas Police Department.

      1. avatar Ken says:

        Ah yes, because this site ALWAYS takes the initial incident statements of police chiefs/spokespersons as gospel. 🙂

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Yeah, no.

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          Ken, that didn’t sound/look like a heat-of-the-moment off-the-cuff blurb. It’s a very well-prepared statement, read slowly and clearly, with many details about what they did, how they did it, and why.

          Folks, if you haven’t already done so, click on the linked line of text “sending in some sort of robot device” and WATCH/LISTEN to the Chief describing what they did. Seriously. Go, do it.

        3. avatar craig says:

          Jackhole

  4. avatar LarryinTX says:

    With a robot, there is video. Hi-def, closeup video. I will wait to see the video before I pass judgment, but for now I think it stinks to hi heaven. Why not put a gun on the robot, just shoot the sucker? We gotta blow shit up, instead?

    1. avatar John L. says:

      All aspects other than technical aside, a bomb is simpler. No moving parts needed to make it go boom … just energize a circuit. Plus, you just need to get close enough, it’s a proximity weapon. A gun, on the other hand, must be aimed and – unless someone dug out an old Remington Etronx and modified it – the trigger pulled. Lots more to go wrong.

      But like missiles vs guns/cannon, I’d think the robot+bomb option is much more expensive per shot. And also much more likely to generate collateral damage.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        The big gov’t types would LOVE them some Skynet. Armed drones (ground or aerial) what could go wrong?

        Why not, Big Gov’t and the states are all ready funding/building out Beta of “FirstNet” (no tinfoil hat – its a nationwide Fed owned/controlled HD quality “cell” data transfer “public safety” network)

  5. avatar Supermike says:

    So now we’ll probably hear liberals and BLM activists drone on about how they killed the guy instead of taking him into custody…

    1. avatar Joe Liberty says:

      “Drone on”
      Nice.

      1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

        Zing!

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      There is no rule of law or for that matter due process anymore. As Hillary says, “What difference does it make?” Bombs away!

  6. avatar Robert w. says:

    Standard procedure? They thought the guy had an explosive suicide device on him, so they detonated it with an EOD bot.

    How confident they were about there being an explosive device, that’s what I’m worried about. It’s all about the proper use of the tool, not it’s existance.

  7. avatar mk10108 says:

    Hey a new way to whack baddies who do not want to give up.

    With the Mayor comment about overseas bad people and if the shooter had a vest bomb, I’ll speculate the shooter was a Black Muslim.

    No other reason why they will not say who he is.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Wait until ISIS teams up with the Black Panther/Lives Matters maggots. Many years of BS prison “outreach” by the mohammdands converting inmates to the “religion of peace. Will be great.

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        That’s MY thought too.

      2. If I were a domestic Jihadist, I would use the BLM protest to spark a race war.
        As an OFWG minus the F and not that O, I feel like my enemies are on many fronts. And they wonder why we feel so frustrated with current circumstances.
        The media pits blacks against us reporting “White Cops Shoot and Kill Black Man” when race has nothing to do with it. Then Obama claims racism one day then says he won’t speculate until we know more about the Dallas shooters’ “twisted motive”.
        Hillary is above the law. Government wants to “make it harder” to exercise the right to bear arms. You can’t say the word “pig” at work because our Muslim friends get offended even though some “pig” left a mess on the break room table.
        A tranny gets an ESPY. (note to Dan Jansen: cut your dick off and get a medal).
        What is this world coming to?

  8. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    It wasn’t a robot if it didn’t operate under the three laws. Pfft.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      0th Law takes precedence in any case.

  9. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    I guess flashbangs and teargas are no longer a thing? Or marksman?

    And did the perp blow himself up or was it the robot? If it was the latter, how is this any different than throwing a grenade?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Popo don’t get to use HE/Frag grenades.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        They’re allowed to kill people with robots and bombs?

        1. avatar california richard says:

          Deadly force is deadly force…. The application of deadly force is up to the user be it brick, pen, baseball bat, knife, vehicle, gun, or bomb laden remote controlled tracked vehicle……. Were they justified and was it reasonable for the circumstances? Thats all that matters.

    2. They save that lightweight shit for babies.

      1. avatar Pwinky says:

        It’s sad that your comment gave me a good chuckle.

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    I should be able to have explosive drones too.

    1. Would explosive diarrhea be considered biological warfare?

  11. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    BTW this supports the observation that these guys were well trained – the cops did not want to engage or take any chance of his getting away.

  12. avatar Dog Face says:

    The Dallas police chief said this morning that they killed the guy by affixing a bomb to the robot and blowing him up. He didn’t say anything about the bad guy having a bomb.

  13. avatar CLarson says:

    Cops using explosives. LOL. I guess arrest was no longer the goal.

  14. avatar CTstooge says:

    What’s next? Hellfire missiles?

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      The police using bombs to kill blacks is not unknown: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/osage-avenue-bombing-philadelphia-30-years
      They wiped out building and set fire to a neighborhood in the 80’s. No kill like overkill.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Nothing like a few pounds of C-4 duct taped to a 5 gallon gas can to get the party going…

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hey, I’d forgotten about that! They burned up several surrounding apartments in the process, as I recall. Seems like 3-4 RPGs would have been more efficient.

      3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        The american government at all levels has used aircraft to bomb AMERICAN civilians. The race of the civilian does not matter. Only government holding on to its power matters. If the Dallas snipers had shot only black policemen that they considered race traitors, and some blacks do call black police traitors, would that be ok????
        The murder of a black police officer does not get the left wing press that the murder of a white officer does.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

        “The following day, President Warren Harding threatened to send in federal troops and Army Martin MB-1 bombers”

        “On orders from General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance. One Martin bomber crashed on the return flight, killing the three members of the crew.[24][25]”

        “A group of miners display one of the bombs dropped by Chafin’s airplanes.”

  15. avatar Karl says:

    This was combat. Period. If they surrender, fine. If not, kill them before they kill you. How many of your friends are you willing to see bleeding in the street before you do the same?

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      The police’s job is to arrest the suspect for trial. Not to execute them. Defending from an immediate threat is one thing. If the video shows a reason such as defending innocent life, great, but blowing up someone in the situation described is murder.

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      That is exactly what it was. This was tribal violence. Two out of control groups engaging in revenge killings whose war is spilling out into the public square. Something is seriously wrong with the relationship between the police and the public.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Quick – find a paperbag and hold the opening over your mouth/nose. Breath slowly.

        The BLM maggots certainly could qualify as a tribe of barbarians.

        1. avatar CLarson says:

          You can chose to be personally insulting, but facts matter. These killers did not shoot indiscriminately into the crowd. They could have racked up a huge citizen body count if mass murder was the goal. Instead they specifically engaged police. Police who are armed and shot back. This was not crime, this was political unrest. It is going to require a political solution.

    3. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Correct. This was COMBAT. You locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.

      Shooter demonstrated the will to kill and wound officers. At that point it’s no longer a civil matter, your fighting for your life.

      Hat tip to Dallas police getting creative and adapted their equipment to kill the enemy. As former military combat engineer, I spoken to police about the line between policing and dealing with combatants. Most cannot get their mind around full on attacking when appropriate.

      For example the LA bank robbers. Once the shooters stepped outside, cops could have used the armored bank truck to run them over. Instead they played stand off.

    4. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      As expected, the cops claim to be a civilian agency with civilian RoE but that goes out the window whenever they feel like it.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Need we mention the 1985 police bombing of Philadelphia? How short our memories seem to be.

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Or when the LAPD destroyed a man’s cabin to kill Chris Dorner. I did enjoy the faux outrage from the head pigster defending that decision, along with the decision to riddle a truck with bullets because Chris Dorner looks like a tiny Mexican woman.

  16. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Well, I guess most Pro2@ groups and folks now know what LEOs will use when they pass some future draconian federal guns laws…No Need to engage the NRA terrorists…As fast as you can say :” You can take it from my cold dead hands..Molon—-“B O O M !!! ” Judge, Jury , and executioner….Courtesy of I-Robot ! Also, acts as a normal roomba and “cleans up the evidence! ” No fuss, No muss! Well its nice to know they had this handy in their Arsenal….A very good public relations tool…

  17. avatar Michael says:

    News stories this morning seem to indicate that they had a robot detonate the shooter’s bomb and that happened to kill the shooter. The robot itself was not explosive.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Not what Chief Brown said. At all.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They “attached a device” to the robot, which was the design of the robot in the first place, to use said device to detonate bad guys’ bombs. And as I hear it, this guy was claiming for hours that he had explosives and was determined to blow up a bunch of cops when they rushed him. Which makes the action begin to sound sensible. Detonate his explosives for him, if he didn’t really have any, well, collateral damage is to be expected when shooting cops and then threatening bombs.

  18. avatar Robert says:

    Sending in a robot with the express purpose to blow up said robot in order to kill/incapacitate/neutralize a criminal seems to be a very different flavor than someone being shot and killed during an arrest. The arrest is a fluid dynamic situation where bad things can happen, the robot is the state deciding that they can just kill this guy out of hand.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      I don’t see it as any different from Command handing out ‘shoot on sight’ orders.
      (like: go to Randy Weaver’s house, and if you see Randy there, or Kevin Harris, kill them)

      Obviously, shoot on sight orders against Weaver and Harris were conspiracy to commit murder.
      Here, if you’ve got an ‘active shooter’ situation, combined with bomb threats in downtown wherever, deadly force seems reasonable. Then, does it really matter which form of deadly force you use, if it’s applied to the perp and only the perp?

      1. avatar Jeff82 says:

        Exactly! If he was an active shooter he was fair game. Public Safety trumps trying to arrest a dangerous person. Just like the cops are ok to shoot a fleeing felon if that fleeing felon is considered a danger to the society.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Point taken BUT — once the shooter is contained, taking him alive has to be the highest possible priority. The intel received from his interrogation can identify co-comnspirators and save lives in both the short and long term.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “(like: go to Randy Weaver’s house, and if you see Randy there, or Kevin Harris, kill them)”

        Or his wife, or his son, or his dog, …..

  19. avatar Robby Wilshire says:

    I’m waiting to see what the next 10 to 24 hours brings here in North Texas.
    I would in no way condone it, but If this shit had happened when I was a kid,
    the response would have by now, made what happened to the Greenwood District of Tulsa
    look like a love in. It still might go that way. We should know in the next 24 hours.
    The only thing I know for sure is, I am way too old for this shit.

  20. avatar jwm says:

    Don’t declare war on the .gov and then expect to be treated like a shoplifter. This is what war on American soil looks like. If it escalates be prepared for starvation, disease and atrocity.

    We are living the nightmare. And way to many idiots on both side think this is what they really want to see happen.

    People just refuse to learn from history.

    1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

      You’ve got that right. I think it’s pretty much assured to occur, and we are beyond the point where it could have been prevented. Me, I don’t want a war, but recognize that one or many will likely occur during the “political reorganization”- aka breakup- of the US.

    2. avatar Robby W says:

      You hit the nail on the head.
      The idiots who say they want to “Go See The Elephant”, Think it’s a bloodless field,
      where it always the other guy who gets hit. I have seen The God damn beast, and had my fill.
      I beg No more for me.

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      F*** that noise. If you accept the “we’re at war” narrative, you legitimize the shooter. He’s no longer a murderer, he’s just another combatant.

    4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      What do we do when the government has declared war on us?

      See The War on (Some) Drugs
      The War on (Some) Terror
      Internal checkpoints

  21. avatar MarkF says:

    Interesting impact on future training opportunities at the range. Maybe focusing too much on human shapes is a bit too narrow considering the scenario described from Dallas. How would you disable a robot? Not something I’ve ever thought about before. Hmm….

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      You’re too late. Fighting robot shows all over TV.

    2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Well, if it isn’t controlled by Skynet, the Dallas police department, The DOJ, FBI, ATFE, or little green men….And it’s hostile, I guess all bets are off! Push down some stairs, Drop a heavy bureau on it, run it over with your SUV, burn it, etc…Humans usually find a way to persevere I guess…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Somebody has a robot which will still function after a 20-rd mag of .308? I doubt it.

      1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

        A half dozen 55 gr rounds into it’s treads/tires/leg joints and it won’t be mobile. From there, the individual item of aggression will determine the successive actions.

    3. avatar DrewN says:

      I’ll bet you could burn out the camera sensors with the right laser.

  22. avatar P161911 says:

    No problem with them doing this if the guy didn’t surrender. But they just made robots useless for hostage negotiation situations. No more using robots to deliver cell phones, food, etc. in hostage situations.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      An excellent point, right there.

    2. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

      Well, when was the last time someone actually was in a drawn-out hostage situation? Besides, that’s a small issue that could be dealt with at the time.

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      At Ruby Ridge, the Weavers supposedly refused to take the phone from the robot because the robot had a 12 gauge aimed at the spot the person taking the phone would be standing.

  23. avatar Dan l says:

    Watch terminator for pointers. But why concern yourself with robot cops. What’s the score board this year human cops 567 confirmed kills, robot cops 1? I never thought about this before but if that stat is right, the u.s. is on pace for 1k people shot by cops, and we average 10k firearm homicides a year, so 10% of all firearm kills, non accident or suicide, are done by police? Man I woulda thought it would be way less than that. That’s way too high.

  24. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Yup, here comes the future ! ED-209 Urban pacification combat robot from the Hillary Clinton DOJ…! ED-209: “NRA terrorist turnover your firearms immediately ! NRA Terrorist Surrender Now !!! Deadly force has been authorized !!! You have 10 seconds to comply !!!” LOL!

    1. “White flight” is not racism. It’s opportunity.

  25. avatar Dan l says:

    Shooters been identified, he was a veteran.

    1. Negro or Mid-Eastern? Or, WTF, white?

  26. avatar adverse4 says:

    What did the robot think? It was the one carrying the bomb.

  27. avatar preston says:

    well with how far along the Atlas robot has come and others like it, it won’t be long before we are sending our first robots into the battlefield i think.
    there are a LOT of pro’s and cons to synthetic soldiers. robots will be hackable. but they are unbiased, as long as their programmers are too.
    its kinda ironic, they won’t give an average soldier a high quality $2000 rifle, but they will equip a $2000 drone with gun and then have some kid fly it around.

  28. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

    I can’t believe how many people are pissed that the cops didn’t try to arrest him in the end. He murdered cops, at least one on national TV. Sending in more officers to grab him from his defensible position would only mean a higher body count.

    I think the robot was a creative, effective solution to the task at hand.

  29. avatar Ralph says:

    I wish that the cops could bring the murderer back to life — and then kill him again.

    I’m not shedding a tear for that murderous scumbag, and I don’t care how the cops killed him.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I wish that the cops could bring the murderer back to life — and then kill him again.”

      Years back, someone wrote a short story on just that very thing:

      A Thousand Deaths (Orson Scott Card short story) Plot summary:

      “In a future where the USSR has occupied America, Jerry Crove is found guilty of knowing about the planned assassination of a Russian high official and not reporting it to the authorities. After he is convicted of this crime in court Jerry is supposed to confess and apologize on TV. Instead of confessing Jerry gives a speech on freedom in America. As a result he is sentenced to be put to death and be brought back to life over and over until he apologizes convincingly. After he is put to death the first time he tries to do what they want but is unable to convince anyone of his sincerity. The Russians try killing him in a variety of gruesome ways but as time goes by he just becomes used to the pain of being killed. Eventually they are forced to give up and exile him to another planet.”

  30. avatar DerryM says:

    Okay, I have to ask a simple, obvious question. If the suspect was “cornered”, why not just wait him out? Could take some time, but eventually he either surrenders, falls asleep or does something rash and you capture or shoot him. Killing him with an explosive attached to a bomb robot just seems crazy extreme.

  31. avatar NorincoJay says:

    BombBot. I don’t care in this situation. No armed drones killing civilians from the sky in the US. I don’t even like using them over seas. In non war zones.

  32. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    My main problem with this is the circumstances just don’t look justified. Think about it: guy is cornered, not going anywhere. They’ve talked to him a bit and he says he has a bomb. OK, so? He’s cornered, not going anywhere, pull the cops back a few feet and the only person threatened by a bomb vest is the perp.

    So what next? Wait him out. Or pump in some happy gas. Going to the “lets blow him up” stage that quickly just doesn’t feel right.

    Its more than a little concerning that the police feel like they can execute a guy. And don’t try the “we didn’t kill him, we only blew up the bomb he was wearing” argument. That’s disingenuous BS.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Well said.

    2. avatar onespeedbiker says:

      I think you forget the suspect was well armed and had already demonstrated he would not hesitate kill and if not immediately stopped would likely kill again. When a killer is hunkered down in an hardened location, it is the most dangerous circumstance one can imagine; it is what SWAT teams fear the most. The fact is you don’t wait for a mass murderer to kill again (or start shooting at you), you take them out in the most expeditious way. The robot bomb is just another tool to protect the peace. This is no different than shooting a killer in the back running away from you with a gun (this is different then shooting a fleeing felon how otherwise does not present an immediate danger). While the suspect may not be a danger to the LEO, he is still an extreme and immediate danger to society at large and must he must be stopped. How is a robot bomb any different than a police sniper?

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe he had any angle to fire on ANYONE where he had holed-up, which is supported by the fact that the cop negotiator had been talking to him for hours. The only way out was through the now-armored-up SWAT team, and past the robot, which could be armed if the authorities so chose. He wasn’t a threat to anyone but the closest cops (MAYBE, if he rushed them) and himself, and the cops can defend themselves just fine.

        The difference between the bomb and a police sniper is that the sniper will not shoot to kill unless hostages or other lives are at stake. They can make a disabling shot, and then capture the suspect. After being wounded, if he still fights, he bleeds out, and I’m fine with that option if the perp is. But cop snipers don’t kill suspects who aren’t threatening other people with deadly force, and who have the capability to carry out that threat.

  33. avatar derfel cadarn says:

    At NO point in an altercation with the police shouild the police rules of angagement allow thee killing of the susdpect as first rule. A bomb loaded robot/drone has no other purpose than to kill, the rules of engagement mustalways first to subdue if at all possible. ut the alternative must always be last resort.nderstandably this is not always attainable.

    1. avatar onespeedbiker says:

      The Police talked with the barricaded shooter for hours trying to get him to give himself up; he refused. Further there are no rules of engagement that says the police can not respond to deadly force with deadly force and as long as the shooter was alive and armed it was a deadly force situation. When the shooter refused to surrender, they used a robot bomb (as I said no different than a police sniper), a tactic that probably save many LEO lives if they had instead sent in a special weapons team. BTW “subdue” means to vanquish or take by force, so the shooter was subdued..

    2. avatar Andrew says:

      You really think the police own killer robots?
      I work with bomb squads to write testing and training standards for these beasts. The robots are big, slow, and difficult to maneuver. The radio range is limited, and the manipulators are awkward at best. They can sometimes pop a track and be completely immobilized by driving over a t-shirt.
      No, there are much more effective tools for killing people. Robots put distance between police and danger, and they serve an important function, but efficient killing machines they are not.

  34. avatar anaxis says:

    He was an Army veteran? What a f’in disgrace. And only made it to PFC? Something tells me he was a soup sandwich downrange as well.

    But it also brings up the fact that gangs have been encouraging their young members to enlist for a long time now, that they can return to the streets with military/combat experience & share it with their fellow gangbangers.

    Hell, in my last company alone, three guys were found to be gang members while off-duty; two were active Bloods, and one was a semi-active Norteño. CID flushed them out after gang-related art and other materials were found during a health-&-welfare inspection.
    I remember specifically the Norteño (also an E-5) who was in my platoon, used to talk about Aztlan, and his plans on fighting for it when it came to be.
    It was found that the Blood-affiliated dirtbags were breaking into other soldiers’ vehicles off-post and stealing IBAs (plates & carriers for the non-military here) and other TA50, because lots of guys were lazy and kept their gear in the trunk or back seats. They knew who to target or look for, and then sold or gave the armor to their fellow ‘bangers.
    Additionally; it was discovered that they had plans to steal ‘nogs, ammunition, and AK parts/receivers while downrange, then smuggle it back in the unit’s connexes. And honestly, if CID hadn’t busted them, they probably would’ve gotten away with it.

  35. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Be sure to save this article to use as a defense if you’re ever charged with shooting/destroying a drone or robot.

  36. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Notice the speed of justice once cops are killed.

  37. avatar LHW says:

    Glad that thy got him, but this is kind of scary.

  38. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    ” What’s your take on this?”

    My take is Don’t Mess With Texas.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      1 bad guy took down 11 Texans. From where I’m sitting that pretty much invites folks to mess with Texans.

      1. The bad guy was also a Texan.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          So Texans don’t wait for others to mess with them. They do it themselves.

  39. avatar Andrew says:

    My guess: the SWAT team borrowed a bomb squad robot (probably an Andros F5 or F6A or similar) and they either used it to place a breaching charge on the door or on the wall to make a new door. The “suspect” was in the wrong spot on the other side of the structure and got “breached” by accident. That’s just a guess, but breaching structures with robots is pretty common in SWAT. In comparison, assassination by exploding robot makes no tactical or economic sense. If robo-assassination did occur, then it was an emotional but still inexcusable reaction to having 11 brothers and sisters get shot. I 100% guarantee you that the police do not own robots that are designed to explode and kill people. Just imagine THAT budget debate in city counsel!

  40. avatar Greg V says:

    The police used a robot back east a few years back, but had a lot more technical difficulties…

  41. avatar Kurt says:

    This was murder. AFAICT, they had the suspect contained, with no threat to the public. I don’t care if they had to sit there for a month waiting for him to pass out or surrender, they should have waited.

    Kurt

  42. avatar Steve Day says:

    The thing that caught my notice is that the MRAP/Bearcat vehicles that have been handed out to Local PDs and Federal Agencies (and I guarantee that Dallas PD has at least one), they’re clearly too tall to enter a parking garage.

    So yea, they claimed they “needed” those giant fecking things for active shooter scenarios just like this, but in reality they did not live up to their claims.

  43. avatar Mikial says:

    What’s the issue? The guy was a slimeball and needed to be killed. Period.

    1. avatar Kurt says:

      Actually, neither you nor the police get to decide that.

      It was a standoff, and therefore no longer in the heat of the moment, and once that’s true, it’s up to the judge and jury to decide that.

      Your stance denies the rule of law, and following it plays into the hands of authoritarians who are ruining this country.

      Kurt

      1. “It was a standoff, and therefore no longer in the heat of the moment, and once that’s true, it’s up to the judge and jury to decide that.”

        Congratulations! FLAME DELETED You win a Desantis Holster!
        Time out! We have a standoff. Get the judge and jury down here and convict this active shooter so we can execute him. Or, if it goes that way, acquit him.
        “Come on out Micah! You have been absolved.”
        “But I have more ammo. I want to kill more white people.”
        “Well we can’t try you for crimes you have not committed yet so do what you have to do. After you kill more people, we can act on that separately. But keep in mind, if we see you shooting people, we have to stop you and that may mean ending your life. so if it comes to that and you hunker down somewhere and call time out, you get another fair trial. At least that’s what Kurt says. And Kurt is the wisest person on TTAG so,,,”

        1. avatar Kurt says:

          Bad news. You’ve failed the intelligence and reading comprehension test. A standoff is exactly what happened. No member of the public was in danger. Nor was any member of the police force.

          It should have become a waiting game, as lack of water, sleep or other necessity either forced the fugitive to surrender or rendered him incapable of resistance. To judge that, and to keep members of the force safe, the robot should have had a camera, and perhaps a microphone/speaker, not an explosive device.

          Police are tasked with investigation and apprehension, and are not tasked with the duties of judge, jury or executioner. I understand that in extremis that officers are called upon to defend themselves and the public, but that wasn’t the situation when the bomb was unleashed.

          Further, the police and the justice system missed their best bet to show adherence to due process and the rule of law, and to demonstrate just what kind of lunatic or fanatic he was. Demonstrating that in open proceedings would have shown the police in a much better light.

          Kurt

      2. Please tell me that was sarcasm.

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        It was a standoff…

        stand·off
        ˈstandˌôf
        noun
        a stalemate or deadlock between two equally matched opponents in a dispute or conflict.

        They weren’t “equally matched” in tiddlywinks, now were they? It could only be a standoff if the bad guy with a gun remained “equally matched” with the good guys with guns. He remained a threat, else it would not have been a standoff.

        1. avatar Kurt says:

          Mostly correct – what’s your point?

          Kurt

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email