No products in the cart.


‘Robot’ Bomb Delivery System Signifies Dangerous New Police Response Development

ScreenHunter_06 Jul. 12 18.53
DPD Chief Brown talks about the “robot” that was used to blow up the killer. [Dallas Police Department/Twitter]
A “robot” (actually, a remote-controlled “all terrain platform”) and a pound of C-4 were used by Dallas Police to take out the racist murderer targeting police officers, CNN reports. Chief David Brown gave the order to deploy the Northrop Grumman Remotec Androx Mark V A-1 “after a 45-minute gun battle and two hours of negotiating with [the] sniper.”

Per the chief, the killer “was basically lying to us, laughing at us, singing and asking, ‘How many did he get?’ and saying that he wanted to kill more.”  The killer was said to be “still sniping, intent on continuing to kill.”

Questions have begun to be asked, including about the use of C-4 in the situation. Importantly, technology, finance and politics blogger Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker sees profound “rule of law” fallout from this law enforcement “first.”

“[T]he shooter in Dallas was cornered – ‘treed’ if you will, isolated in a parking garage from which he could not escape,” Denninger writes. [Per The Washington Post, “descriptions of where [the murderer] was killed by police — in a ‘garage’ — are inaccurate. In fact, [he] was on the second floor of a college building that occupies much of an entire city block.”]

“Rather than wait him out and arrest him, then go through this entire pesky ‘due process’ thing including a trial and sentence even though he was not presently shooting at anyone the police instead mounted a bomb on a robot and blew him up,” Denninger continues. “If one person has no right to due process of law THEN NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE — including the cops.”

Whether Denninger is off about the specifics of the sniper location or not, his take on due process concerns, and how leaving someone with nothing to lose means some will end up acting like it, presents valuable insights to consider. As for the “legality” of the operation, Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law offers his view:

If the police reasonably believe that someone poses an imminent danger of death to others, and that killing him is necessary to prevent that danger, they can try to kill him, whether with a rifle or a bomb-carrying robot.

That’s tempered with a consideration from the ACLU:

[T]he easy and relatively safe use of ground robots that can deploy deadly force could mean they could be overused: “Remote uses of force raise policy issues that should be carefully considered … and should remain confined to extraordinary situations.”

The thing such academic discussions seem to miss is the potential for the entire paradigm to change.  The Dallas attack was an epiphany for some bent on rebellion, that the seemingly all-powerful state is vulnerable, and that it can be challenged with a devastating level of “success” by a determined individual. Those intent on destruction and disruption are watching and learning what “works.”

Add to that volatile mix radical racist elements with specialized military experience resorting to ambush and insurgency tactics, to IEDs, radio control devices and the like, with tactical targets in mind to complement and inspire general mob mayhem, and it’s not hard to imagine the upcoming Republican and Democrat conventions presenting untold opportunities to capture the horrified attention of the world and shake the political order (not to mention the American public) to its core.

That in turn will be all the excuse the state needs to assume emergency powers. And if Constitutional scholars can justify remote control ground “robots” delivering bombs, why not also find justification for killer aerial drones?

The genie is out of the bottle and can’t be put back in. It’s very unsatisfying that a platitude like that is all that can be offered, but the unknowable unfolding of events makes any specific recommendation problematic, other than be true to your oath, train and prepare as much as practicable, and set an example/exhibit leadership when opportunities arise.

Perhaps the best that can be done at this time is to invite discussion on the key points raised here, to see if new insights into the eternal struggle to secure liberty can be gained. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support civil authority using remote explosive devices to resolve domestic conflicts, and what controls would there need to be to minimize abuses? How do such devices fit in with Tench Coxe’s observation that “swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans”? Do you envision seeing more insurgency tactics used by racist “revolutionaries” and government-imported terrorists and criminals? What impacts do you see with these developments on freedoms we currently take for granted?



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. Grant it…the S.O.B. needed to be contained, but another option might have been gas or tranquilizer shot. By being dead, we’ll never know if he was a fool, or an MK Ultra candidate.

    This Robot bomb opens the door to armed drones….no judge, no jury, no due process.

      1. what “due process” does any murder victim get? doesn’t mean our gov’t (or any gov’t) should be bypassing it.

      2. It is possible to murder a murderer. When the fight is over and the aggressors have been neutralized (or cornered, or treed, etc.), justice demands the aggressors be brought to trial if possible. As the police had access to remote-control robots as a means of directly monitoring the murderer without risking their own lives, it seems impossible to believe that there was no avenue left to the police but to blow him up. If there WAS indeed an avenue left to capture the murderer alive, such as waiting until he got tired, passed out from lack of water, etc., then the police who pushed the bomb’s trigger committed murder, even though their victim was himself a murderer.

        Once even a small minority of people recognize that police will commit crimes up to and including murder with no repercussions, all out war will start. Police can help stop the war from starting by obeying the oath they swore, to uphold and defend the Constitution – the Constitution which demands that even murderers be given due process to face justice in a court under the Rule of Law!

      3. Guess what? Those that go into the law profession chose to do a job that at times can be dangerous. That does not give them the power to murder as they will corrupt, even murdering individuals. If they cannot do the job lawfully, they cannot do the job.

        This nation has certain requirements of those that serve within the government, be it state or federal. The person who serves as a US President, or within the Senate/Congress, as a judge, etc was never delegated the power to go murder people because , if one looks at history, and what is going on here today, they always go to far and start taking out people who anger them politically, etc.

        Right now we have a (openly declared and committing) First Degree Murderer occupying the position of US President, with the more hidden assistance of judges, etc. In this nation, every Oath Taker should be doing what it takes to charge, arrest (as the Militia), and then to prosecute him and them. That corruption is spreading lower and lower, and being encouraged JUST so that they can destroy our nation from within.

        You like owning things? You like making your own decisions if you can marry, have children, what you can wear, eat, property, cars, guns, etc? Then if you are serving within the government STOP any corrupt deviations you are doing from our US Constitution and from your state Constitution (if you are under it) because YOU ARE ASSISTING THEM TO DESTROY OUR NATION FROM WITHIN. Wake up, YOU are the problem (and that is not a generic “you”, I pointedly described who that “you” is).

        They get “due process” when they commit a crime, even murder when our system is legitimate.

        But the bigger problem(s) here if one is thinking at all is that soon there will be no human cops. There will be no human military. They will be jobless and defenseless a all other Americans are.

        Consider who will be programming those “robots” to kill, etc. Are you trusting your life – trained you are their biggest threat – your families, your property that they will take, etc to be chosen to be done in lawful manners? People can think for themselves whatever job they do – if they will, and they can chose to NOT follow orders. That is not the same for those things that/who are programmed.

        Maybe you need to take a (another hopefully) look at the US Constitution and if you are ready to defend her. Because they just raised the stakes to a very high level, and are trying to stop you from thinking of all the consequences of that last action taken using a robot.

      4. Is your point that since criminals don’t follow the law, then neither should the “coppers”?

      1. There are laws on the books that have the same legal effect as if those same laws had never been passed at all. When such laws are “enforced”, the enforcers are acting in the same legal capacity as a mugger, kidnapper, etc. See “Norton vs Shelby County”. If you’d like an easier break-down of this reasoning, see the sole comment by Fauxlosopher under the Oathkeepers story “Two More Bundys Arrested”, link:

    1. I was thinking the exact thing. A tranquilizing dart to the neck and he’s out long enough for the police to rush in, beat him and swear they found him like that. Seriously though law enforcement has the right idea to protect the lives of officers but the tools are military grade. They need to scale it back to non-lethal. If we can tranquilize animals safely, we can do the same for humans or sub-humans as in this particular case.

    2. It is always a concern when we start using military tactics against US Citizens- in the US the presumption of guilt is first until adjudicated- we cannot have police chiefs adjudicating from a command post because we are impatient to wait.

      1. You and rest of the arm chair warriors have no clue – I don’t see you stepping in to take out the bad guy with less then lethal force do we ? Of course you and rest are just big tough talkers while sitting in front of your computer telling us how wrong it is to kill the bad guy with a remote controlled bomb – sorry but I think it was a great idea – this terrorist got what he so richly deserved – and it should be used more often on terrorists like this scum bag POS ! So the next time the Police are dealt with a killer who is hold up in some hard to get to place – step up and volunteer to go get him – or just STFU !

    3. Well well Rabid dog – tear gas in a parking garage – won’t work – tranquilizer shot – you have to get pretty close to the bad guy – well Rabid are you going to do that ? – I suspect not – pretty easy to take about it – much harder to do it.

  2. Obviously they have recordings of all this, right? It seems to hinge on a single criteria; Would a SWAT sniper have gotten a Green Light in this case?

    1. That is an important question and an important distinction. There is a very real and very important difference between a barricaded active shooter who is in the midst of a killing spree, intent on killing all he can, and claims to have IEDs deployed all over the city, and a criminal suspect who is going about his day, not at the moment engaged in killing or trying to kill, who is then targeted for “extrajudiciary killing” by drone strike or any other means, such as a sniper.

      The drone strikes the US has been using around the world, including intentionally on two US citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son – killed in two separate drone stikes), fall into the later category where the US government is applying the laws of war and is targeting people under military rules of engagement under the laws of war, where any enemy can be killed regardless of whether that person currently poses a direct threat to anyone else.

      Examples of that from warfare are the use of bombs, sniper bullets, artillery, or a rifle fired at a distance to kill any and all identified enemy on a battlefield, including the clerk at the enemy HQ, the guy who gets the General’s coffee, the radio operator in the HQ tent, the truck mechanic who fixes the General’s vehicle, and the General himself, regardless of whether any of them are even armed or pose a direct threat to anyone on your side. They are all fair game right along with all the other enemy soldiers, such as the enemy infantry. You can kill them on sight, at will at any time, even while they sleep, because they are the enemy. You don’t have to articulate how or why you feared for your life or how they posed a direct imminent threat to your life or the life of another.

      In other words, during warfare, against a foreign enemy, you DO NOT have to articulate all of the elements of lawful self defense or defense of another, where you are under the “reasonable man” standard as an affirmative defense to the charge of manslaughter or murder, where you have to prove that your taking of that man’s life would be considered reasonably necessary to preserve your own life or the life of another. Such elements include that the man had the ability to to kill you, that he displayed the intent to kill you, that his threat was proximate and immediate, and you ha no other choice but to use lethal force to stop the threat, and a reasonable man would come to the same conclusion under the same circumstances.

      All of that is what is needed in ANY “civilian” shooting, whether by a private citizen or a cop. That is the same standard you or I are under at anytime, and so are the police.

      That is very, very different from the military standard where you DO NOT have to show that the person killed had the ability (at that moment) to kill you, had the intent, and was proximate and immediately a threat to you or anyone else. Don’t need any of that. Just need to identify him as an enemy soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, etc and you can kill him by any means not specifically banned by the international laws of war (such as chemical and biological weapons).

      The mechanism of the killing is not important. It is the legal status and the wide open sanction of “see enemy soldier, kill enemy soldier” that matters. You can kill him from 1,500 yards away by means of a .338 Lapua sniper bullet, even if he is just stepping out his tent to take a piss and has no idea you even exist, or you can do it by means of a Hellfire fired from an Apache just over the horizon he doesn’t even know is in the sky, or you can do it by drone, or you can do it by means of slitting his throat from behind as you infiltrate his camp, or you can do it by mortar or other indirect fire artillery, again, from over the horizon or from the other side of a hill, and all regardless of whether he has even a clue you exist, let along displays any actual immediate intent and ability to kill you or someone else.

      That is the nature of war, and that is what the US government is now claiming the power to do not just to foreign enemies, but also to US citizens, anywhere in the world, including here on US soil (thought they dance around it, the principle of “warfare and military rules of engagement” apply to all enemies, wherever located. It is the status that matters).

      I hold that any such use of the laws of war against the American people, anywhere at any time, constitutes a violation of our Constitution and specifically Article III, Sec 2, which guarantees that the trial of all crimes shall be by jury, and also Article III, Sec 3, which specifies the elements of the crime of treason, being making war against the United States or aiding its enemies, and spells out the due process and evidentiary burdens that must be met for any American accused of treason, in a jury trial, before a jury of their peers.

      And then there is the 5th Amendment right to due process, and the 6th Amendment additional protection of the right to jury trial.

      The killing of Alwaki violated all of those provisions of the Constitution specifically because it was not a self defense or defense of other situation, and was instead a targeted killing of a criminal suspect (suspected and accused of the crime of treason) who was not an imminent, proximate threat of deadly force against any particular person. He was killed under the laws of war, as an “enemy combatant.”

      That is the key element. The application of the laws of war that wipes away all of the normal requirements to justify use of lethal force against an American – which can only be excused if it is lawful self defense or defense of others under the reasonable man standard.

      Now, I think the killing of the barricaded suspect was NOT under a military rule of engagement, but was done according to the usual standard of him being an imminent threat to life, with the demonstrated means, ability, intent, and immediateness to justify lethal force. He had already killed several police in close range and long range rifle fights, and was in the midst of a protracted gun battle with police, and he did pose an imminent, proximate threat to the police who had him pinned down (in addition to firing from his position, he could have charged out from behind cover and fired on them at any time, he could have lobbed a previously unused grenade, or detonated a remote IED, etc) and he did pose a proximate and immediate threat to the public if he managed to break through encirclement and break contact, and then move on to a second location.

      And imagine if he did have active shooter accomplices, ala Mumbai, and they then opened fire and assisted him in breaking out of encirclement.

      A sniper would most certainly have been given the “green light” under those circumstances, and so would you or I if we were in similar circumstances (as were the civilians who fired at Charles Witman, the University of Texas Observatory Tower sniper – even if he wasn’t an immediate threat to them at the time, they had a right to shoot him to stop his ongoing shooting spree. The police and armed citizens who climbed the tower, got past his barricaded door, and shot him at close range were well within their rights to do so, to stop the threat to others, and they could have done so even if Wittman was momentarily unable to kill anyone down below for some reason, such as being pinned down by accurate counter-sniper fire. He was still a threat to the public at large.

      Ditto for a fleeing felon who poses an immediate threat to others. Let’s say this Dallas terrorist was able to break contact and was running down the street. Anyone able to shoot him in the back of the head would clearly be justified in doing so, even if he was not an immediate threat to them, or was not actively shooting at anyone, because he was an obvious immediate, proximate threat to other people, who had demonstrated the ability and the intent to kill (and he had told the police he wanted to kill as many as possible, including white people in general, as well as police).

      You or I would have been justified in shooting him in the back of the head as he fled.

      I think David needs to take another look at this through the lens of self defense, and consider the kinds of scenarios where he, I, or some other ordinary Joe would be justified in using force, regardless of the means.

      If I encounter an intruder on my property, and he shoots at me and tells me he is there to kill all of my family, and he then turns and runs toward my home, where my wife and kids are, I clearly have the right to shoot him in the back as he runs, because he is an imminent threat to them, and to stop the threat, I have to shoot.

      The same would be true if i had him pinned down, and I knew that if he managed to break out, he could kill my family or my neighbors. Even if he was not immediately able to kill me, because I had him pinned, if I can manage to flank him, or get a neighbor to flank him, we can shoot him to keep him from breaking out. And if it turns into a protracted siege, a sniper certainly can shoot him as an alternative to closing with him in an infantry style assault.

      I would also have no problem using a Molotov cocktail on the bastard either, rather than closing in on his cover and trying to engage him in a close range battle.

      I think you all can see the difference. What makes the use of robots or drones so dangerous is the fact that the US government DOES claim the power to use them on you, as an “enemy combatant” under the laws of war, which means that once you are “identified” as an enemy they don’t have to articulate that you are any imminent, proximate, reasonable man standard lethal threat to anyone. You are simply an enemy that can be killed anytime, anywhere, even while sleeping, with no burden to attempt to take you into custody to face trial.

      Trial? What trial? An enemy doesn’t need to be arrested. He can be killed even if not guilty of any crime under the international laws of war. Now, if he surrenders, you cannot kill him, and must take him prisoner, but you can’t try him for a crime for just being a soldier, and he may have just killed some of your men, but when he surrenders, you must treat him humanely AND you can’t charge him with a crime so long as he killed your men according to the laws of war. Only if he violated those laws, such as by killing unarmed prisoners, could you charge him with a war crime and try him by military tribunal.

      But guess what? Under the Alice in Wonderland legal arguments of the US government, if they find you to be a “combatant” in the war on terrorism, the very fact that you go around without a uniform and without a clear command structure can be used to argue that you are guilty of violations of the laws of war, so if they do take you captive instead of just killing you on sight, they can then try you for supposed violation of the laws of war. Hence the label of “unlawful enemy combatant.”

      Take a look at the Hamdi and Padilla cases, and the Alwaki case, and think hard on this claimed power of the President to use the laws of war on Americans. In particular read Justice Scalia’s brilliant dissent in Hamdi.

      And then also think about the military ROE that were used at Ruby Ridge, and later found unlawful, where the snipers were given a green light to fire on anyone who was armed, even if they were not an immediate threat to anyone. That is the more “normal” slippery slope that I think this use of a robot belongs on, rather than the vastly different and far more troubling “laws of war” paradigm that was used on Padilla, Hamdi, Alwaki, and his 16 year old son.

      Both are troubling, but different.

      And I think this shooter, temporarily pinned down and cornered, is certainly far more Like Randy Weaver and family and friend than he is like Alwaki.

      But I think killing the Dallas terrorist by remote bomb was far more justified than the shooting of Weaver (and either the “accidental” or intentional shooting of his wife!), by an FBI sniper because Weaver and family (and his adult male friend) where in a secluded cabin out in the woods, in a defensive posture, not in the middle of a city, in the midst of a mass shooting spree, with the goal of killing as many cops and other people – specifically white people – as possible before being killed (I don’t care what color person a terrorist wants to kill, but that is what he said).

      I agree it presents a slippery slope even without the documented use of drones by the US military under the laws of war. But it is that military use, and the claim to be able to do that to Americans too, that really bothers me, not the particular mechanism.


      1. “I think David needs to take another look at this through the lens of self defense, and consider the kinds of scenarios where he, I, or some other ordinary Joe would be justified in using force, regardless of the means.”

        Stewart, I don’t think we’re in disagreement on that point– remember my motto:

        My *only* two concerns here:

        1. That the story we’re getting is as happened and not subject to CYA and subsequent gag orders as we see from Orlando and innumerable other examples.

        2. That if this use of land drones becomes a more common practice when things heat up, due process concerns will surface. As this is uncharted territory, defining rules of deployment to find a rational balance is needed.

        If both of those concerns prove to have been satisfied in this incident, great. Let’s make sure controls and oversight are in place to ensure they’re satisfied in all instances.


      2. Yes of course. But given that other huge elephant in the room of “laws of war” snuff lists, with US citizens names on them, and the factual use of drones to kill US citizens abroad under that “war” paradigm, I think we do indeed have a serious problem. But for those reasons, combined with this rather sympathetic first use on US soil (of explosives to kill a suspect, not just as breaching charges).

        Houston, we have a problem. For sure.

      3. Stewart,
        Nice expansion on this subject. Everyone should read your comment, it’s spot on. Especially effective is your “Due Process” concern. I feel as if we have come to the point where our Legislative have bypassed Article 1, Sec. 9 “Bills of Attainder and Titles of Nobility,” having doled those responsibilities to the Agencies they Created, to be Executively controlled by a single entity. That’s Dangerous! More to the point; now these agencies have gone somewhat rogue and are operating on their own beliefs. It seems they are not even taking into account the military versus domestic paradigm.

        It would benefit all to learn about the “Einsatzgruppen.” It would not be too far fetched to have a Progressive Left controlled government attempt to start executions on say, “Climate Change Deniers” via remote control. This sets a dangerous precedence.

        As strange as it may sound, we need to start looking out for each other, even the Fascist Commie Socialists, but especially LEOs. When I said that to dad yesterday, I started with looking out for the cops. He agreed. When I got to the Progressives, he wrinkled his nose, but I gave a compelling reason for my POV. It has as much to do with sliding back to breaking the bonds of Government intervention as anything else.

        All that said, Great Expansion. Very well thought out. It helps to put certain nuanced aspects you brought forward into our narratives. If it’s OK, I would like to quote you on occasion?


      4. I think there is significant difference between a police sniper and a bomb. More importantly, from what I have read, a sniper would NOT have been given a green light at that point in time. As a general rule, a sniper may shoot only when the criminal is actively trying to injure another person. This person was trapped in a room and not able to hurt anyone other than police officers who try to enter to arrest him.

        As was pointed out, the law enforcement job is sometimes dangerous. It is a real danger to kick in the door and swarm an armed man. But we still have police do that, as we should.

        One of the significant differences between the police and the military is their primary function. The military have the job of securing or pacifying an area, Their function is to kill or wound the enemy until the foreign nation (or body of people now instead of a real nation) no longer has the will to fight against the US interests. They can deploy bombs or snipers to do so. The police have the job of arresting people to bring them before a court for trial. At times, this may include killing someone, but it is supposed to be a last resort.

        As a former police officer, this is where I think the Dallas PD was wrong. When they used a bomb, they decided not to even make an attempt at an arrest. In the case of Garner v. Tennessee, this was ruled generally to be an unconstitutional use of force, except for under very limited circumstances. I do not see how this case can meet those circumstances. Even if it was too dangerous to send in a SWAT team, the suspect was trapped. I think Waco, among other cases, taught everyone that a police department can hold a man in a siege for a long time. How long could this suspect have held out with no food or water with him? If they had waited a few more hours, then used flash-bangs or tear gas to disorient and disable the suspect, could the SWAT team not have gone in then?

        There are always incidents like this that make me very happy I am not associated with law enforcement any longer. There are days miss it, but ore often now I see it as being a good thing to be done with.

      5. I am retired law enforcement as well. There’s a few points I feel were not covered by you Steve.

        1. This subject was ex-military. This might not have been known at the time. But most of the law enforcement I know of and Military have been exposed to tear gas to the point that it does not affect us like somebody caught off guard by it me and my sergeant used to walk through the clouds talking during it. Which meant there’s no guarantee it could work.

        2. Flashbangs and such can be effective when the individual is not expecting it to take place this man was fully prepared for a possible Tactical Team entry on him in that second level parking garage.

        3. Half of Dallas had been shut down because of two possibilities. First the thought additional actors were in the area. Secondly the Dallas Chief had no reason to doubt that this man had planted explosives in the area, all negotiations had broke down, and the actor was ready to detonate the said explosives he had stated. All of this takin into consideration, knowing I would not want any other officers to be injured or killed and feeling the man was about to cause more death and destruction I would have given the green light to a sniper to stop this person’s actions.
        In the force continuum the meaning of lethal Force dose not meani to kill the actor as people believe. The use of a robot with an explosive might feel extreme after the fact but at the time at 3 o’clock in the morning when your resources are what they are I feel the decision made by the Dallas Chief was spot-on perfect. It ended all damaged it ended all injury and loss of life. But then again everyone can second-guess his decision and talk about it for the rest of their lives. Thanks to the First Amendment

      6. This goes to Steve and Lawdog’s comments. Steve your first paragraph goes exactly to what I was thinking first. Stewart has a compelling argument based on Domestic V. Warzone conditions. I will expand on 2 things I thought about after reading his comment, that goes to the heart of that very point.

        “Secondly the Dallas Chief had no reason to doubt that this man had planted explosives in the area, all negotiations had broke down, and the actor was ready to detonate the said explosives he had stated.” Great point Lawdog. So what if this ex-military subject had demolition experience? Suppose he had placed his ordinance on the just right pillars of that building, just like these experts do to take down buildings. Furthermore, he may have wired them with motion sensors. More than likely those motion sensors could have been set off by the cops detonation. Putting property damages aside (shouldn’t even be a consideration when lives are at stake), were there people still in that school building he occupied? Which brings me to my next point; why weren’t there snipers in position?

        Obviously cameras from other buildings had eyes on the shooter. My first thought as this was being broadcast was; ‘ why isn’t anyone kicking in a couple of business doors and trying to get upstairs to a superior position or just a safe one?’ I don’t know what the Dallas cops carry, but even a 9mm would keep the creeps head down. 4 or 5 of them would stand a good chance of getting a hit, even at 200 yards.

        30 years ago I was screaming about RICO, Civil Forfeiture, Search and Seizure, amongst others. Always to get “you must have something to hide” parroted my direction. Since then we have School Teachers prosecuted under RICO for fixing grades on standardized tests, Oklahoma cops with card readers cleaning out accounts without charges pending, and cops performing illegal Terry Stops, to then have the SCOTUS say, “the evidence stands because it was accidental.” Actually there are some home instances that are disturbing also. This is complicated right now, but it doesn’t have to be.

        There may be uses for explosives delivered via robots, but for now we should err on the side of caution. This is a slippery slope, and some good innocent folk could get a big dose of terra firma wadded up their hind end.

        Great discussion, great points by all involved!

      7. Well-thought-out essay but the questions remain and no easy answers to be found. Situations differ, as you state. Hindsight eases the judging of law enforcement actions but what do we do when no generally agreed-upon rules of action can be found? Until those are developed perhaps patience when capturing suspects be encouraged with exceptions if the suspect is an imminent danger to innocents.

        As for Oath Keepers… it is vital that OK continue to reach out to law enforcement/military to adopt the Ten Order credo. If citizen revolt ever occurs so as to battle the increasing tyranny within the USA that can not be curtailed by the existing systems of command & control we need those forces to either join the patriots or stand aside. That is a critical aspect of a rightful, patriotic citizens’ movement.

  3. The rule of law is dead. It has been announced and now we are being shown that rule by law is how we will be made to submit. Blowing cornered SUSPECTS up raises questions? Questions? Well, we’ll have to discuss the ramifications? Are they kidding us? clinton gets her clearance back, ginsburg endorses clinton, comey has connections to the clinton foundation. Ethics or morals or Jesus Christ? nope, nope and nope – Banana Republic.

    1. I have answered that many times here as have others. So I will just say once again, and if you need more enlightening on my comment just let me know here in a reply and I will post it all.

      “clinton gets her clearance back, ginsburg endorses clinton, comey has connections to the clinton foundation.”

      That is up to us. It is past time to enforce the US Constitution, and it does tell us how to do so. So, once again, we can continue to assist them in our own destruction by not lawfully bringing charges, by not lawfully sending our own Grand Jury Investigations to gather proof or the lack of it, by not training and arming for our lawful Militias, etc. It is up to us.

      God Bless All, and Stay Safe!

      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

  4. Dead is dead. If deadly force was justified [and I mean justified] then I could care less how it was done. Law enforcement has used small explosive charges for many years. Live stupid – die stupid.

    1. The point in all this….

      It was probably a just ending for this a-hole, but if law enforcement gets a pass on this and continues to evolve with the use of robots and drones, we all know what can happen in time.

      For those of you that believe due process was not necessary in Dallas…..what would you say if YOU are in the wrong place at the wrong time, exercising your 2nd amendment right to carry openly and all of a sudden, a cop or two decide to blow you up?

      1. RvD – If you weren’t there, and if you haven’t been made privy to all the facts of the investigation, how do you make the determination that his rights were violated?

        I said in my original comment that “If deadly force was justified [and I mean justified]…”. That means in accordance with the law [to include the Constitution]. But we won’t know all the facts of the investigation for some time to come. See also my comment to Cal below.

      2. He had not fired a shot in how long prior to the robot blowing him up? Regardless of what he had just done, the threat level had to of depreciated, citizens were evacuated, and I’m sorry to say, LEO’s (now called troops by politicians) signed up to be in harms way. Waiting him out was a viable option, especially since they knew where he was, and can limit targets from his vantage point.

        I believe charges should be brought up for the use of the robot.

        I believe a “Makes Sense Act” should be written and passed, making it a crime of treason to author, co-author, sponsor, co-sponsor, or vote into law a law that has deemed to violate the constitution.

        This would put more research into laws, and stop unconstitutional laws to ever be written. These law makers use the “do it now, and ask for forgiveness later” when it comes to it, and the stepping stones of unconstitutional laws has led us to this path.

    2. “… I could care less how it was done.”

      As bad as the actions taken to kill, the HOW is the most dangerous thing to our nation since drone warfare.

      Once they take the human element out, and use programmed machines to “enforce” whatever the programmer wants to enforce we as humans lost – not just America.

      Maybe you ought to reconsider (here is hoping you did consider before the comment) and start to understand the ramifications of the tool used, what is already being done, how it can be – and will be – used against us, etc.

      Please think, research, start looking to see what is going on already with drones (don’t forget they just started allowing armed drones here within US borders to be used against us) and start thinking of the ramifications involved in sending robots out for us, patrolling our streets.

      They have gassed the subways of NY to “see what would happen”, done experiments on Americans that made the Nazi’s look like twins – oh yeah, the CIA brought them here for benign purposes not continue their unlawful and ungodly testing on humans that those in our governments supplied them with. They have been for decades. This stuff is documented.

      Want an idea to start with, go look at what DARPA is openly allowing us to view. Were you aware that they have been using birds to spy and possibly kill – “not here of course” they say? You get a hummingbird start flying around you like your a flower, worry. That is not normal behavior for them, though bee’s will. Go look at all that “benign” robotic stuff DARPA has created for military use elsewhere – except for those used here. (older) (older 2011) (2013 – most start with DARPA)

      Personally I am sick of those sick sick, perverted scum serving in any capacity within our government. Hastert, the biggest child pervert, etc; but the other child molesters (not even tried yet, let alone found guilty) serving within our governments and those that spy upon them and keep the info for blackmailing, etc. – and yeah she knows.

      1. Cal – Perhaps my comment was so short that you missed the part where I said “If deadly force was justified [and I mean justified]…”. That means in accordance with the law [to include the Constitution].

        The ‘robot’ was a delivery system operated by a human being. A human being made the decision to detonate the explosive and terminate the scumbag’s life. Remove the ‘robot’ from the scenario and insert a police officer with a firearm. That police officer now makes the decision to pull the trigger, releasing the firing pin, impacting the primer, igniting the explosive and sending a bullet into the scumbag. The decision making is the same. The delivery system is the only difference.

        Some of you are getting hung up on believing the ‘robot’ was programmed to act on it’s own without human interaction. If that were true then I would be appalled as well. Someday it may come to that.

      2. Sheepdog, I give you the ” “If deadly force was justified [and I mean justified]…”, because though we have heard that this person was away from being able to harm others, but we do not know that is true for sure.

        But ALL robots are deployed by humans from drones to whichever ones they are using today. All of them at this time – because DARPA is working on a centralized computer command center and I am not sure that it is finished yet. Drones still wipe out weddings schools, etc because the pilot does not make those distinctions. Etc. But if you start going through DARPA, and I love technology which is why I like to see what is being built, planned, etc techwise. DARPA works for the military, most of the military “toys” are created by DARPA. There is nothing that DARPA creates that the military use of is not considered.

        If we do not stop this now, they will be used on the streets of the USA against American people in my opinion – and God knows I hope I am wrong. But they can never resist “playing with them, and power corrupts, and has corrupted out top military and most all those that serve within our governments.

        If it was not so, then this stuff going on today would NOT be happening, as they all would have kept their Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution. There would not have been a need for an organization such as Oathkeepers, and others such as, etc.

      3. Please don’t start killing hummingbirds willy-nilly because they fly around you! If you are wearing brightly colored clothing, real hummingbirds will fly right up to you and then move and hover, move and hover, checking to see if you are a very large flower.

      4. Nice allusion! First I got this picture of me in the garden with hummingbirds flocking around, then I snapped back to reality. Me thinks I liked the first reaction more…..

  5. The desire to argue due process in this incident demonstrates as much lack of relevance as did the stand your ground argument did in the Zimmerman case. The decision to implement deadly force against an individual whose stated intent was to take as many lives as he possibly could was made with intent to protect the lives of innocents. And, was clearly justified. See Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 – particularly Secs 9.32 self defense & 9.33 defense of third person – Also see Sec 9.51 (c) & (d). Don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself.

    1. “In this incident” perhaps. As indicated in the article, the initially-reported scenario Denninger relied on for his assessment has been clarified in later reports. What we need to look at is this being a first, and then to if this becomes a more common practice when things heat up, and due process concerns will surface. As this is uncharted territory, defining rules of engagement to find a rational balance is needed. And never forget that WE are painted as terrorists by many on the left, and to illustrate that, some in the bloodthirsty leftist mob were calling for drone strikes at Malheur:

      1. Except that is is not entirely uncharted territory. See my long comment above. It is the US government use of drones overseas as a backdrop that is chilling, especially in light of the documented intentional drone killings of at least three American citizens, who were specifically targeted on Obama’s secret “kill list.” All under the laws of war and military rules of engagement.

        I think the great anxiety, and justifiably so, is that this practice is about to come home to roost.

        See also my comments about the military ROEs used at Ruby Ridge, of shoot to kill anyone that is armed regardless of whether they pose an immediate an proximate threat to anyone.

        But I agree that it does set a precedent, but one that must be considered in light of those other events, and also Waco, for that matter.


  6. The author of this article should stick to writing about topics he knows something about. Robots have been in the Police tool box for many years, mostly for bomb handling. There has never been evidence of abuse of this tool. In this case, you have a barricaded sniper who has already shot twelve people killing five of them and promising to kill more. . The Police Chief rather than waiting for more victims, employed a creative weapon against the sniper. If one additional life was saved the Chief should be praised for his decision not criticized by an arm chair quarterback (author).

    1. What “armchair quarterbacking”? I cited various reports that have different conclusions and then asked for opinions.

      And this isn’t about bomb handling for disposal, this is about bomb delivery by a robot to take out a human target. That is a first for civilian law enforcement. As this is uncharted territory, defining rules of engagement to find a rational balance between ending a threat and preserving the Constitution is hardly out of line. Do you really disagree with that?

  7. Yes he was a “bad guy”, yes he most likely would have been green lit for a police sniper….

    All those cheerleading and shouting “good kill” need to step back and just think for a moment.

    I would point out that the “bad guys” were watching as well as you. While you were cheerleading they were noting that it worked, worked well, and are now looking for platforms (ad hoc to be sure) and…AND will feel justified at their use.

    Unfortunately it never was about facts…(more whites are killed by cops than blacks). It’s about perceptions.

    What did the other side perceive?

    1. And that is an example of doing it the wrong way, just like the outcome of Waco is a horrid, but spot on example of doing it the wrong way.

      Usually, and especially where children are involved, the right answer is to wait them out. Period.

      This Dallas sniper is a distinctly different animal. No hostages, no innocent third parties like children in there, and in a situation where he may well have tried to break out with one last blaze of glory (in fact, count on it!). He was likely steeling himself for one last charge, while wearing rifle plates, to close with and kill as many cops as he could, or break out and kill others.

      Different ball game. In fact, not even the same sport.



  8. I guess I’m going to have to play Devil’s Advocate on this one, and a lot of you may not like it, I dislike having to do it, in fact I waited, hoping someone else would beat me to it, but since nobody else is, here goes.
    I understand the emotions in the responses, I do, I have them too, but at some point this has to be looked at from different angles.
    Where is the evidence? Other than the hearsay and the circumstantial, just where is the real evidence?
    How do we know that this guy wasn’t another patsy? Could his profile fit any better into achieving the desired response? Could he have been coaxed into being there under false pretenses?
    The first reports stated that there were “multiple shooters”, and at one point, there were allegedly multiple suspects in custody. Numerous people, that were present at the scene, reported that shots were coming from more than one location. But when it’s all over, once again we have the time honored “Lone Nut”, who of course will never get to have his day in court because he is, (as always), dead.
    {Sandy Hook, Sikh Temple, Orlando, etc., etc., etc., just how many times can seemingly credible reports of “multiple shooters” get turned into a lone nut before someone asks the question?!?}
    Once again, innocent lives were lost, no evidence will ever be produced, there will never be a trial, and we are left with nothing but the “official version” of what happened. Am I the only one that gets tired of hearing the same old song? Well I’m sorry, but I just cannot dance to it anymore.
    Good grief folks, they have been using this story since Lee Harvey Oswald. Same city too I think.
    A robot and a pound of C-4. Now there is something I’m sure every police department keeps on hand, just in case. Right? I can understand the robot in a department as large as Dallas since I’m confident they have a bomb disposal unit, and might even have the C-4 available for use on suspected devices. But how many people, (who are “treed”, or contained in an area they cannot exit), are going to just sit there and allow a robot, with a pound of C-4 attached to it, to just roll right up to them and not make any effort to either move away from it or shoot it, (he did have a rifle didn’t he?), in an attempt to disable it or explode it before it got close enough to take him out with it? I wouldn’t, would you? I would at least take out the camera and relocate.
    At least they managed to get the desired result with only a pound of explosive this time, nothing compared to Waco, Oklahoma City, or 3 skyscrapers in New York City. So maybe they saved the taxpayers some federal reserve notes this time. That’s right folks, they are killing us and paying for the ammo on our dime.
    I can think of one reason to just sit and wait for a robot to approach me, but that would involve believing that it was being sent in for an entirely different reason. [More on that later perhaps.]
    What kind of weapon(s) did he have? What is left of them/it after the explosion? Were they/it registered to him? Where are the ballistics reports? How many of you think we will ever see them? (Still waiting on Waco results.)Was it equipped with a scope? What kind of ranges were the shots made at? Trajectory analysis would tell a lot about where the shots came from, but I’ll bet none are ever done, or released.
    {Per the chief, the killer “was basically lying to us, laughing at us, singing and asking, ‘How many did he get?’ and saying that he wanted to kill more.” The killer was said to be “still sniping, intent on continuing to kill.”}
    Did someone make a recording of this? Who heard this?
    I’m trying to imagine a situation where this shooter could still be “sniping” at the police, from a location where he could not be “sniped” back at.
    Was it a room? A small enough area to make use of some gas? Was it a large parking area? Large enough that it could be approached from more than one angle, perhaps from farther away? [A man can survive a disabling shot from a sniper’s rifle, and still stand trial.] Was there a door to this area? If so, did the robot have to unlock it, or open it before proceeding? Or was it an open enough area the the robot could be visualized, (and thus spotted)?
    To my mind, there are far too many unanswered questions, too many allegations that don’t fit well, and this has the stink of familiarity on it, in my opinion. I could continue for some time with the questions running through my mind about this. Maybe it’s just the old ex-cop, (criminal investigator), side of me that can’t seem to let these kind of things go, but I can’t just accept the official version, it just looks too much like a replay of a bad script played out by some “B Roll” actors.
    If anyone has any real evidence, or can attest that they have heard, or saw, anything to back up the official version, I will happily type up a retraction and apology. Post haste.
    This makes me very angry, and heartsick. Not only the death of these officers, which is somewhat personal, (I did once wear the badge), but also the implications of what may be coming at us next.
    Meanwhile, I think this deserves more scrutiny than the legal ramifications and precedents, (which I do have some problems with), involved.
    David Codrea is asking valid questions, which deserve answers. I’m not trying to deflect away from him getting his answers, but I believe the ones I’m raising need to be answered as well. In fact, answers to one set of questions might go a long way toward answering the others.
    For the Republic, (if we can restore it)

    1. Strong Horse, excellent questions that need to be answered, though most likely will not be. I was pretty closed minded on this, not seeing the complete picture. I admit I was not thinking it all through there.

      Thank you. I believe you are correct, there is more to the story then first believed.

      So if this was a “false flag” event (yes, people die in false flag events). Was this all done to “introduce” robots into law enforcement using this, and this person be a useful dupe? First as a tool, then no longer needed. Then needing the death of officers to further the gap between them and the people as they have been using “race”?

      If this is so, all LE’s need to watch their backs from those who are over them. Though immediate supers might be dupes, somewhere in that chain of command the concept of using the robot to kill (murder) this “shooter” was brought out. Remember, to the PTB, you are just useful fodder for their destruction of our nation, not just those who serve within the military. Why else did they militarize LEA’s?

      God Bless, and Be Safe All!

      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

    2. The ability of all those conspiring against the rule of law since Lee Harvey Oswald, and their ability to keep all those secrets, is truly astounding. Some day, I’m sure, someone in that giant group of conspirator’s will have a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment and spill his guts about the entire cabal.

      Or it could be Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman….

    3. Well, I think the SWAT cops on the ground, in the gun battle with the guy, and who talked to him while he was pinned down, could reasonably say this was the guy who had just shot some other cops, was just trying to shoot me, and is telling me why he did it and that he wants to shoot more of us, along with white people.

      I think when you are in a gunfight with some asshole you don’t have to present a formal case to a jury that he is a certified bad guy who wants to kill you. His actions of shooting at you kinda take care of that. But you still have to meet the burden of self defense or defense of others.

      I seriously doubt those Dallas beat cops and SWAT offices were in on some kind of false flag where this guy really wasn’t the (or one of the) shooter(s).

      Now, if you want to make an argument that he had “help” from other sectors, well then, that is a horse of a different color!


      1. Obviously, there is more intel on this than I had access to at the time of my writing. My first thoughts were concerning the probable escalation of the “Drone” effect, and what it bodes for our future. At the same time, I just can’t get past the fact that this, (“Lone Nut”), scenario is starting to become far too familiar. It’s been thrown in our face so many times, I guess I can’t help but examine these incidents in that manner.
        Now if the officers on the scene know for sure that this was someone who was shooting, and know that he was making, and/or posing those kind of threats. I have no sympathy for him. None!
        I do still think it is a shame that he can’t be integrated, partly because I still doubt that he acted alone. Also, from what gear and equipment he is said to have amassed, it just stretches the imagination to understand how someone of limited means can afford to stockpile so much on his own dime.
        I would also like to see the results of a toxicology report to see what chemicals were in his system. The trajectory and ballistic results would be helpful as well. Though I still doubt that any of this will ever come to light.
        I can be as wrong as anyone, I’m not afraid to admit that. In fact I’ve got two sets of divorce papers to prove it. But I still think there is more to this than we are allowed to know. That bothers me.
        Again, I wasn’t there. If I had been, had I seen and heard the proof that this was the shooter, (or even one of the shooters), then before I would give him a chance to take a shot at you or anyone else I would push the button myself. If it was the most prudent way to end the killing and injuries, then so be it, but I would still have preferred the long shot over the explosion.
        {Being a former criminal investigator, and a long shooter, I would probably always lean toward those options I guess. We all tend to gravitate toward that which we know best.}
        We have been lied to about these things so many times, that I can’t help but have questions, which I feel are valid. I won’t apologize for that. I also realize that they will likely never be answered, but I’m going to keep asking them none the less.


    4. In any case of this kind, interrogation of the suspect should be the desideratum, if at all possible. Why did he do it? Did someone assist him, or put him up to it? Who else in his circle of friends might be planning such an attack? (The kind of questions which should have been put to Lee Harvey Oswald in a carefully controlled and monitored setting, but which a “robot”, in the person of Jack Ruby, prevented from being asked.) One does not need to have years of experience in “law enforcement” to know that SWAT teams and bomb-delivering robots are not good at interrogation. If they had been thinking, rather than viscerally reacting, the Dallas police should and no doubt could have employed another, nonlethal, method to incapacitate the suspect, even if that might have endangered some of the officers present. (After all, they are volunteers who are paid to face the dangers inherent in that line of work.) The information which could have been obtained might very well have been worth far more than the risk incurred. Now–I am tempted to say, “:conveniently”–it is lost for ever.

      1. It certainly would have been nice to take him alive, but that is often just not possible with such a suicidal killer. Same with a Jihadist or active shooter who fully intends to die. I can’t fault anyone for taking the sure road to ending it, while minimizing risks to themselves. I would likely have done the same under the circumstances, especially, as others have said, when there is the distinct possibility he planted IEDs that he could trigger with a cell phone call. I think that was a very real concern, and tips the scales on the side of “shut down the threat” now, rather than later, and without trying less than lethal or less lethal means.

        An active shooter is not someone you try to take alive, as a matter of course. it is someone you shoot, or in this case, blow up. I would have done exactly the same, under the circumstances as I understand them. The risk of him having control of IEDs is what does it for me.

        But I agree it is too bad he could not be questioned.


  9. Just as the 1st amendment is absolutely necessary, but is sometimes used against us, etc, DUE PROCESS is the last stance before absolute tyranny takes-hold. No matter how bad and mental this shooter was, he is still protected under the Constitution and I would imagine, his parents are going to sue the crap out of the City of Dallas.

    Those of you that think otherwise are giving TOO MUCH CREDIT to this rogue government and law enforcement to never drone kill an innocent (or mentally sick) person in the future. That’s why YOU will vote for Hillary…..because, in your mind, she has your best interests in mind and the rest of us know, she is going to further destroy this country and drone us to death.

    WE know how and why it can and will become a mainstay in America to easily kill an adversary without knowing the facts.

  10. He had not fired a shot in how long prior to the robot blowing him up? Regardless of what he had just done, the threat level had to of depreciated, citizens were evacuated, and I’m sorry to say, LEO’s (now called troops by politicians) signed up to be in harms way. Waiting him out was a viable option, especially since they knew where he was, and can limit targets from his vantage point.

    I believe charges should be brought up for the use of the robot.

    I believe a “Makes Sense Act” should be written and passed, making it a crime of treason to author, co-author, sponsor, co-sponsor, or vote into law a law that has deemed to violate the constitution.

    This would put more research into laws, and stop unconstitutional laws to ever be written. These law makers use the “do it now, and ask for forgiveness later” when it comes to it, and the stepping stones of unconstitutional laws has led us to this path.

    1. Maybe, if it truly was as you say. But I am not sure the cops on the ground saw it the same way. I have no doubt in my mind they feared this man, who had already closed with and killed an officer while wearing rifle plates, was still an imminent threat to them if/when he decided to go out with one last charge, and they may also have suspected he was wearing an explosive that he may try to detonate once he got close.

      I don’t know enough about the facts to say for sure. So, let’s see what the facts show.


  11. THIS IS NOT A FIRST. Philly police back in the 70’s dropped a bomb from a helicopter on a black militant house after a running gun battle.
    40 YEARS later it happens again.
    There is no genie out of a bottle, this is just more fear mongering.
    The police did what was right and necessary and all these armchair generals need to get over themselves.
    He was an active threat who murdered cops, shot civilians, and threatened he had placed bombs around Dallas so i wouldnt care if they used heavy artillery or an airstrike to take him out.
    Due process when there was the possibility of remote detonated ied’s ? No thanks. How many more will have to die before ppl stop acting like criminals are the victims.
    He wasnt contained and had no intentions of giving up. More people should die to make some aclu nutjob happy? Sorry dont think so

  12. If the police reasonably believe that someone poses an imminent danger of death to others, and that killing him is necessary to prevent that danger, they can try to kill him, whether with a rifle or a bomb-carrying robot.

    That’s tempered with a consideration from the ACLU:

    [T]he easy and relatively safe use of ground robots that can deploy deadly force could mean they could be overused: “Remote uses of force raise policy issues that should be carefully considered … and should remain confined to extraordinary situations.”

    I agree with both those statements. And from what I know if the incident, he was not incapable of trying to rush and shoot the officers. He had been intermittently firing at them from around a brick corner in a stairwell, and then the negotiations began. At any time he could have tried one last charge. And I can see it as perfectly reasonable to decide to initiate and take him out at a time of my choosing rather than waiting for him to initiate his final “suicide by cop” charge, while wearing rifle plates. If I had a grenade, I would use it, for example. Why not?

    And if I had a nifty little robot, and a block of C-4, I’d use that too. Any chair in a fight, right?

    Now, the ACLU is correct that this, just like SWAT team raids in general, can be misused, all in the name of “officer safety” too. But in a case like this, with a cornered mass killer with a rifle? No problem.


  13. I’m retired law enforcement after 25 years. I have lived in the Dallas Fort Worth area almost all my life. Our training in law enforcement on the scale of Force is always to stop someone not to kill. The sniper in Dallas and the actions he had taken we’re just a small part of the consideration the Dallas Chief had in making the decision to use an explosive device to stop the situation. You never do anything with the thought of killing an actor but stopping his actions. This man had already killed several officers and wounded several more he was intent on killing more if he could. Please understand I know this man had also stated he had explosive devices planted all around Dallas and was intent on setting them off. There was no reason to think he had not done this based on his prior actions. Negotiations had broke down. The use of a device to stop him prior to his detonating items was the only auction left. It was not till after the fact that no other devices were found. It’s easy to second-guess a Commander’s position on a decision when the situation is over. Taking all the facts into consideration that I have and the fact the man had stated he wanted to kill more officers, he was cornered, but was planning on detonating devices that the Commander felt at the time he had, without risking another officer’s life I would have done anything to stop his actions and save the lives of officers, citizens and additional destruction.

    1. I can agree with that. So long as they don’t try to then add in true military ROEs like overseas.

      Hey Lawdog, email me if you have my email. If not, email using our contact form and put “attention stewart” in subject line.


  14. Notice that the “suspect” in the Dallas shootings was killed by police without due process, by what amounted to a drone strike. At the time he was killed, he was not an “imminent” threat to anyone. Worst of all, this “cop justice” didn’t happen in a back alley, it was right in front of the whole world. Also, they blew him up with explosives. Did Dallas PD just happen to keep a locker full of bombs handy or did they whip up an IED on demand. What is the legality of that? What does our beloved ATF have to say about that? Militarized indeed, along with judge, jury, and executioner.

    1. I disagree. He was still a threat to the officers who had him cornered, and there was a very real risk that he really did plant IEDs, like he claimed, and could detonate them by means of a cell phone, just like is done all over the world. You dial a cell phone number to a phone that is attached to the IED, to set it off. Just ask any Iraq or Afghanistan vet how that works.

      So, given that he claimed he had planted IEDs all over the city, he WAS a threat, in addition to the fact he could still make a suicidal charge at the officers who had him cornered. Why wait for him to decide when to make that final charge? Why not preempt it? And why not shut down a possible attempt by him to set off IEDs he claimed to have planted? Makes sense to me.

      Not at all the same as shooting a man who was disarmed, or who was trying to surrender. And not the same as deciding to punish someone. I would have done the same thing under the circumstances.


  15. It all adds up to more loss of freedom- less due process- criminals and big government gain power. It is no longer a slippery slope, it is a fee fall.

  16. Regarding Dallas, any backwater LE officers could have used tear gas and buckshot to take the bastard out of play. He could then be tried and if found guilty I would throw the switch. Using excessive force is the problem, not the solution.

    Even more outrageous, blowing him up was just too stupid to be stupid. That bastard was a VALUABLE ASSET for interrogation! Why would authorities not want him to talk?

    When Americans condone government murdering citizens by drones/robots without trial they become vigilantes and useful idiots to their tyrants.

  17. When I saw the use of a robot, I was immidately grieved not for the shooter, but for what I believe will become more and more, used as an officer safety excuse no due process. Once it is used it never stops. As usual we will be spoon fed the narrative of Federal response which is like ruby ridge , a trial run as needed, Considering the uninformed public who takes the media as the Gospel, do not give a crap. As usual the constitution was violated and so called constitutional lawyers like Obama will give only their opinion , politics were in play before the bodies were cold. I just cant muster up confidence in cases like this . One thing I know is due process is as American as the Founders.

  18. Many police situations have occured where a sniper took out a person doing a criminal act of hostage taking or shooting at people, eventhough at the moment the sniper fired, the culprit may not have been firing.
    If a sniper had taken out this shooter, would there even be a discussion?
    What difference is the weapon, whether a sniper rifle or a explosive, if it is saving more people from injury or death.

    1. Good point. Thing is, people simply no longer trust the Federal Government, and many, many Americans no longer trust police, in general. Just a fact. And frankly, they have good reason.

      I disagree with the divide and conquer strategy that is being used on all of us, but it has caused a great deal of suspicion and distrust that we just have to deal with.


  19. What you all seem to forget – is that you were not there – facing down the bad guy who just killed 5 police officers and wounded 6 more. “Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn’t have to do it” Oh my the poor criminal got blown up – and I was ok with it. He got what he deserved. As for you so called experts – i don’t see you bad guys ready to go in and take out the bad guy or kiss him on the cheek. It is one thing to sit back in your nice chair and tell everyone that it was not kosher to bomb the dirtbag – however the officers who were there and dealing with this dirtbag were probably thinking WTF how are we going to get him. Problem solved the dirtbag is taken out – no other officers were hit or killed. save the whiney poor criminal comments for your weekly role playing.

  20. Re: false flag – does it strike anyone else as more than coincidence that events like this happen whenever there is a smoking gun pointed at this administration? Was there bigger news than the FBI’s lame excuses for not recommending H. Clinton be prosecuted? Is it beyond belief that BLM and New Black Panthers, et al are being used to achieve certain agendas? IF (because this was not widely reported at first, one only person carrying rifle) 20-30 people were carrying rifles, is it reasonable to believe that the lone shooter was deceived into thinking that the other 20-30 people were going to join in the shooting, only to find he was the only one?
    I’m probably just too suspicious of the government and their motives anymore.

  21. Hmmm, how to respond? How much “due process” did the shooter give the Police Officers?
    How many MILLIONS would be spent providing “due process” to the undeniably guilty? What happened to the concept of a “Fair and Speedy Trial”??? Nothing quite like simply finishing off the life of a well witnessed and proven mass murderer.
    What would DUE PROCESS prove in such a situation? How would it serve? Would it have been “better” if the shooter was hit with a lucky shot? Where was all the expensive swat team snipers in all of this? ARE YOU TELLING ME that this “lone gunman”, who IN THE BEGINNING was one of three reported shooters, (where are the other two?) is a better marksman than all the Dallas SWAT team members?
    I could have shot a booger out of that shooters nose from many of the locations in that area. And I do not have all the fancy assed high tech weaponry the most of the SWAT team members do. I wonder what I could dowith a Tracking Point set up on a 24 inch 1/9 twist 308? As it is I can shoot a golf ball at 375 yards.
    I rejoice today and am saddened at the loss of so many Police Officers and the wounded.
    Have you ever been on the other end of that argument as a VICTIM? Waiting years to see whether or not justice will be served? Personally I do not give an eff if the shooter is declared insane or not and I most certainly would not be happy the shooter would spend life in prison while I continue to pay taxes on a wasted lifetime.
    What is your point here? The lack of due process? Or the idea of a preemptive strike? Which is better, shoot the suicide bomber before he blows up and kills a hundred or wait and wish you had?

    Am I “the bad guy” for killing a 9 year old ferrying mortar rounds to the enemy before those mortars kill my men or should I wait until afterwards and many more are dead?

    You do realize no matter how you paint it. WE ARE TALKING WAR when it comes to those intent on killing as many as possible.

    If I was a Muslim and witnessed the shooter being blown up I would have probably yelled Allahu Akbar! Because GODs will was done. Just as they yell the same when they get blown up by their own suicide bombers malfunction.

    I also have to consider the casual use of drone attacks which have already taken out Americans in the homeland.. Where was the due process there?

  22. 5Warveteran. Some interesting points. This being Texas down here we only have two penalties for a capital offense against law enforcement. One is execution second is life in prison.

    I might be wrong but from my understanding and study here in Texas there has never been a case of a conviction for killing a police officer that did not end in the actor receiving the death penalty.

    This being said with everything I have read on all the comments on this article for and against the use of an explosive device is deadly force against this particular actor.minus a possible headshot to neutralize the situation this actor was fully prepared for this situation all the way to the point he had on body armor he had already been shot several times had not penetrated the armor so Buckshot or any other material to just try to incapacitate him would not have worked. And he had already proven he was willing to fight and kill more. It is never any law enforcement officers dream to have to take a man’s life. My son is with F.W.P.D I’ve lived here my whole life I do not feel any other option for the Chief of Dallas was available.

  23. I have read all the arguments about “rules of engagement”, “enemy combatants,” criminal suspects vs. “enemy soldiers,” etc., and they still leave me with one big problem: In THIS PARTICULAR case, it sounds like the suspect was in a location where “collateral damage” was unlikely, but in a more general sense, using a remote-controlled vehicle or other technology to deliver explosives sounds far too much like the terrorist’s approach as opposed to law enforcement.

    Next time, perhaps there will be just ONE innocent civilian that could be killed by such a bomb. After that, maybe two. After that – who knows? I don’t disagree with finding a method to end the threat this individual posed, I disagree with the idea that “the ends justify the means.” Will barricaded suspects now be routinely “taken out” with explosives? How about a Tomahawk missile or a Javelin? Will the definition of “collateral damage” slowly expand to justify killing 5 innocents to get one criminal? 10?

    There is a ridiculous amount of remote-controlled technology in the military world, from systems that deliver a bullet-sized explosive to a nuclear warhead. Where does it end? Where does the Constitution justify using this kind of destructive weaponry on civilians?

    You all know where I’m going. In war, there is no “due process.” No lawyers. No jury trials. It is simply kill or be killed. Are we willing to let our “criminal justice system” be transformed into a war zone?

    1. No, we are not, and that was my point all along. Re-read my comments about laws of war and enemy combatants. That should never be applied to Americans, period.

  24. I’m curious about why the Dallas PD chose a bomb, instead of a concussion or tear gas grenade, which would have permitted them to capture the guy alive. Anybody have insight into this? Maybe they just didn’t want to take any chances with an acquittal?

  25. I will not comment on the legality of this robot use that is for the courts. Using explosives to bring down a suspect is a definite execution this gets out of hand easily. first a robot then an m 40 grenade then a grenade, then a drone projectile. SLIPPERY slope, easily abused. I do not disagree with the use of deadly force but it must be with great over site. I also do not want to endanger any police. Collateral damage is very hard to control with explosives without explosive expert on site advice.

Comments are closed.