1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Mechanized Warfare against U.S. Citizens on Domestic Soil?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rocket River, Jul 8, 2016.

  1. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,002
    Launch kittens at him and maybe he'll change is heart and feel all dem cuddles and lay down his arms.
     
  2. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    I think when you start mechanizing what are essentially weapons of war, the loss of fear and the human element stops becoming a barrier to war and you get perpetual war. That's my concern. We already see it with drones. Now we'll see it with robots and who knows what else.
     
  3. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,998
    Likes Received:
    83,161
    The only real difference I can see between one inanimate object being controlled by a human (gun) and another (robot) is the proximity to danger of the human.

    Not saying there should be widespread use, but in certain situations it's a useful tool.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Using phraseology like neutralizing someone, ie killed them, just sanitizes killing. I don't question killing the man, just this whitewashing of what it is to kill someone.
     
  5. Duncan McDonuts

    Duncan McDonuts Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,143
    Likes Received:
    3,909
    You certainly don't use drones to drop bombs indiscriminately on suspected criminals or terrorists. That's where intelligence and risk factors come into play. You lose the tactical surgicalness of manned operations but gain the significantly reduced risk of harm to yourself. Ideally you limit any collateral damage.

    It's just another tool and strategy. Use it after negotiations and the situation is highly evaluated with minimal risk to innocents but significant risk to law enforcement. It's not to be used all the time because it's convenient.
     
  6. LosPollosHermanos

    LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,582
    Likes Received:
    12,520
    You dishonor the house Texas with this.


    As the great Ned Stark said...



    [​IMG]
     
  7. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,223
    Likes Received:
    13,425
    Minor point -

    "Mechanized warfare" is taken as a phrase and it has nothing to do with robots. It refers to the practice of using heavily armored motorized vehicles like tanks and armored personel carriers.

    One of the most common EOD techniques when you find a bomb is to move everyone away and roll up to it with a robot and place a smaller bomb on it which is used to set off the bigger bomb. This is called controlled detonation. It is safer than trying to move or defuse the bomb.

    Its been widely reported that this guy had a big bomb that he was going to set off if police came at him. Speculation on my part, but does it change anything ifrom the actual explosion that killed him came as a result of police setting off the shooter's own bomb?

    I don't think the cops have copious amounts of semtex sitting around to use to fashon a big explosive killing bomb. In fact, I'm pretty sure that whatever explosives they used were sourced from Dallas PD's bomb disposal unit, which would have had a small number of small charges on hand to use in controlled demolition. I'm not sure where else they would have gotten explosives, or more importantly the experts to fashon a suitably sized device.

    In either case, the motivation for using the robot was the fact that the guy had a bomb. The use of the explosive was motivated by the desire to protect officers from that. It would be different if they just rolled up on some guy who posed little threat and blew him up for grins.
     
    #27 Ottomaton, Jul 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  8. rockbox

    rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    21,571
    Likes Received:
    10,436
    I'm not against it on principle as long as the robot is precise enough to not hurt other people. I just don't want it to accidentally kill a whole bunch of people.
     
  9. CCorn

    CCorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    21,377
    Likes Received:
    21,097
    Mechanized warfare makes me think of gundam.
     
  10. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,194
    Likes Received:
    5,178
    [Educational Post]
    You think this is the first time the government used mechanized warfare against a citizen? How soon people forget the nightmare that was the federal government's first exploratory efforts in confiscating guns that occurred in Waco...

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    I think the issue with is about appropriate response. In this case the perpetrator was isolated and controlled. What was the urgency to blow him up when you could have waited him out? The reason you do that is to let justice take its course, the slower evaluation, reasoning, examination and exposure that yields understanding and allows for public discourse. Was the man insane, can the victims confront him with him with the real human costs of his action? Will he have to live with the consequences?

    Summary execution allows for martyrdom, glorification and the perpetrator gets released from guilt. When you lose the humanity of justice you're just left with the violence and inhumanity of warfare.

    I'm am not faulting the DPD, I'm fine with their actions faced with an unprecedented event, but it warrants a post action evaluation for the consideration of future events.

    And in Waco I think they were confiscating abused children . In the other thread I referenced the 1972 bombing of the MOVE compound in Philidelphia...... I think the first tactical explosives tragedy in modern in America. It's an interesting read.
     
    #31 Dubious, Jul 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
    1 person likes this.
  12. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,998
    Likes Received:
    83,161
    I think you're pretty much spot on. Excellent post.
     
  13. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    It was fine in this case but it does raise questions about how it might be used in the future. When you have a machine do the killing, it becomes very easy to kill. The issue comes down to if it becomes a means to circumvent due process which is a fundamental right.

    Waco is a good example. They wanted to apprehend the people who had broken the law and had shot at officers. But was the decision to attack and kill many people in there - some innocent the right call? Without the mechanized vehicles, the cops would not have moved in and a different resolution would have to come about.

    That's the danger in my opinion, that use of machines to do the killing enables more convenience as opposed to just saving officer lives.

    We want law enforcement to be as safe as possible. We also need to make sure that people have due process.

    How do you limit the use of technology so it is used to result in less death of both cops and criminals - and not just the cops? That's what needs to happen.
     
  14. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    27,893
    Likes Received:
    23,015
    Maybe I'm too cynical or have just watched too many dystopian films, but this widely-publicized incident not being the first step towards this "slippery slope" seems impossible to me

    I can just imagine various talking heads and politicians talking about the "successful" use of a remote operated robot to end a deadly threat, and since that was so successful then why the hell not do it again? And if we did it because we thought he might have had a bomb then why the hell not do it when we think/know he has an automatic weapon? And so on and so forth.
     
  15. opticon

    opticon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    You raise a great point. If a suspect says there is a bomb i have not problem with law enforcement responding with a bomb of there own.

    The question in my mind is if there was no bomb in play from the active shooter would they still have blown him up?
     
  16. ChrisBosh

    ChrisBosh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    252
    My two cents:

    1) How come the sanity of this man is not being questioned.

    2) Why is this killing by a robot being given all this attention. Almost like it's cool how they took out a guy.

    3) Also now this guy is a terrorist?
     
  17. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,182
    Likes Received:
    25,831
    Well

    1) It's assumed he's insane.

    2) It is kind of cool how they took the guy out. They stopped a terrorist without any further casualties and put no one else in harms way.

    3) Yeah.....he's a terrorist no different from others who went on shooting sprees targeting one group of people to terrorize them.
     
  18. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,253
    Likes Received:
    28,757
    We have to do what's right . .. not what's easy

    Why not put gas bomb? smoke him out

    It was like when the cop shot the guy in the back running away
    Easier to just shoot and kill him than to chase him . . and coordinate with other cops to hem him in and capture him . . . naaaa. . **** all that work . . *BANG* let's have lunch

    Rocket River
     
  19. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,182
    Likes Received:
    25,831
    It's win-win, the terrorist doesn't get the opportunity to hurt anyone else and you don't have to pay for the trial or keeping him in prison till you execute him.
     
  20. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    He killed 5 cops.
    He was getting the death penalty. They probably saved money killing him.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now