15
   

The American Government Has Gone Rogue

 
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:44 am
I thought of this thread during the recent standoff in California where a former police officer was holed up in a cabin shooting police officers. I pose this question not because I have a fixed opinion but because I am looking for insights.

- Given that he is clearly dangerous and loss of life might (and did) occur to capture him, is lethal force ok to use?
- Would it have been ok to use a drone to take him down in the cabin instead of sending in officers?
- If yes, would it have to be a police drone since it is a police matter, not a military matter?
- If no, would it be ok to use some other stand-off weapon and if yes, what is the difference?
- What kind of court order if any should be required?
- Would your opinion on a court order be different for a running gun battle over one where the suspect had been run to ground?

My take right now before reading what all of you write is:
- Yes, lethal force is ok once it is clear that the suspect is using lethal force to resist.
- Yes, a drone would be ok since it is essentially the same as any other standoff weapon. A drone is no different than a sniper rifle unless you are the owner of the cabin, but it would have to be a police drone. The military is not to operate inside the US border as a police force.
- In a situation where the suspect is holed up and there are no hostages as in this case, I think there is time to consult a judge about the use of lethal force and it makes a lot of sense to plan out a rational approach to try to take the suspect alive, but it doesn't make sense to plan an operation that puts officers' lives at risk.
- If there was a running gun battle with citizens and officers at risk and a drone had a shot with minimal collateral damage, take the shot.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:07 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Dr. Carson speaks the truth and offers simple solutions and you act like it never happened. It happened.


did you forget that one of Dr. Carson's directions was that people on opposing sides need to be respectful of each other?

H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:18 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Dr. Carson speaks the truth and offers simple solutions and you act like it never happened. It happened.


did you forget that one of Dr. Carson's directions was that people on opposing sides need to be respectful of each other?




He was berating Obama and the liberal democrats, but I guess you missed that...
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 12:00 pm
@ehBeth,
The GOP are the ones who have shown disrespect for the office of president during the past 4+ years. They shout when Obama is speaking, chellenge his birth right, and call him a "socialist" without understanding the definition of that word. No previous president has ever suffered such indignities.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 12:10 pm


Obama has shown zero respect for the office, the job of president and the constitution.
It's all about Obama, it's all about himself... he hasn't earned any respect from others.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 12:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
Being elected President doesn't show someone has earned respect? What a strange world you live in Spurt.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 12:41 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Dr. Carson speaks the truth and offers simple solutions and you act like it never happened. It happened.


did you forget that one of Dr. Carson's directions was that people on opposing sides need to be respectful of each other?




He was berating Obama and the liberal democrats, but I guess you missed that...


I watched what you posted the other day. He was not insulting or disrespectful. He was able to disagree and point out differences without disrespect.

He directed others to show respect as well.

It is not that difficult to do that. As you point out - it is a simple solution.

Respect might make a difference in the political climate in your country.

Disrespect does nothing to encourage people to speak with each other and to find ways to come to agreement.

Respect and efforts to find points of agreement might be beneficial to the mess currently found in American politics - and the resulting economic mess you find yourself in.

Simple.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:37 pm
@engineer,
The weaponry in a drone is a laser/gps guidance system and a missile.

While on US soil I think it might be easier to simply pack that stuff into a utility vehicle and drive it somewhere near the target. You don't really need a million dollar drone unless you don't have ground access near the target.

So what you're really saying is that the Police should have access to military grade guidance systems and missiles.

They could also mount that type of weaponry onto one of their police helicopters. I don't really see a need for them to have unmanned drones for any of this.

So the problem really becomes just getting expensive military grade weapons systems like that into the hands of the police. Once they've got it the can handle it (in a strategic sense) just like a big gun and apply the same rules of engagement that they currently employ for their other big guns. I would think... Right?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:47 pm
@ehBeth,


One of the simple solutions Dr. Carson offered concerned health care, but few
people will consider his simple solution because it goes against ObamaCare.

That's a real shame because that one simple solution would
eliminate the growing list of problems created by ObamaCare.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:58 pm
@rosborne979,
Yes, that is my point. A drone is nothing more than a fancy, long distance weapon, a sniper rifle with a lot longer range and more destructive power. When Obama says that he can use drones in the US, how is that different than saying the FBI can use helicopters with snipers sitting in them? The issue to me seems one of evolution, not revolution, but I'd like to hear the counter argument. Is there someone who sees this as government "gone rogue" instead of a natural evolution of technology? Does this have to be a terrorist or does a guy sitting in a cabin shooting officers count too?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:12 pm
@engineer,


Neither the helicopter with snipers nor the unmanned drone are a
good thing to have in the skies above American streets and homes.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:20 pm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:33 pm
@engineer,
I was thinking in terms of collateral damage. Drones have a tendency to kill innocents.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I was thinking in terms of collateral damage. Drones have a tendency to kill innocents.


As does the FBI and Police
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:13 pm
@H2O MAN,
So, what are you trying to say, squirt? That it's okay because you agree with what the FBI and Police does?

When did your mother drown you? Your brain isn't functioning properly.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:15 pm

c, imposter gets panties in wad when confronted with facts Laughing
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I was thinking in terms of collateral damage. Drones have a tendency to kill innocents.

True, it is a blunt weapon, but from a moral "government has gone rogue" point of view it's not all that different from what police have today. For the police killer in California, the police have a well armed nut in a cabin in the woods by himself. Do you rush him with police, maybe getting someone killed, try to do something subtle or just use the drone and figure that paying the cabin owner is cheaper than losing an officer? In this particular case, they lost an officer and the cabin was burned down by the nutcase but maybe a drone strike would have been better. Easy in retrospect of course.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:03 pm
@engineer,
There may be occasions where drones can be justified such as in isolated place where only the criminal will be killed, but that's still a tough call without really knowing if anyone (innocent bystander) else is in the vicinity.

BTW, it's my understanding from hearing news reports on the radio that the police used gas bombs. I think that was the "best" approach under the circumstances.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 08:04 pm
@engineer,
I see you have a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law, E.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 05:55 am
They need to make better "smoke" bombs that don't start fires when they are used. Also, can't they put some type of sleeping gas in the smoke bomb? There must be a better way of getting a lone nutcase out of a cabin without risking cops lives or spending millions on missile guided weaponry.

Hire an extermination company, fly the tent in under a helicopter, cover the cabina and gas the guy unconscious. Or spend a few hundred on a remote controlled hexapod copter with a camera and fly in a small payload of some nasty stinky chemical.

Or truck in temporary barricades, put them up around the house to enclose the whole thing (with no exit), and then just wait for him to run out of food and water.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 12:43:04