You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Ethics of drone killing on American soil?
A good question. If we allow the police to always use the device that poses the least risk to them, shouldn't we also trust then to always decide which situation to use deadly force in? Unfortunately shooting first and asking questions later will always be the choice with the least risk involved for the police officer. It may not be the right choice, but it will always be the least risky.
We need in my opinion more non lethal weapons so deadly force isn't as necessary. But in this particular case where you have a mass shooter then is it unusual that the police killed him? Most mass shooters seem to get killed and if they target police it's a near certainty that they'll be killed by the police. We have seen this before and maybe the weapon is more advanced but it's the same outcome.
I agree that more non-lethal options would be better. I wonder if the suspects demise in most mass shootings is due more to the willingness of police to kill or the commitment of the shooter to the path they chose and what they see as the ultimate outcome.
If you know someone is targeting you specifically then would you hesitate to take them out at the best opportunity? I think in cases where you're dealing with a maniac who is killing random people, if the opportunity presents itself to take the person out how would you justify not doing so?
I don't blame the cops in the instance where they are being killed. They do what they have to do in order to survive a war against them.
The decision to use deadly force is independent from the choice of what kind of force to use.
I'm not so sure. When a SWAT team moves in and starts with tear gas and flash bangs, a suspect can always throw away their weapons and spread eagle on the floor. But with a drone strike, your dead before you know it.
When they send in a drone, the ability for the suspect to change their mind and give up is greatly reduced.