Majape, “imminent threat” is the part I’m struggling with. That is the basis of the legal justification to use deadly force. Police can use deadly force when faced with imminent threat - I have no argument with that. But when you move police and/or civilians away from the shooter, maybe hundreds or thousands of feet…

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not defending the Dallas killer. The suspect was going to die either by lethal injection at a later date or in a hail of gunfire at the site. I’m trying to be dispassionate about the specifics with a view to the broader implications. And yes, this robot was not a drone, but the next…

There is a huge difference. Police certainly have the right to use deadly force when they or others lives are in imminent danger. However, when you send in a robot to do the killing, is there really any imminent danger to people nearby? The situation has changed now that only a suspect and a robot/drone are in a room.…

Isn’t there value in capturing a suspect? We all can agree that what this guy did was extremely wrong but does he not have the right to a trial? If found guilty, of course he would have faced the death penalty but can police now make that judgement and remotely send in a drone for the killing?? When you distance…