So the robots are coming to kills us all then

The use of a bomb disposal robot to kill Micah Xavier Johnson is believed to be a first for police.

“In my 38 years of law enforcement I’ve never known a robot to be used by police for an offensive situation like this,” said Dan Libby, a former chief of police in Punta Gorda, Florida, who works as an instructor in police tactics.

Bomb disposal robots are generally equipped with a “trigger” device such as a 12-gauge shotgun shell, concussion grenade, or water cannon that can be fired at a bomb to detonate it. “The idea is to shoot at the suspect device, not usually at a person. But in a situation like they had in Dallas, you use whatever means possible and I take my hat off to them,” Mr Libby said.

84 thoughts on “So the robots are coming to kills us all then”

  1. They don’t mess about in Texas.

    Over here, the police would still be bringing him KFC & coffee while inconveniencing everyone by closing down all the surrounding roads…

  2. The lefties are going apeshit about this. Something about it being unfair and unethical. Some clown even posted Asimov’s rules governing robots, presumably thinking this thing was autonomous.

  3. “Over here, the police would still be bringing him KFC & coffee while inconveniencing everyone by closing down all the surrounding roads…”

    And apologising to them over a loudhailer for ther “institutional racism”.

  4. Here’s the deal guys – this was used to kill a dude who, while still very dangerous, was trapped and contained.

    Personally, I don’t want the police to summarily execute criminals simply because ‘this shit is taking too long’.

    They *should* have passed him the KFC & coffee (or at least a tear gas grenade).

    They’re *cops* and he’s a criminal – not soldiers fighting each other. If he kills himself, fine. If he breaks and runs and eats 300 bullets, fine. Holed up and taking potshots at you? Take cover, surround the place, turn off the water and power. Then send someone on a donut run because its going to be a long night.

  5. AGA-
    “If he breaks and runs and eats 300 bullets fine”
    I see what you’re saying but the prime reason why you would wait it out is if its safer for the police and public not for the suspect. If they have high certainty he’s not coming quietly then a police sniper will be very likely given the ok to kill if a shot opportunity is there. Ok so now they have a robot to do that too.

  6. Agammamon, why should everyone wait it out? He’d only soak up more money & provide grandstanding opportunities for lawyers.

    It’s not sport, or hunting, it’s eradicating vermin. You do it with any quick and cheap method at your disposal.

  7. Anglegrindermonkey

    Those potshots he may take or receive can ricochet and hit innocents too. At some point, he has to be stopped. Arrresting someone intent on murder is very likely suicide……

  8. Everyone should wait it out because that’s what the police are supposed to do. They’re not executioners. Their weapons are defensive.

  9. At what stage do we draw the line? Which situation is the limit to how much money can be saved to justify the use of drones to dispense law enforcement?

    Drones on “the beat”? Remote tazer the brown guy with the beard?

    Please put down your shopping, you have twenty seconds to comply,.Before I check your goods against your receipts.

    We know that man was armed, but he was holed up. It’s easy enough to clear the area in the line of fire. Agammamon is correct. He had three options – suicide, surrender, or Sundance Kid.

    If the second amendment cannot be invoked when a copper shoots a bloke five times because of a rear light not working, then what precisely is the point of it.

  10. If he hadn’t explosives on him he would have survived the robot, therefore facilitated suicide. Shame he took out the robot.

  11. I agree that police executions are a big no no. Though snipers with green light shoot to kill if their/another life is threatened is OK and no-one is saying differently. The trouble with leaving it there is you have to get to the point where some-one’s life is in danger. If you have high certainty that point will come sooner or late, iow you think he’s going to do the sundance option, then its ok to pre-empt that with beep- burr boom boom bye bye.

  12. Doug,

    Semantic point – don’t say “non-lethal weapons”. There’s a Holy Grail (something like a Star Trek phaser set to “stun”) that will reliably and immediately immobilise any target without injuring them; until it’s found, any sort of effort that will quickly incapacitate a healthy, determined criminal is likely to cause serious harm to less robust individuals caught in the area/line of fire.

    Doesn’t mean less-lethal isn’t a valuable option, but it’s not a panacea and reactions vary widely: I’ve seen soldiers come out of a CS demonstration (you’re really not meant to call it “the gas chamber” so of course everyone did) with reactions to the same calibrated concentration of gas varying from “didn’t like that much, it’s annoying” to being practically blinded and immobilised for a few minutes.

    On this case… I share Agammamon’s concern that the US police seem to see themselves as soldiers doing warfighting, not law enforcement officers. I’d be willing to be persuaded this specific case was a good option if, for instance, he was claiming to have explosives and was cornered with access to a gas main (detail that won’t be in immediate reporting) but the general trend that US law enforcement are presenting themselves as an army of occupation rather than as public servants – with the equipment, attitude and rules of engagement to match – is not a comfortable one and rarely ends well.

  13. John77,

    Back to my point about “non-lethal” being very difficult – remember the 2002 Dubrovka Theatre siege in Moscow? The Russians broke the siege by knocking everyone out with an anaesthetic compound (might have been a fentanyl derivative?) but nearly a quarter of the people in the building died, hostages as well as terrorists (funnily enough, none of the terrorists survived the gas… the Russians have permissive ROE in these situations, which is why they mostly only get suicide terrorists): enough gas to be sure of putting everyone out, is a lethal dose to the weaker ones.

    Once you start firing, the target doesn’t know immediately whether you’re firing gas rounds, beanbags, or full metal jacket: they just know the shooting’s started and it’s time to go all Jimmy Cagney, so unless what you’re using is not just effective but very rapid, you may merely have started their Desperate Last Stand instead of taking them down.

  14. Lawrence, the police don’t ‘shoot you five times for having a rear light out’ (though sometimes, I wish they did).

    They shoot you for resisting arrest or not complying immediately with their instructions.

  15. JuliaM,

    Philando Castile might have disagreed with you, except he’s dead (shot five times after being pulled over for a broken tail light).

    No evidence of him being a particularly wrong’un (passed background checks to work in the school system, apparently had a concealed-carry permit) and no evidence that he either resisted or refused to comply – but he’s still dead.

  16. @ Jason Lynch

    Point taken about non-lethal.

    The American policing system does seem far more military in parts, but that’s only from the outside

  17. In such a situation, the police risk being damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

    If the bloke had gone on to shoot more cops or some civilians, there would be an outcry about why the robot assassin was not used.

  18. “They shoot you for resisting arrest or not complying immediately with their instructions.” Or because the policeman in question is a coward, or a loony, or a psychopath; or even simply makes a mistake.

  19. Jason, that the Castile that has 43 convictions for various driving offences?

    I certainly wouldn’t want to live under the kind of regime that makes driving offences a capital crime.

  20. Castille was unclear on the concept of following police instruction during a traffic stop. Here’s a refresher:
    1. Hands in visible position.
    2. No sudden movement.
    3. Listen and comply with police instruction.

    The reason for the stop is kind of irrelevant. The police treats every traffic stop as it’s their last one. You should too.

  21. We really need some education about robots: the thing the police used was a beefed up radio controlled car with a gun on it. We can only call it ‘robot’ when it decides for itself whether to shoot the guy.

    On the matter of Police though, do we want them to be masters or servants? What do they appear to be when you encounter them? What do the American Police look like?

  22. “Castille was unclear on the concept of following police instruction during a traffic stop. Here’s a refresher:
    1. Hands in visible position.
    2. No sudden movement.
    3. Listen and comply with police instruction.

    The reason for the stop is kind of irrelevant. The police treats every traffic stop as it’s their last one. You should too.”

    Jesus, and this is supposed to be a libertarian site. So it’s a police state we want, is it? So if you’re asked to produce your licence, how do you keep your hands visible? Either way you’re dead, as not producing your licence is in direct violation.

    Again, a society where the police immediately suspect you are a maniac with a gun, and so the only recourse is pre-emptive violence, is not a land of the free.

    Next up, gatling guns built into Gatsos, we don’t want scum doing 27 in a 25 zone. Fucking vermin.

  23. What a contrast between the US and the UK.

    In the UK, if you’re pulled over / stopped, you get out of the car (at least I always have done), as they do too, and approach the good chap in the least aggressive manner possible with a friendly and cooperative “How can I help”, so that they instantly know you’re a decent sort, and in what is otherwise probably a futile attempt to soften the effect if one was say a tad over the speed limit or whatever..:)

    In the US, it appears from the above analysis as if it’s “no sudden movements or you get a bullet”.

    Note to self: Stick to this side of the pond…

    It would never even occur to me to “stay in the car” if I was stopped? It would just seem very rude and aggressive, as if to say “you can damn well come to me”?

  24. They shoot you for resisting arrest or not complying immediately with their instructions.

    The more you worship OBEY OR DIE, the more the cops will issue badly authoritarian orders.

  25. The video has:

    Policeman: “He was about to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it.”

    Reynolds: “You told him to get his ID sir, his driver’s licence.”

    Apparently Castile was trying to obey a police instruction to show his ID when the policeman shot him in case he was disobeying a police instruction not to reach for his gun.

  26. @PF – Of couse it’s a lot different. In the UK, a cop has virtually no chance of being shot during a traffic stop, in the US they do. That risk factor is what drives the behavior of the cops, not some evil racist agenda.

  27. “That risk factor is what drives the behavior of the cops, not some evil racist agenda.”

    It would be interesting to know if the reverse logic applies. If you want to know the time, ask a policeman, but you should treat the request as if it might be your last. Be sure to hold a gun on him as you ask, and feel free to shot him if he fails to follow instructions or makes any sudden moves – e.g. to look at his wristwatch.

    Because it seems that it’s not just the policeman at risk of getting shot – the car driver is evidently at risk too. By the same logic, surely that justifies similar precautions on the driver’s part? Shooting cops for making sudden moves or disobeying instructions is not just because of some evil anti-cop agenda, it’s driven by that risk factor.

  28. So, if the safety of our uniformed overseers is paramount I guess we can look for to some kind of narcoleptic gas being issued from the dash of our own vehicles once stopped and waking up strip searched and our clothes handed back to us as a bundle of rags as they have to be cut off for max safety?

    Can we go over it again? Who’s paying whom perchance?

  29. Maybe the future according to JuliaM and JerryC (is there a naming convention I’m not aware of), is to have ID (and previous five-0 interactions) barcodes on the backs of our necks, completely removing the need to move at all when in the presence of the rozzers.

    Undertaking on the motorway? Remote-controlled slow down to the hard shoulder and await drone delivered ECT.

  30. Apparently Castile was trying to obey a police instruction to show his ID when the policeman shot him in case he was disobeying a police instruction not to reach for his gun.

    Likewise the conflicting commands (in general; not necessarily this particular case) of telling people not to make a move, and telling them to put their hands up.

  31. That risk factor is what drives the behavior of the cops, not some evil racist agenda.

    I wasn’t aware I was implying any kind of agenda? It simply suggests to me very significant cultural differences.

    I don’t recall Canada taking the US approach, or have I remembered that incorrectly?

  32. Apparently Castile was trying to obey a police instruction to show his ID when the policeman shot him in case he was disobeying a police instruction not to reach for his gun.

    That’s according to the girlfriend, who started shooting her video after the shots were fired. We don’t have any objective data on what was said and done prior to that.

  33. “That’s according to the girlfriend, who started shooting her video after the shots were fired. We don’t have any objective data on what was said and done prior to that”

    ye-e-ess, I see. Probably a stitch-up to discredit the police. Of course!

  34. I wasn’t aware I was implying any kind of agenda? It simply suggests to me very significant cultural differences.

    OK. Others certainly have, including Ptesident Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Governor of Minnesota.

    I am just attempting to explain why these incidents keep happening, despite the fact that no one wants them to. No police chief wants his department to be the focus of an issue like this. No cop wants to trade places with Jeronimo Yanez right now. And yet, it’s not as simple as telling the cops “Don’t shoot people, mmmkay?”. The possibilty of getting ambushed/shot is ever present in their minds. How do you propose to get them to not worry about that, so that they can act more like nice cops in Suffolk or Guernsey?

  35. And the cops would never ever lie, no sirree.

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying she’s lying. She might be, she might not be. Same with the cop. We need more information to determine whose story is more credible.

  36. ye-e-ess, I see. Probably a stitch-up to discredit the police. Of course!

    Wouldn’t be the first time, Larry. Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw lied like crazy to frame up Darren Wilson in Ferguson.

    I’m sure such things don’t happen in Geurnsey, though.

  37. JuliaM
    July 9, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Agammamon, why should everyone wait it out? He’d only soak up more money & provide grandstanding opportunities for lawyers.

    Because our police have not *earned the privilege* to make that decision on their own.

    Because police do things like deliberately move in front of a fleeing suspect and then use *that* as justification for opening fire – and get away with it.

    Because I simply don’t trust them to be able to decide who is ‘vermin’ and who is ‘worthy of a trial’.

    This wasn’t a split-second shoot-or-don’t-shoot scenario, this was a deliberately-thought-out-and-approved-by-the-chain of command decision. In those situations I want the decision to be heavily weighted towards containment and capture.

    If expense is a problem, let’s get rid of the drug war and free up those cops and prisons and lawyers to handle real crime.

  38. Hallowed Be
    July 9, 2016 at 9:07 am

    AGA-
    “If he breaks and runs and eats 300 bullets fine”
    I see what you’re saying but the prime reason why you would wait it out is if its safer for the police and public not for the suspect. If they have high certainty he’s not coming quietly then a police sniper will be very likely given the ok to kill if a shot opportunity is there. Ok so now they have a robot to do that too.

    That’s policy as it is now. I don’t want that policy. I want a policy more heavily weighted towards apprehension rather than execution.

  39. “How do you propose to get them to not worry about that, so that they can act more like nice cops in Suffolk or Guernsey?”

    The same way you get a citizen stopped by the police (or anyone else) not to worry about that.

    It was one of Peel’s principles – that “the police are the public and that the public are the police”. The same rules apply. If the police can do it, so can the people. If the people have to do it, so do the police. A policeman is just another citizen doing a job, like a plumber or a bank cashier. If bank cashiers are more than usually liable to get guns pointed at them, that still doesn’t give them license to use deadly force purely on suspicion – even if that means they sometimes get shot as a result. The rules for the police should be just the same.

    Reasonable, minimal force in self-defence or defence of others, when there is actual evidence of a threat to life. Anything else lacks due process.

    Actually, the robots might be a good answer to this. If the cop sends the robot up to take a look at the driver’s ID, there’s no excuse for shooting anybody.

  40. JuliaM
    July 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Lawrence, the police don’t ‘shoot you five times for having a rear light out’ (though sometimes, I wish they did).

    They shoot you for resisting arrest or not complying immediately with their instructions.

    No Julia, they shoot you when one cop is screaming to not move and the other cop is screaming or you to put your hands up.

    They shoot you after driving up on you at high speed and within seconds of the cop jumping out the car.

    They shoot you because you were in a car wreck and the cop decided to walk towards your wreck with his gun out, yelling for you to exit the vehicle, and then he ‘stumbles’.

    They shoot you when patrolling in a place they were told not to patrol in and then get spooked and so fire a shot down a darkened stairwell without a target.

  41. JerryC
    July 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    The possibilty of getting ambushed/shot is ever present in their minds. How do you propose to get them to not worry about that, so that they can act more like nice cops in Suffolk or Guernsey?

    Change their training so that it emphasizes de-escalation rather than establish-dominance-at-all-costs. Stop telling them that every traffic stop could be a potential life-or-death situation, end the war on drugs and prostitution and other ‘vice crimes’.

    The cops in Dallas (most likely) did not deserve to be shot at or killed – but people don’t hate cops just because. . .

  42. BigFire
    July 9, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Castille was unclear on the concept of following police instruction during a traffic stop. Here’s a refresher:
    1. Hands in visible position.
    2. No sudden movement.
    3. Listen and comply with police instruction.

    The reason for the stop is kind of irrelevant. The police treats every traffic stop as it’s their last one. You should too.

    Fuck that. And police treating every stop as their last one? That’s laughable for one of the safest professions in the country. Its exactly that sort of attitude – both the jumpiness of the police and the willingness to be subservient to the state – that has gotten us to this point.

  43. I’m worried that the doom.mongeray be right and the robots might be coming to take all our jobs. When not even suicide bombers are guaranteed employment what hope is there for the rest of us?

  44. Julia M,

    Jason, that the Castile that has 43 convictions for various driving offences?

    Perhaps he spent a couple days in Feguson or its equivalent. Moving violations are a major income stream in far too many American communities. While this statement may be part of a larger picture, by itself it does nothing to show the character of the man.

    PF,

    In driving class(public high school) we were told the correct procedure is to remain in your vehicle with your hands visible. It might not be ideal but it is what the state wants.

  45. Mebbe the police guns need to be replaced with models that have cameras built in.
    If the camera shows you murdered someone you get the sudden drop. If the camera stops working and you still use the gun it’s still murder.

  46. JuliaM wrote,

    “Jason, that the Castile that has 43 convictions for various driving offences?”

    And yet he was still working in the education system (background checks, criminal record a problem) and apparently had a CCW which is also trivially derailed for any serious criminality. I’m struggling to see what he might have done that justifies being shot and killed, at least by UK standards.

    I personally don’t like the idea of living in a place where the State claims the right to kill me during a simple traffic stop without redress for my family or any detriment to my killer, because the safety of the servants of the State (while they extract revenue from me) is seen as all-important and “not following, precisely, the unwritten rules that vary state by state, region by region and officer by officer” is a capital offence.

    It’s worth a wander around forums like http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com to note that even among enthusiasts for firearm ownership and routine carriage (to the point that there have been arguments about which weapon is best for ‘shower carry’ – can’t risk being unarmed when the home intruders strike!) there’s a significant concern and uncertainty about how to not get shot during a police stop. Do you retrieve your ID after pulling over? Before or after turning on your interior light? Or is this “reaching for a weapon” that makes the officer suspicious, and you should instantly become a statue with hands on the wheel? But then how do you get your ID? Do you keep it behind your sun visor? But then is that seen as reaching for a weapon too? (cf. ‘roofline holsters’) Even the police officers contributing there can’t agree on a correct answer – but get it wrong and you’re dead.

    It’s a toxic mix of poorly-trained police, their departments using traffic stops as a revenue stream, widespread firearm ownership and a “better a thousand civilians accidentally shot than one police officer injured” attitude; a wicked problem that doesn’t have any easy way out. Forgive me for not wanting to follow the US down into that quagmire.

  47. Jason Lynch: top post.

    PF: In the UK, if you’re pulled over / stopped, you get out of the car (at least I always have done), as they do too, and approach the good chap in the least aggressive manner possible with a friendly and cooperative “How can I help”, so that they instantly know you’re a decent sort, and in what is otherwise probably a futile attempt to soften the effect if one was say a tad over the speed limit or whatever..:)

    I was once stopped by the good lads of the Met – well, not stopped exactly, I was already parked up to send a text message, but the patrol that spotted me thought I might be a burglar eyeing up the neighbourhood as they’d had a problem in that area recently.

    So yes, I did the “non-aggressive popping out, as instructed, trying to be all very polite and compliant” routine. But actually, despite the minimal threat level that I faced, I still found my brain went to mush during the whole experience. They asked questions I couldn’t answer (like “what’s the name of the road you are parked on?” … it was just some side-road or another I was parked on, off the main road, to send the text, but they looked very skeptical when I couldn’t get the name right … “how many years have you had your driving licence?” … couldn’t remember, under pressure, how old I was when I passed my test, and so on). If they had given me a bunch of simple instructions to perform, I’m not sure I’d have been able to carry them out.

    If those orders were split-second and potentially contradictory (the hands up/don’t move, or “get your licence”/”don’t reach for anything”), I’d have been screwed. If it had been a life-or-death consequent, my brain would have been even more muddled. Had the life-or-death decision been in the hands of someone nervous and jumpy, I’d have been even more screwed. Bearing in mind the judgment of the situation by Cop A may well not match the judgment of Cop B, so the wrong move kills you but you don’t know whether you’ve got Cop A or Cop B, that’s just a bloody terrifying prospect.

  48. By the joys of Sky Movies, I’m currently watching 1973’s idea of entertainment – Clint Eastwood reprising his Harry Callahan role in “Magnum Force”, going up against elements of his own police force who’ve decided that they should summarily execute Bad People (and who try to kill him when he dissents – of course they lose, badly)

    Harry Callahan was entertainingly enthusiastic about killing Bad People he caught in the act of doing Bad Things, but it’s interesting that even in the time of “Death Wish” et al the idea of the police appointing themselves executioners was seen as troubling. Indeed, in the movie Eastwood just asked whether it was right to execute someone for traffic violations… his tone suggested he disagreed, vehemently (and he’s now starting to massacre the police officers involved for their sins)

  49. But mostly it’s just disappointing that when the robot assassins finally emerged they came as Sgt Bash rather than Terminators.

  50. Here’s a question: If traffic stops are so dangerous, why do them?

    Busted rear light? Take a photo and email him a ticket, FFS, It ain’t rocket science.

    Oh, he might not pay? So you admit you’re deliberately risking people’s lives for a coupla hundred bucks then?

  51. Late to this one and I hate having to agree with Arnald, SJW and NiV but US cops are increasingly a gang of thuggy dog-shooting, out of control yobs. Who victimise white people more than blacks because there are more white people than black over there.

    Now BLM are CM scum race-baiters and this bloke is likely just a leftist terror-freak BUT it could just as easily be someone whose family had been fucked over by the costumes. The whole “cops-as-heros/”sheepdogs (FFS)” is as scummy a narrative as any the left have produced.

    These 5 coppers might be personally blameless in any wrongdoing. But it would not be hard to find 5 (and a lot more than 5) US coppers for whom what happened would not be an injustice by reason of the evil they have done. As often in this life trouble falls on those who may not be guilty while skipping the deserving.

  52. If you want to talk about risk of violence when performing your job have a chat with dome nurses, you don’t see them carrying teasers and guns though.
    Saw a story today where a policeman beat someone repeatedly with a baton over an unpaid transit ticket, the policeman was charged with assault and pleaded guilty, result was 12 months probation, but he’s still employed by police force and being paid working in an admin capacity.

  53. “Who victimise white people more than blacks because there are more white people than black over there.”

    Eh?

  54. Ecks

    Race remains the most volatile flash point in any accounting of police shootings. Although black men make up only 6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 40 percent of the unarmed men shot to death by police this year, The Post’s database shows. In the majority of cases in which police shot and killed a person who had attacked someone with a weapon or brandished a gun, the person who was shot was white. But a hugely disproportionate number — 3 in 5 — of those killed after exhibiting less threatening behavior were black or Hispanic.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2015/12/26/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

  55. Jason Lynch: “And yet he was still working in the education system (background checks, criminal record a problem) and apparently had a CCW which is also trivially derailed for any serious criminality.”

    Think that says a lot more about the educational system than about anything else!

    “I’m struggling to see what he might have done that justifies being shot and killed, at least by UK standards.”

    Tell the cop you have a weapon then reach for something out of the cop’s sight?

  56. LibYank: “Moving violations are a major income stream in far too many American communities.”

    An income stream that can be cut off my people deciding to follow the road traffic laws?

    Curses! Foiled again! *shakes angry fist at sky*

  57. Agamammon: “If expense is a problem, let’s get rid of the drug war and free up those cops and prisons and lawyers to handle real crime.”

    Everyone now able to legally take mind-altering substances? Yes, why didn’t I think of that?

    It’s the logical course of action..

  58. “Everyone now able to legally take mind-altering substances? Yes, why didn’t I think of that?”

    Because you’ve not read JS Mill’s ‘On Liberty’?

    The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

    It’s the same as with cigarettes and alcohol. Prohibition doesn’t work, because too many people disagree that the prohibition is a legitimate matter for the law. That creates a mainstream market for illegal products/services that the legitimate market cannot compete in. Prices rise sky high, because of the limited supply and risks of dodging enforcement. The vast profits to be made attract (and fund the expansion of) organised crime, and you get criminal gangs fighting gun battles on the streets. Like Al Capone.

    There’s no money in crime, except when the government decides to ban something lots of people think shouldn’t be banned. Most of the violence in the USA is because of government policies that themselves do far more harm than they ever prevent.

  59. Ecks

    Well, yes, I understand that when there is more of something then it’s likely more of a something will happen to it.

    But it’s not good stats is it, considering – “But a hugely disproportionate number — 3 in 5 — of those killed after exhibiting less threatening behavior were black or Hispanic.”

  60. That is the WAPO’s leftist cant. Blacks do 50% of all murders in the US . As little regard as I have for coppers it makes sense that they would be even more trigger happy with a group they see–correctly by the mathematics–as being in general more violent and dangerous.

  61. Bit more complicated than that, and off topic as we’re talking cops killing people.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

    Anyway, the point of discussion is that surely people should not be afraid of getting shot by the police for having a rear light out. Or whether the cops should use a drone to dispense ‘justice’.

  62. “Anyway, the point of discussion is that surely people should not be afraid of getting shot by the police for having a rear light out. Or whether the cops should use a drone to dispense ‘justice’”

    On those points–sickeningly–we are in full agreement.

  63. It shouldn’t matter, but video of the scene shows that Castile’s rear lights were working. Apparently he was stopped for driving while black.

    On second thoughts, it really doesn’t matter. Julia would be in favour of shooting him for that too.

  64. re: Social Justice Warrior
    Newer information. The car was stopped because Castile matches description for Be On the LookOut for an armed robbery from previous night. And he didn’t have license for the gun.

    That explains why the car was stopped. Why he got shot is he reached for his gun, (sudden movement).

  65. “The car was stopped because Castile matches description for Be On the LookOut for an armed robbery from previous night. And he didn’t have license for the gun.”

    I was so impressed that I googled that, and found a report of a police recording “The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery” Since the robbers (four days previously) were both male, that seems to amount to little more than “let’s stop any car with two black people in it”.

    Nutjob websites aside, all the reports say that Castile did have a licence for his gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *