They instigated him into revealing his position with robots and then gassed him. I guess that’s effective, but I assume it could have been done without the robots too.
I guess that’s effective, but I assume it could have been done without the robots too.
The guy inside was shooting at officers outside and shot at multiple robots inside. Multiple strikes to one that finally made it fail. Zero humans (assailant or officers) were injured in all of this because of the use of robots.
I’m interested in hearing what other non-robot method are you suggesting that would have had the same result with equal safety to humans?
Gas him first instead of instigating him to shoot at shit?
Where is he in the house to gas him? Does he have any hostages with him he is threatening? Would those same hostages be harmed by the gas (medically frail or children)? Is he even still alive or did he shoot himself at some point and is already dead?
Those are just a few problems I can think of quickly with starting with gassing him without knowing everything they did because robots were in there.
Well the other option would be to gas the entire home, so no it would actually prevent them by limiting where they use them.
Also, can you provide the statistics on house fires started by tear gas? It sounds like it’s possible, but it also sounds like you’re being an alarmist since it can be possible, but has probably only also happened once in its history. Which wouldn’t be an issue to bring forward in most other situations……
I’d say it’s an inherent risk with most less lethal grenades. They’re ideally used out of line of sight and many have a minor incindiary element. So if they land say next to curtains they can start a fire. Like the one that occurred in the Iranian Embassy Siege after the SAS threw in a flash bang.
There’s risk mitigation that can take place but accidents will always happen to some degree.
They instigated him into revealing his position with robots and then gassed him. I guess that’s effective, but I assume it could have been done without the robots too.
The guy inside was shooting at officers outside and shot at multiple robots inside. Multiple strikes to one that finally made it fail. Zero humans (assailant or officers) were injured in all of this because of the use of robots.
I’m interested in hearing what other non-robot method are you suggesting that would have had the same result with equal safety to humans?
deleted by creator
Are you really serious? Think about what you just wrote.
That’s your first clue.
By no police officers being harmed. I’d say it helped quite well.
I’m not sure why you’re siding with a dude who is willing to shoot at people, cops or not.
deleted by creator
Where is he in the house to gas him? Does he have any hostages with him he is threatening? Would those same hostages be harmed by the gas (medically frail or children)? Is he even still alive or did he shoot himself at some point and is already dead?
Those are just a few problems I can think of quickly with starting with gassing him without knowing everything they did because robots were in there.
What else are they going to spend that money on? Crap like deescalation training and non-lethal equipment?
The robots are already non-lethal equipment though
But robots are cool and they need to spend their money on cool new toys for the boysssssssssss omg have some compassion maaahn duude.
If this becomes a common method, there’s going to be a lot more police instigated house fires. Tear gas cannisters are basically a smoldering ember
Well the other option would be to gas the entire home, so no it would actually prevent them by limiting where they use them.
Also, can you provide the statistics on house fires started by tear gas? It sounds like it’s possible, but it also sounds like you’re being an alarmist since it can be possible, but has probably only also happened once in its history. Which wouldn’t be an issue to bring forward in most other situations……
Here are the top few results for “teargas canister home fire”:
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/city-terrace-standoff-swat-police/2081824/?amp=1
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/10th-circuit-says-denver-officers-cannot-be-held-liable-for-burning-home/article_c622c588-e08e-11ee-a415-6b65abbd130c.html
https://www.khq.com/news/fire-report-shows-tear-gas-the-cause-of-house-fire/article_327f622f-57aa-5055-9302-17183b49c8e2.html
https://sourcenm.com/2022/08/05/tear-gas-grenade-thrown-by-bernalillo-county-deputy-caused-deadly-house-fire-investigators-say/
https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/apd-investigating-whether-tear-gas-canister-started-housefire-after-teen-found-dead/amp/
Interesting, that was more than my preliminary results pulled up, although 2 of yours specify the wrong grenades were used.
So sounds more like a training and personal issues over equipment issue if using the right equipment limits it?
I’d say it’s an inherent risk with most less lethal grenades. They’re ideally used out of line of sight and many have a minor incindiary element. So if they land say next to curtains they can start a fire. Like the one that occurred in the Iranian Embassy Siege after the SAS threw in a flash bang.
There’s risk mitigation that can take place but accidents will always happen to some degree.