On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Paul Bolger <pbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wondered whether this was something they had prepared for this sort > of situation, or something they cobbled together. > It was the same setup they use for detonating suspected explosive packages/etc. > I'm not sure though that this approach is justifiable. If the operator > of the robot/remote unit is not under any danger from the offender are > they still under the legal protection of 'killing to save themselves'. > I suspect not. > He had already killed 4 (now 5) police officers, had continuing to take pot shots at them every time they attempted to communicate, and had claimed that multiple buildings are wired with explosives that he has the ability to detonate. The first two of those points do not make it a case of "killing to save themselves" as you call it. The third does. In fact the press here in the US and numerous 'experts' (for some definition or another) have repeated stated that if he had not made the claim regarding explosives he would almost certainly have survived. Scott _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
