Is that legal? I don't have any sympathy for the guy, but Ive never heard of police doing this. It's certainly a creative way of resolving the conflict.
Not having been in the situation means I'm armchair quarterbacking the situation, but I hope there is a least some legal guidelines one when this is okay coming out of this.
You can't just "wait him out" and hope he won't escape.
If this goes in front of a judge it will be ruled that he was an imminent threat. There's really 0 question about that.
I say this as someone who feels strongly that lethal force is used far too often, and that there is a massive racial disparity in that use of force.
Active: producing or involving movement; being in physical motion.
These terms only refer to the present and future, not the past. They do not apply to the cornered suspect.
He (or he + accomplices) already killed 5 people, and injured what, 7 more? And he was still armed. I'm not sure how you could argue that (a) he definitely wouldn't have killed more, and (b) the officers on location should have been certain enough about that fact to make it worth risking more lives.
http://recoverymodel.com/id14.html
> An imminent danger is an anticipated danger that is likely to happen, is impending, and is separated by space or time. This impending danger could be one hour, one day, or an unknown time away but is still imminent.
https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/danger.html
[Imminent Danger is defined here, but Imminent is used in a similar context to Imminent Threat] > any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures
http://thelawdictionary.org/imminent-danger/
> In relation to homicide in self-defense, this term means immediate danger, such as must be Instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against It calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.
The shooter had a firearm, had used it, and had communicated an intent to use it again in the near-future. If any police officer had walked into the shooters line of fire it would be reasonable to assume that they would be shot. Thus, it is a _textbook_ definition of imminent threat.
I know that the legal context often uses English words in manners that are very similar to English, but do not share the precise definition. Right now, you are mistakenly using the English definitions in a legal context. You need to use the legal definition. And if you put this in front of a judge they will tell you that this is a clear-cut example of an imminent threat.
Honestly I'm glad the guy is dead, and it's easy to let emotions of this influence opinions. But I'm scared for the precedent this sets. In the future, when a suspect is cornered and would normally try to be talked down by police, they'll just send in a bomb robot and blow him up. Maybe he won't even be armed, but the police don't know that. So he's an "imminent threat" and can legally be executed.
If they had time to rig up an IED to the robot, and drive the sucker in there, use the camera to make sure he didn't have any hostages (they did that right?), and THEN detonate the bomb, it doesn't sound like the threat was all that imminent.
The FBI definition is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area".
He was cornered in a parking garage, not active.
IEDs: rather less so.
This is the Dallas police department, they have equipment capable of dealing with this situation -- to include armored cars and ballistic shields.
I hope the legal process is explored in this case.
Either way, I can't think of any scenario where I'm comfortable with police having bombs.