I'm curious if the police had to quickly improvise to attach the bomb to the robot and rig up a way to detonate it remotely, or if they already had all that figured out in advance with the parts and equipment, having planned in advance for the possible need to kill someone this way.
It's probably the first time in the US that a bomb was used by law enforcement to kill someone. If this will become a common way to kill suspects, then it's not a good legal precedent.
My concern should not be construed as defending the party that did these shootings and killed & wounded so many police. I of course don't condone that at all. Quite the opposite.
When the BLM assassins try to kill the cops, I don't care how the cops protect themselves.
By that standard, we no longer operate by the rule of law, but rather, the rule of war. In which case, they stop being cops, and start being soldiers.
I'm not so concerned about the fate of the shooter. I am concerned about the fate of everyone else. Precedents always spread & expand into areas we wouldn't have expected. I.e. who would have thought that equal rights for transgenders would have resulted in the president of the United States telling schools they have to let everyone use the bathroom of their choice?
Using deadly bombs to end any and every standoff with police is not the way to go. In the Dallas case, why not tear gas? Snipers could have been stationed around as needed. Give a warning to disarm, dispense tear gas, and if he comes out with his hands up, then fine, shoot him. I can certainly understand the emotional sentiments of the police wanting to kill the guy, but that doesn't make it appropriate police work if they have other options (which, granted, they say they didn't really have).