While I don’t know all the circumstances of the case, I do know police in other countries manage to capture people like this without resorting to using IEDs.

Police in the states already get away with all kinds of corruption, abuse of power, violence/killings, so I think we should do as much as possible to avoid normalizing these kinds of tactics. The only comparable case that comes to mind is when police bombed an apartment block of radicals in Philadelphia:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/osage-avenue...

I was going to bring that up. Totally agree - further normalizing the use of violence by the police should be avoided.

While not a sniper, this is the police in the UK apprehending a suspect with a machete. I've never heard of similar tactics being used in the US. And conversations with police have led me to believe they would actively avoid such tactics and instead resort to violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY

I don’t think US police would address the situation much differently if they had the same advantage in numbers.

You can actually watch dashcam/bodycam footage of police shootings. In situations where the suspect is armed with a bladed weapon, there’s usually an attempt to call for backup and subdue them with less lethal means. It’s just that there’s more often 1-2 officers instead of a dozen onscene.

Also note that, in the clip you shared, at no point does the machete-wielding suspect break into a full-on sprint towards any of the officers. In the police shootings I’ve seen, that moment is the one when police open fire, and rightly so: human reaction time is such that a knife equals or beats a gun within 21 feet or so. This is why you see the British cops backpedaling whenever machete man turns to face them—American cops have done the same in the footage I’ve seen. Also consider what would have happened if machete man here actually made an honest attempt to start killing officers. He would have been successful.

And it’s not like British police don’t use lethal force when it’s called for. Just look at what happened to the terrorist on London Bridge.

While minimizing the use of violence is an indisputably good thing, there’s a big gap between the UK machete case and the US sniper case. There are certainly lessons the US police could learn from the machete incident, but I don’t see how they apply to this sniper incident.

The sniper was a trained soldier that was an imminent threat to the police officers—he had already killed several and given his training, motive, and the premeditation of the crime, it was entirely likely that he would have killed additional officers who attempted to arrest him (by way of booby traps or similar).

After the Dallas shooter had already killed several police, and was holding in a position where approaching him would be extremely risky, I don't see why they should bother considering his life.

This has nothing to do with routine police use of force, where you could argue that some police should sometimes take some more risks in balance with the public good.

It probably isn't very common where police need to capture a holed up military-trained sniper who has already taken out 5 police officers. Do you have any examples of other countries capturing people like that without any more casualties?

I can't argue that killing him was a bad idea. He had the high ground and had killed and wounded several police officers. A pound of C-4 in a public place is pretty risky though. He was in a brick alcove on the second floor of El Centro Community College. They detonated the c4 on the other side of the brick wall.

Whilst any explosive in public can be a potentially unsafe compound, C4 is probably one of the better choices.

+ It is really difficult to detonate accidentally. (Even when it burns it may not detonate.)

+ It can be shaped, so that the charge only moves in the intended direction. (So the first floor isn't at immediate risk.)