suicidaly Moral

It's inevitable that some people's first reaction to someone running amok with deadly weapons was that the police erred in using an explosive device to "neutralize" him during a long deadly firefight, from which he had been given the option to surrender.  After all, his civil rights were violated in several ways and nothing one does can ever waive such rights -- right?

No, I guess the cops should have just dragged it out, allowing him time to escape and an opportunity to kill one more victim. It's the moral way, right?

But worst of all in the pacifist mind, of course was the D word:  drone. The word obviously no longer means a male bee or a moving target used for gunnery practice and as with many words that are emotional surrogates for misunderstood things and deeds, it's a drone in and of itself.  It replaces something in order to keep it from harm. But of course just as in much of the rhetoric concerning weapons, the words themselves are rhetorical weapons. A remotely operated device is not an autonomous device without a human operator. It's not really a drone, just as the weapon used in Dallas wasn't an Assault rifle according to US Army definitions. These altered terms are devices used to protect an argument from scrutiny. Drone words.

Someone is driving this device, someone is watching and probably getting advice from superiors.  Someone is pulling the trigger. Someone is there with a microphone to say "come out with your hands up or you will be shot."
Stop calling it a drone.  It's only a cop in a suit of armor.

 Of course when neurotic pacifists describe any violent act, no matter how unavoidable, they'll say it was avoidable.  We could have arrested Hitler, for instance, we could have arrested  Osama bin Laden by sending in the police to read him his rights and using a search warrant.  Don't laugh, I've been handed that argument, smug condescension, neurotic delusion and all.

Is it that people who argue that this is wrong also hate the Dallas Police because they are police and mostly white and not because they did anything wrong?  Or is it an Americanized version of Ahimsa, the practice of self sacrifice to avoid the death of anything, including bacteria?

Sorry, again. Sending a man or woman  to die or to expose him to deadly circumstances to avoid harming an active murderer, rather than having him or her use a remotely operated device, whether  flying or walking, is not a moral act and if you think so you're wrong.