Don’t second-guess the Dallas Police Department’s use of a robot to kill a gunman

To the editor: The Dallas police used a robot to kill a gunman, and questions are now raised about the ethics involved. We should examine the specifics. (“Dallas police used a robot to kill a gunman, a new tactic that raises ethical questions,” July 8)

The gunman was bent on assassinating police officers, according to his conversations with negotiators. He then terminated his conversation by renewing his gunfire, leaving the police with three options: waiting, moving in or using the robot.

The shooter showed no inclination toward ending his spree without bloodshed, and having police move in would have been too dangerous, so the robot was chosen. Seems a smart choice given the circumstances.

Over time, police use of robots may come under scrutiny, and departments may use them poorly. But in Dallas on Thursday, it was the best choice to end the nightmarish situation there. I’m sure the people of Dallas were relieved to learn of it.

Jack Fenn, Montecito Heights

..

To the editor: It is somewhat puzzling when we question the ethics of police tactics using technology.

In the United States, we allow ordinary citizens access to assault rifles. Is this ethical? If lawmakers cannot agree on restricting these kinds of weapons, what recourse do police have in confronting criminals armed with them?

I detest the use of robots and drones by authorities, but what really are the alternatives?

We seem to be headed toward a society that encourages wanton disregard for civility and condones violence. It is true that people kill people, but it is a heck of a lot easier for them if they can outgun the police.

Richard Thompson, Moreno Valley

..

To the editor: The tragedy in Dallas sure shoots holes in the argument by the National Rifle Assn. that the only way to stop mass shootings is to allow some of the potential victims to carry weapons. In Dallas, all of the targets were armed and trained, and it took a robot to bring down the perpetrator.

The bottom line is that we need new regulations that deal with unstable and violent individuals and with our easy access to military-style weapons.

Few Americans have any interest in taking away our 2nd Amendment rights to own reasonable weapons to protect ourselves, for hunting or for target practice. The “slippery slope” argument against any kind of gun control is utterly absurd.

Jordan Austin, Port Hueneme

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook