Where Does Police Militarization Stop?

As you probably know by now, the Dallas cops used a robot carrying a bomb to kill an armed suspect.

I find this to be objectionable on a number of different levels.

First off, by the accounts that I've read, the suspect was contained. He wasn't going anywhere. Using a bomb-laden robot to end the standoff was lazy-ass police work, in the same way that the FBI burned 76 people to death in Waco in 1993. The Dallas police chief ordered a summary execution.

Second, where does it stop? If the suspect was barricaded and inaccessible to the robot, would the cops have evacuated the building and blown it up? Are artillery strikes now on the table? Nerve gas? is this how the po-po are going to handle standoffs in the future-- call in an airstrike? (Don't forget that they have done that before and it didn't work so well.) If a suspect is fleeing, will the cops rustle up a gunship and hose down the vehicle?

Third, you're going to find few "conservative" voices who are questioning any of this, other than maybe these two posts. Similarly, the number of "conservatives" who were disquieted by the MOVE bombing were similarly low. By no means is "conservative" disquiet anything like those expressed when an FBI sniper opened fire at Ruby Ridge.

And before you say that Waco and Ruby Ridge were different, allow me to point out that both incidents got rolling when Federal LEOs were killed.

So now we are in a place where a police chief can sit in his office and press a button to summarily execute a suspect, for personally pushing the button and ordering that the button be pushed makes no moral difference.

If you believe that the cops have the right to summarily execute people, then you should question your belief in freedom, liberty and the rule of law.