There was a decent amount of conversation about it at the time[1]. Looking back, the decision to kill a man (even a violent one with a gun) remotely, using a robot, is stunning. Particularly in light of the fact that the gunman wasn't targeting members of the public; instead, the police seem to have concluded that the most expedient way to handle him was to explode him.
Americans don't understand that their police forces are gangs. Yes, they have to follow the law and protocol. But the immediate second code they follow is brotherhood. When multiple officers are hurt or killed in action, they escalate the violence to the maximum extent possible, law be damned, as the AG and media is on their side and moves the spotlight away. Thankfully they usually consider public safety when they crack open the can of whoopass.
I think BLM demonstrates many do in fact realize this. I would blame qualified immunity and civil asset seizure and hence our courts, before anyone else. If you give impunity to any group they’ll turn into thugs.
Haven’t we been killing people with drones for quite some time?
The robot in question wasn’t autonomous. That’s where a line should be drawn IMO. But basically an RC car with a bomb on it doesn’t seem like a rubicon of any sort.
We've been doing it in other countries for quite some time. But the domestic, civil setting of the 2016 bombing was somewhat unique: the police do not have the procedures, rules of engagement, etc. that the military is supposed to have.
Is the 2016 bombing unique in a moral sense? I don't think so. But I do think it sets a concerning precedent in domestic law enforcement: if you're sufficiently difficult for the police to retrieve, they can simply blow you up instead of waiting to capture you.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dallas-poli...