Though admittedly I have only had a chance to catch only the vaguest details about these tragic facts, I have a couple questions:
If you can send a robot with a bomb, then it follows you can send one (or more?) with …anything else? like something to knock out a person for a good while?
There ought to be very good reasons to decide to kill a man rather than resort to lesser force. What were they in this instance?
Assuming the man had survived and then sentenced to death. Didn’t he still have a right to a fair trial, instead of a summary execution?
By the same token, when terrorist attack are carried out the US, people should be used to it - there’s been terrorist attacks every day, all over the world, like say Afghanistan, Iraq, for decades?
It’s a very specialized, I imagine very, very expensive, bomb disposal robot that has only been employed by the military thus far.
Also, how exactly what criminals do and don’t has become relevant to shaping the approaches used by a police force?
Do we agree with Mr Trump that waterboarding is OK because they cut heads, too?