If the guy said he had the parking garage rigged to explode, I suppose that is an immediate threat. They had to neutralize him so 1) he couldn't detonate it, 2) they could sweep the garage for bombs.
If a sniper can't see him, and you can't move officers in to take him out a point blank range, and there's a threat to the public if blows the parking garage up - what options remain?
Not an easy call - and I believe those police officers did not make that decision in haste.

I wonder why the police didn't take the tried and true method of simply waiting him out? He had no hostages and no escape route. Was it entirely necessary to blow him to kingdom come?

From what I've been reading on the Web...some are already suggesting that they would not have blown up a white guy. This could really backfire.

Well, technology marches on... Does anyone remember the name "Alex Murphy?" (Robocop). The biggest leap of logic (in my mind) in this movie was the necessity to implant a human brain inside the robot, as machine intelligence "was not quite there yet" (as the demo in the OCP board room demonstrated, "Lay down your weapon, you have 20 seconds to comply! You now have 10 seconds to comply..." (so the assistant lays down the weapon, but the robot didn't notice...) " you now have 5 seconds to comply..." Oops, technical glitch! I thought robot "tele-presence" (virtual reality remote operation) would be a lower-tech and easier to implement approach, but of course it wouldn't have made as dramatic of a movie. Oh well. In the future, a "Second Amendment" approach to fighting tyranny will be a lot harder when the government shock troops do not bleed...

A flash grenade or something similar would have required a cop to get within the area to deploy it.
Further, this guy said he had bombs rigged up around the parking garage - so, a cop couldn't get near him to deploy such measures.
They probably couldn't rig the robot to deliver it at that time.
I agree with your concern, but, the time table and situation dictated the response.
Next time, they'll probably have robots capable of delivering flash grenades.
Regardless, it is very difficult for us to play Monday morning quarterback.

Military snipers rarely do, however it has been done to sometimes discourage young children from participating in activities that could get them harmed, police often do when it is a viable option. I have seen them shoot a gun from a man's hand when he was alone, if he were holding a hostage it could easily change the dynamics and the decision. If you don't understand debilitating; to impair the strength of, enfeeble, weaken

Snipers don't do "debilitating shots," whatever the hell that means.

That horse has been out of the barn ever since Al Alawki bit the dust.

The drones and police "robots" aren't self actualizing. They're controlled by a human. So, no. They're not violating Asimov's first law.

You should join the police force and implement some of your ideas in the field.

As people who value firearms have said for decades, its just a tool. It's the person responsible who wields it that must be blamed (or rewarded.)

We tried to warn the people that Ruby Ridge was an important event. Few have listened, fewer have acted.

Just being in the same cabin with Clinton and Lynch was probably enough to put him over the edge. Al this is fiction on my part, “Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

Mike M's tax dollars at work. Drive Friendly.

The Dallas police violated Asimov's First Law of Robotics. Of course, the Feds have been doing this via drones for quite some time now. For the record, $5Au takes no position on this, but merely points it out.

...does that conspiracy involve taking the focus off the Clinton-Lynch-Obama-Hillary news cycle? :^)

Shooting him in the head by a police sniper or blowing him up while he's hiding behind a column - what's the difference?

This sets a precedent for ground-based drone killings of Americans--virtually martial law in our streets. The Orwellian nightmare is upon us.

I agree. The right to self-defense is inviolate, an individual right, and that includes a policeman or group of policemen in harms way.. If this guy came to my house, armed and ready to kill "white families" in general, and I blew him away to protect myself and them, I don't think anyone would be saying that I as a private citizen (or even if I were an off-duty cop) violated his "due process". Yes, the police are an arm of the government, and should be held to a higher standard, but not a "suicide pact" standard. In a shootout self-defense in any form is the only moral response. Also, according to reports this man was trained and highly mobile. Although seemingly trapped, what if he had gotten away to kill further? IF the police had gunned down the protester who immediately turned over his legally carried rifle to a policeman, THAT would be an unacceptable overreaction.

I have yet to meet a reporter that understands such things. It's the difference between wanting to inform and wanting to influence. Same as the difference between a journalist and a propagandist.

And I'd love to be the one to pin the medal on him.

Ignoring any rights of the alleged shooter, I keep thinking it's better intelligence to be able to talk to the perp. I keep thinking about Lee Harvey Oswald when police kill the perp preventing any interrogation. I realize sometimes it could be suicide by cop, too.