The question is...was it even legal to use a bomb against a civilian? If so, why weren't they tossing hand grenades, or something similar?

So, now it's "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a bomb"? I'm having a hard time with this one.

Agreed, the gas may not be practical. That is just the first thing that came to mind.

As you pointed out, there are other types of non-lethal projectiles that can be effective. Tranquilizer Darts? (Maybe I've seen too many movies)

Good points, Eric.

Aiming ability means the tech can decide what to shoot at so a kill shot is not required initially (albeit tempting given the examples on tv and in movies.)
Your suggestion of gas may or may not be practical but non lethal projectiles could be an option, too, if the robot can get in range.

"a canister of sleeping gas"
I completely agree with you if there were sleeping gas that could be deployed reliably in a real-word stand-off situation. My understanding is there isn't. If the dosage is large enough to take effect before the target can avoid the gas, it risks killing him and anyone nearby. If the technology exists, though, we should use it.

I understand that the person "confessed", or the public was told "he confessed". However, we've been told many things by many different layers of authority, that seem to have been true at the time, then found to be false later.

Do we automatically believe the information we are told buy those who have sworn to uphold the law of the land? I can think of 535 reasons, not to.

The word of an authority figure is not the measure of guilt or innocence.

Objective evidence is.

An armored drone with a canister of sleeping gas would be acceptable. Then a trial by jury, to find the person guilty.

When an officer shoots a suspect, it is because there is an imminent threat to their life.

A standoff does not meet imminent threat, nor does a drone fear for it's life. The objective at this point is to capture the suspect, without further incident.

Just because he admitted to the crime doesn't necessarily mean he was actually the shooter, although current evidence strongly suggests he was. He was cornered and they knew where he was. Use tear gas, continue with negotiation, try to set a sniper up where he could take a debilitating shot. Besides giving him due process there are questions that need to be asked i.e.; why? how? objective? these questions often lead to the ability to predict or prevent a future attack. For the police to decide so quickly to bomb him and eliminate him makes the police suspect.

No, its another conspiracy. They used C4 to make certain that there was no evidence to collect on the perpetrator who was mind controlled using drugs administered by Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in the airplane in Phoenix.
;^)

Hmmpf! Sounds expensive. According to reports the device consisted of military grade C4 explosive and the resulting blast vaporized the suspect. It is likely that the robot was heavily damaged as well. Just the cost of doing business?

"...get the shaft from the gov't..." We all do :-)
Well, we'll assume there's insurance, but, I suppose the deceased should, but we know that's a non-starter. Hard to say the city should, because "we" are the city - the price of police protection. Of course, we could assume there was little structural damage another than buddies last remains spread thin over the area.
But, take your position, private security, what happens if the guy still slips through, does the same thing, and the private security team takes him out the same way-the same question arises, who makes the prop owner whole then? Not sure how to reconcile that.

Who pays for the repairs caused by police violent action? (I can't agree or disagree with the action without more info. It could have been the best of limited options in the interest of stopping the perp.)
Does the property owner gets the shaft from the government agency's act of force?
One reason might be lack of security on the building that allowed the perp access. The "greater good" is not a good enough excuse to damage property without reimbursement, imo.
In a free market environment, wouldn't the hired police be liable for property damages?
(I realize this is not your original point;^)

Property can be repaired.
I suppose we also have to define "bomb". A stick of dynamite or a handful of cherry bombs.
I would agree, a stick of dynamite would be overkill.

Well, a bomb does cause property damages to an innocent owner. Bullet, less damages.

was this another put up job as I believe the ones of the past were to further the agenda of the "lets get your gun administration?
what if all of the radicalized blacks and whites were sent to see how things are in mexico or Africa or Russia or a multitude of other countries. places where you really have no chance to develop and possibly succeed. it is tough but still very possible to succeed in the usa.
the problem in place such as the middle east is that the people who when young aren't job bound so all the male population has nothing better to do than create havoc. why should that be different in the usa. in the middle east as well as the usa the root cause of the problem is government. here we through our taxes give to the young healthy people government assistance just for being alive, it does not matter if you were born here or not. IF the greater part of the black population were not involved in criminal activities they would not be viewed with suspicion by the police. IF they had jobs they wouldn't be looking at what do I do to occupy my time. Keep in mind there is a significant growing population of youth who happen to be white that have joined them, why because they too do not have jobs.
The reason 0 keeps talking about taking our guns is because what ever mind he has it has but one track. HE is also a muslim and as is obvious he thinks like a muslim and they as we know have no problem killing each other, get the point!

I have more often than I care to remember have mentioned on this forum that I expected the demise of the usa to occur in less than the 40 years Leonard Peikoff suggested at the end of his book DIM HYPOTHOSIS which I recommend. I wrote to him that I expected the time taken would be 20 years. His response was he did not think things would go so bad so quickly. 20 years from now you will not recognize the country. 0 said he wanted to "fundamentally change the country". well he has in his eyes been very successful.
buy a boat learn to sail since the air is free and once you leave the dock you have no need of money.

And there are also low tech Molotov cocktails.
Maybe I should start saving empty wine bottles.

Hell, after the first officer fell I would have used a rocket launcher if I had one. The guy turned out to be able to use military sniper tactics, making him a formidable enemy. There was no way to easily take him out with gunfire without risking more lives. Whoever decided to bomb the bastard deserves a medal.

Dead is dead, does it matter if it were a bullet or bomb. This guy was not going surrender. He was told, surrender or die. It had plenty of time to consider it. Would you rather more cops die in an attempt to apprehend him a live? Only for Texas to give him a death sentence and 15 years to fulfill it. Was their any doubt of his guilt? He confessed. Being pissed off and black is not an excuse. Where was the due process for the murdered police officers?

Would an armored drone robot with a camera that gave a manuvering technician the ability to aim and fire a .357 revolver at the perpetrator be acceptable?

Red Dawn scenario. We are the wolverines...

Governments want total control. Today they control our money, transportation, communication, food production, and medical care. Guns are the last line of defense the citizens have when the government goes nuts.

DIY weapons and bombs are OUR defense against a powerful and oppressive government. Now we need to develop effective robot counter measures like submarines have to deflect incoming torpedoes. Maybe robot-seeking devices which neutralize the police robots.

This is immaterial to the government which opposes guns. They just want the citizens disarmed for the protection of a government that has gone too far.