That is a very fine line you are walking there. As you are a LEO and must actually make decisions like that I plead with you to be very careful. We had a local LEO here in VA fall on the wrong side of that line and end up being sentenced to three years in jail.texanjoker wrote:
Amazing. Rule of the law? What rule is that? Based on the fact he was a wanted murder suspect, the days events to include not surrendering during this incident, engaged in a rolling gun fight with officers, then killed another officer, shot another, threw at least one smoke grenade at the officers, deadly force was clearly authorized by law. In CA you may used deadly force to protect your life, or the life of another. In addition you may use deadly force to prevent a dangerous felon from fleeing. There is case law to back that up. By all accounts all 3 of those elements have been met, and they only needed one to be legal. The law doesn't state how you use deadly force, only that you may when elements are met. If the PD smoke or tear gas devices, set the fire so be it. I personally don't have a problem if they intentionally set it either. That would have been a good tactic to get him out of the house because the smoke/gas was not working vs attempting entry against a heavily armed combat veteran that had already used a smoke device against the police. . Given the fact it was going to get dark soon, tactically speaking they needed this over before that point as this guy knew basic police tactics and was a combat veteran. Even when the fire started, he could have surrendered, but didn't. It sounds like he probably shot himself at that point as one shot was heard. He may have been wounded as well during the 20 plus minute gun fight. IMO there is no black mark over the fire and this was a successful outcome because no further LEO's were shot or killed, there are no reports of any civilians being harmed and the suspect is in custody. Yes being dead counts as in custody. Houses can be rebuilt. The DA's office ( different process in CA) will review the use of force. I cannot see this not being ruled a justifiable homicide (CA terms).
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This dude was a bad man, no doubt, but I am not sure anyone deserves to burn to death. You may disagree, but that is a particularly brutal death. If it happened as you say, and they were pulling down walls and it was "incidental if not accidental" then that is one thing. He made his own bed, in my opinion, in that case. If they lit the cabin on fire, then while it may be legal, it sure does look bad. It may be within the law, but to the average citizen (who is used to people shooting at the police being shot in return) it looks nefarious. Sometimes what something looks like is important too, especially when it is a high profile case.
As a side note, I do not think that it was likely that even if he came out with his hands up that he would have been taken alive. Especially if it was the LA swat team there (which is still unknown to me at this point). I think the LAPD would have executed him even if he had given himself up. How do I know that, look at what they did to the two people delivering mail and the poor fellow in the other truck. Perhaps the San Bernadino cops are better than the LAPD, I sure hope so, could not be any worse.
?