mamabearCali wrote:texanjoker wrote:
Once again this shows people are not paying attention and just buying what the media is saying. They then jump on the typical anti LE bandwagon before any facts are even out. Every outlet I saw during the incident said he tried to escape out the back, and found LE had the perimeter set up. There was another gun battle and he went back into the house. No where did I see a news article saying they "Pushed" him into a burning house.
Mark Furhman said it best, why not give the LE's there a break
?
They lost one during the incident, and another is critical. The one that died per a media report was married and his wife just had a baby.
I am not anti-Leo because I think burning people to death that are hard to catch is inappropriate and unacceptable. I have many LEO friends and I fully support rule of law. If they burned him to death purposefully, that is not rule of law.
I think they should have brought this guy out and put him on trial if at all possible and shamed him, now he is a martyr.....great.......and the confusion over how the fire got started will give the PD another black mark. That is not what LEO's around this nation need. They need to be seen as professionals that do a dangerous job with honor and respect. They do not need to be seen as vigilantes bent on revenge (even understandable revenge). We need rule of law, and if the LAPD precipitated the fire then I find that damaging to the trust that LEO's need nationwide to do their jobs in peace.
If it comes out that this idiot set the fire, well, that is a horse of a whole different color. But right now the reports I am reading say that the PD set off incendiaries. I hope that is not true.
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).
In listening to the radio traffic, they remained calm and cool, and did a great job. They broadcast early on they had 2 deputies down. They were true professionals and did the job that needed to be done.
http://youtu.be/WZW4kzvKIdE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
