Sheriff Defends Use of Flares to End Standoff

la times ^ | 31 jan 2004 | blankstein, andrew

[rancine]

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies ended a shootout with a barricaded murder suspect by tossing burning road flares into his desert hide-out, sparking a blaze last year that contributed to his death.

Sheriff Lee Baca said the tactic of setting fire to a shed to drive the suspect out was "unorthodox." But the action was justified, Baca said, because the man was "using deadly assault weapons against us."

[rancine]

LAKE LOS WACOS----Just like Waco, LE said last August "we don't know what started the fire.....maybe the suspect started the fire." Now they mention ROAD FLARES.

"We never trained for a circumstance in the High Desert of this magnitude with someone with so much firepower in an open space."---One man, one assault rifle, one 9mm....limited ammunition, wounded, no food, no water, no power, surrounded, no way out......hmmmm.......what a shame a Sheriff's Department is not trained for a circumstance of such magnitude.

[Poohbah]

You know, if I'm shooting at somebody...they might get PO'd enough to throw a road flare into my house.

Sorry, your due process rights are on hold if you refuse to actually submit to due process.

[camle]

I seem to recall police using fire in philly back in the 70/80's to eject a group called MOVE, IIRC, and let us not forget the blaze of glory that virtually ended the symbionese liberation army.

of course, the use of fire at waco never happened either, right?

if these guys cannot recall police use of fire to drive out suspects, they need to get a clue.

[riverrunner]

Using fire to (smoke) people out is a old law enforcement tool. The Feds are very good at this you have the SLA shoot out in the early 70's, Wako ect. Shooting flamable tear gas canisters was the normal means of starting it.

[Common Tator]

You are right. I don't want my tax dollars wasted when a suspect is shooting at the cops.

Shoot one round at a cop and as far as I'm concerned the shooter has given up his right to live.

At that point a hand grenade or a rocket launcher is the right response.

If every punk knew that if they shot just one round at at cop they would be dead in 15 seconds there would not be many stand offs.

And if Prosecutors say it is OK for criminals to shoot at Cops, why isn't it OK for Cops to even the score by shooting at Prosecutors?

[an amused spectator]

Sorry, your due process rights are on hold if you refuse to actually submit to due process.

Ah! You really should "submit to due process" in a state where extra-judicial punishment has been publicly endorsed by top law enforcement officials. :-)

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sorry, your due process rights are on hold if you refuse to actually submit to due process."

And sorry right back at you---burning a suspect out is NOT an acceptable law enforcement method. It wasn't at Waco, and it's not in this case either.

The same for "grenades and rocket launchers".

The whole purpose of our Constitution was/is to put LIMITS on government, and you nutjobs want to allow them the use of unlimited force against our own citizenry??? You would fit right in in back in medieval times, working right along with the Sheriff of Nottingham and good old Prince John--they believed in "anything goes" in enforcing "the law" too.

Do you REALLY want to go back to that????

[aviator]

Someone who is shooting at cops is not a normal citizen. Creative use of fire/smoke is appropriate if it limits the death of more police officers. They didn't use "CBU" on the target...just applied force to an individual.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Someone who is shooting at cops is not a normal citizen."?

Even "non-normal" citizens have Constitutional rights--which are NOT to be violated by government.

"Creative use of fire/smoke is appropriate if it limits the death of more police officers."

Sorry, but no. This is a level of violence/police methodology that is NOT unacceptable. The idea that "death of a police officer" must be prevented AT ALL COSTS is bullsh*t, and leads directly to government tyranny.

[AppyPappy]

If he was shooting at you, I'm guessing you wouldn't be so forgiving.

[varon]

Shoot one round at a cop and as far as I'm concerned the shooter has given up his right to live.

Yep, I'll second that :-)

[MissAmericanPie]

Don't forget the barn they burned in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?".

[Common Tator]

And sorry right back at you---burning a suspect out is NOT an acceptable law enforcement method. It wasn't at Waco, and it's not in this case either.

Do people with weapons have the right to shoot at You and Cops? And are both You and the cops prevented from defending yourself by shooting back? Or in your book is it just Cops that don't have the right to defend themselves?

[Poohbah]

The whole purpose of our Constitution was/is to put LIMITS on government, and you nutjobs want to allow them the use of unlimited force against our own citizenry???

OK. We will forbid police to return fire at a suspect. After all, that's "unlimited force," because it might kill him and thus deprive him of his due process rights.

[ChefKeith]

The whole purpose of our Constitution was/is to put LIMITS on government.

News flash- It did not work!

[Wonder Warthog]

"If he was shooting at you, I'm guessing you wouldn't be so forgiving."

I'm not "from the government". Government officials, especially armed ones, should be MORE RESTRAINED by law and procedure, than citizens.

[Wonder Warthog]

"OK. We will forbid police to return fire at a suspect. After all, that's "unlimited force," because it might kill him and thus deprive him of his due process rights."

Don't be stupid. We're talking about the difference between returning fire (legitimate) and dropping a bomb on the guy's house/burning him out (NOT legitimate).

[Wonder Warthog]

"eople with weapons have the right to shoot at You and Cops? And are both You and the cops prevented from defending yourself by shooting back? Or in your book is it just Cops that don't have the right to defend themselves?"

See reply 17. There is a MAJOR difference between an exchange of gunfire and dropping a firebomb on a guy's house.

[flying Elvis]

You can never trust a Hogwallop.