Replies

First of all, you are failing to mix in the fact that the person in question has just recently, on the premises in question, killed a deputy, is still armed, is hidden in the house and refused to surrender.

Second of all, a flamethrower is not a practical tactical weapon in such a situation. Flamethrower operators in WWII generally had very short lifespans.

I just don't see the problem of lethal force by arson versus lethal force by firearm here. They obviously had failed to shoot their way to ending the siege, as they couldn't see the perp. They hadn't been able to smoke him out with 'conventional' tear gas. Burning the cabin down ended the siege with no further loss of life to the LEOs on the scene.

I guess we'll just have to disagree as to whether it is a reasonable tactic. It certainly was viable.

-- First of all, you are failing to mix in the fact that the person in question has just recently, on the premises in question, killed a deputy, is still armed, is hidden in the house and refused to surrender. --

You had repeated that enough times that I figured you already knew it, and I didn't have to repeat it. I think we have approximately the same understanding of the situation, although I disagree with some of the premises you state as fact. No matter, those factual disagreements are irrelevant to the question of whether or not arson by cop is a legal form of self defense or protection of the public. Ultimately, that's a question for the public, and if arson by cop becomes more common, I think the public will cause its legislators and courts to weigh in on the propriety.

-- I just don't see the problem of lethal force by arson ... --

Yes, I see that.

-- I guess we'll just have to disagree as to whether it is a reasonable tactic. It certainly was viable. --

It is very effective when the goal is to kill the occupants. Very few homes have fire-safe rooms / bunkers. I suspect arson is probably more deadly than bombing.