I can see both sides of this issue and see valid points in each, apparently you cannot. It is a worthy discussion, but name calling fellow FReepers to shut down debate is a liberal tactic worthy of ridicule. We just disagree. I don’t question your motives, so don’t question mine or try to say that I somehow ‘support Dorner’ because I want answers to whether or not the cops intentionally torched private property.
I understand creeping fascim just fine and will stand up to it when it happens. But this is NOTHING of the sort. This was a hot shootout with one deputy killed and one wounded by the perp trying to bolt from the structure in question. What if Dorner had been shot and killed at that point? Would that have been OK?
What if he had been shot by a sniper while peering out a window for his next barrage?
How is firing CS gas at the structure any less lethal than those two steps? Dorner could have ended it by surrendering. He chose not to.
I think the real problem is that people see CS gas and fire and it makes them think of Waco. But this is nothing like Waco, it was a hot (and lethal) firefight started by Dorner. Last I checked, cops, like anyone else, have the right to counter lethal force in kind.
BTW, please point out where I have said you or anyone else supports Dorner. My problem is the attempt to make this into the next Waco when it is nothing of the sort - and much of the stuff being claimed erodes basic concepts of self-defense.