What is your point Wolf? Use of force was necessary, I think we are all in agreement on that. Use of excessive force is the issue. There is a difference. Dude shot himself anyway, at least that’s the official line. There was no need to burn down the dwelling. Once they heard the single gunshot they should have realized what had happened. A robot could have confirmed.
Have you served in the military? If you did you will know that even in combat there is such a thing as a Rule of Armed Conflict. This covers excessive and unnecessary force against people who are trying to kill you. This is why US troops don’t shoot pilots after they bail out. They are no longer a threat. Once they land and begin to evade capture and shoot at you then gloves are off. Based on all your comments it seems like you think the cops are beyond these rules.
I don’t get your arguments. Please elaborate.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs04.htm
by John C. Hall, J.D.
Federal constitutional standards permit law enforcement officers to use deadly force to apprehend criminal suspects when there is "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm...to the officer or to others..." and if deadly force "is necessary" to effect the apprehension.1 This formulation of the constitutional rule by the Supreme Court suggests two factors - dangerousness and necessity - as relevant to the question whether deadly force is constitutionally permissible.