[cbvanb]

I understand your revulsion, but in point of fact the law does not make a distinction between types of deadly force. If it is legally acceptable to kill, the means by which it is accomplished are not an issue. Citizens have been killed by police cars, police flashlights, and for all I know police dogs. How the killing was carried out didn’t matter if the facts established that the officer was legally justified.

[babygene]

” How the killing was carried out didn’t matter if the facts established that the officer was legally justified.”

An officer is never legally justified in executing a suspect. In our system of government that would be left for the courts and the state. Indeed, they have an obligation to protect the life of the suspect.

[driftdiver]

Im sure that was part of tue discussion at briefngs. I hate living in a police state.

[driftdiver]

Im sure that was part of tue discussion at briefngs. I hate living in a police state.

[bigheadfred]

When you have cops saying “burn him out” then the situation becomes something more than police trying to apprehend a suspect. They are hell bent on murder. And if this is true in this case, THEY ARE MURDERERS.

[plain talk]

I understand your revulsion, but in point of fact the law does not make a distinction between types of deadly force.

Not sure what law you are referring to. Certainly the means used to kill someone on death row matters. They no longer electrocute and they certainly do not burn them alive.

[familyop]

"I understand your revulsion, but in point of fact the law does not make a distinction between types of deadly force."

Only when police use such discretion (e.g., burning someone to death). Police have written articles warning non-police against using handloaded ammunition for self-defense, implying that someone using handloads may be charged with murder, even after only defending themselves.