[SteyrAUG]

Geeze has this just become some kind of SOP?

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21474~1561771,00.html

LOS ANGELES -- The hunt for the killer of a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy ended early Saturday after a body was found at a desert compound that burned to the ground after a fierce gunbattle.

The partially burned body was found about 12:30 a.m. near the remains of a burned outbuilding, Deputy Johnie Jones said.

"There was a gun with him. We believe he was our suspect,' Jones said.

"I'm not sure what he died of, whether it was gunshots or fire,' Jones said.

The fire erupted about 8 p.m. Friday, nearly four hours after Sheriff Lee Baca had told reporters that Kueck would be taken out of the house "dead or alive.'

Sheriff's deputies attempted to end the standoff by firing tear gas into the house and assaulting the structure with a huge, mechanized battering ram. They were met with gunfire before the house erupted in flames.

"We don't know what started that fire, it could have been our tear gas, it could have been our suspect,' said sheriff's Detective Mike Soderberg. "We were actively engaging the suspect in gunfire ...'

Haven't we seen this enough times? They introduce tear gas (flammible), vent the house with a mechanized ram (for better burn) then 'suggest' it might have been a suicide.

I know the guy in question may have been a cop killer, but what about innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for cop killers but this is a very dangrous, seemingly more common tactic.

We aren't even allowed to shoot or hang convicted killers anymore. But I guess burning suspects alive is ok.

This practice needs to be made completely unnacceptable. It endangers any innocents that could be inside, it destroys evidence (especially that of any police wrong doing) and if being burnt alive is not cruel and unusual I don't know what is.

Police have been using tear gas in one form or another since the 60s. But it seems only in the last 25 years have buildings been bursting into flames. Maybe they need a non flammable form of tear gas, or maybe they should just not be allowed to vent the suspect buildings in order to create a oven.

[Justin]

Debate the tactics used.
Debate the proper employment of teargas in such a situation.
Debate the constitutional implications of such situations.

Turn this into a cop bashing thread, and I'll close this thread down.

[MrAcheson]

Yes you are right, he would be much less dead if the police had used their other alternative of having a sniper shoot him in the head. :rolleyes:

You may have a point about the flammable tear gas being a bad idea, but its probably flammable because its particulate matter suspended in the air. Once you get the surface area to volume ratio of anything high enough it will burn. This is why flour mills occasionally explode. You can put a match out in a bag of flour, but suspend the little particles in the air and you can get a nice bang out of it. Its a classic science experiment.

[SteyrAUG]

I know all about silo explosions.

What gets me is the venting of the building like they also did at Waco.


And yes, I'd prefer he be shot by a sniper. In theory that wouldn't kill any innocents or destroy evidence. I don't mind so much that a 'probable' cop killer is dead but I don't want this to become a acceptable method of enforcement.

[Standing Wolf]

I can think of a reason to prefer burning to sniping: it might cut down on the number of suicide by cop incidents.

[SteyrAUG]

I think that would still be suicide by cop. And what if you lived next door?

[Pendragon]

I know the guy in question may have been a cop killer, but what about innocent until proven guilty?

So... if you have not been convicted, they have no right to arrest you?

They have the right to arrest you if they have an arrest warrant or PC.

You then have the option of surrendering or resisting. People who resist are presumed to resist because they are guilty or dangerous - not because they are too innocent to be bothered with an arrest and trial.

Does anyone here think the man had absolutely no chance to surrender himself peacefully into their custody?

[Apple a Day]

"Sheriff's deputies attempted to end the standoff by firing tear gas into the house and assaulting the structure with a huge, mechanized battering ram. They were met with gunfire before the house erupted in flames."

That makes it sound like they lobbed in the grenades, then rushed the place and were met with gunfire as they attacked the house with the huge, mechanized battering ram ( one of those APCs with a "Have a Nice Day" plate on the end of the long barrel?")
If someone is charging your home with a great big armoured personel carrier and you shoot at it does that count as self defense? :mad: How about after the local constabulary goes Waco (or is that whacko?) on you with the smoking curtain matches?
I suppose the smart thing to do is rush out with your hands up before your fleece gets singed, meanwhile, hope when the sheriff said that he was going to get you 'dead or alive' to the media that he realized that there were enough shutterbugs around that gunning you down with your hands empty would look bad on camera.
I'm not anti-LEO but there was no mention in the article about contacting the guy via phone or whatever, and trying to talk him out. Perhaps it's just lousy writing, maybe not. Imagine if they got the wrong house number and the real creep is next door sipping suds and digging through the pantry for marshmallows to bring to the roast? I'd have preferred that they had used a sniper.

[John Ross]

Quote: "Geeze has this just become some kind of SOP?"

To some extent, yes. But it is not exactly new. SLA in the early '70s and MOVE in Philadelphia in 1985 are but two of the more famous examples, although back then there was none of the shameless "they set the fire themselves and committed suicide" rhetoric.

JR

[whitebear]

Further information from the newspaper article in question (emphasis mine): Baca said Kueck, 52, had admitted killing Deputy Stephen Sorensen and was using the slain deputy's radio to talk with authorities.

Kueck said by radio that "no cop will come on his property and tell him what to do,' the sheriff said.

Baca said the man seemed emotionally unstable and apparently had failed to take prescribed medication, but he did not elaborate.

Sorensen, a 12-year veteran, was answering an Aug. 2 trespassing call on his day off in the small desert community of Llano when he was gunned down. The only deputy assigned full-time to the sprawling, sparsely populated area, Sorensen was widely known and liked in the Lake Los Angeles community, where he also lived.

Nearly 3,000 people attended his memorial service Thursday.

Tha article also says that Kueck fired at law enforcement officers with a .223 rifle, a pistol and the service pistol he had taken from the murdered deputy.

I don't think this has any of the earmarks of another Waco.

[El Tejon]

Steyr, SOP? Yes, the FBI has long taught arson as a weapon via tear gas. It filtered down to the local level about 30 years ago. Burning is a great weapon as it destroys (most) evidence in the fire.

Of course, fire as a weapon is thousands of years old.

[gburner]

The article states that the suspect was found outside of the structure.

The article states that LEO were receiving fire from the structure.

You ASSUME that the LEO torched the place using the gas and smash method.

Have you cosidered that the suspect set the fire to cover a retreat and getaway in the resultant confusion?

Anyway you slice it, it's death by stupidity...whether the result of acute lead poisoning or Intro to Combustables
101, I care little. I'll take 'Cleaning
the Gene Pool' for $100, Alex.

[keyhole]

whitebear


Thanks for the further info.

This case, like so many others, are hard to make an informed decision, without knowing all the facts first. Since my job is LEO, I have to listen to all types of stories, and have learned that there are 3 sides to the story. as a judge once said.

[Keith]

First of all, let's differentiate this from the other well-known cases by pointing out one important particular!
Those earlier cases started with federal LEO's shooting first, or at least under very questionable circumstances in very questionable raids against individuals who had not committed any violent crime!

In THIS case, we have something very different - this individual was a violent criminal who had already taken a life. I'm giving the cops the benefit of a doubt in a case like this.

No cop should ever have to risk his life to take an armed killer alive. It's apparent from the story that the guy had an opportunity to surrender and he should have taken it.

Keith

[seeker_two]

If this guy DID kill the deputy, then he got what he deserved.... :fire:

If he DIDN'T, then....

"We don't know what started that fire, it could have been our tear gas, it could have been our suspect,' said sheriff's Detective Mike Soderberg. "We were actively engaging the suspect in gunfire ...'

They shouldn't have Janet Reno teaching S.W.A.T. tactics....

"There was a gun with him. We believe he was our suspect,' Jones said.

...or Charles Moose for investigative insights. :what:

[mod12]

i don't care how he got dead, i'm just glad he got dead!

[Chipperman]

Innocent until proven guilty would not help with a bullet in the head.
Either way, he's dead.

I do agree that it would be nice to take him out without torching the place. As suggested earlier, he may have set the fire himself.

"There was a gun with him".. Whoa, he had a gun! I guess everyone on the board here is fair game then. :barf:

[TheeBadOne]

"There was a gun with him".. Whoa, he had a gun! I guess everyone on the board here is fair game then.
It's not having the gun that got him in trouble, it was using it to shoot at people. I suspect the reason that particular comment was made is that the fire made visual ID of the body impossible. They will release the ID from dental/medical records when they get it, but that takes time.

[Erik]

This will go over well here...

Good guys do not barracade themselves in a home before engaging known LEOs in a fire fight.

Period. You chose that course? (Some here would, given the threads which float around on occassion.) Fine. You are the bad guy at that point. (Understand that all the arguments to the contrary will never change that.) Regardless of the particulars. Hell, you may be clearly innocent at a later date. There may be no doubt. It does not matter. You are still going down in history as a bad guy. Why? Because good guys do not shoot it out with the cops. That is why.

Someone in another thread called for the good old days, you know, the ones where some law dog held up a bullhorn and shouted, "Come out with you hands up!" When they did not, of course, the bad guys were typically shot up pretty good.

Looks like what we have here, more or less. Fire or lead? It is all the same in the end.

Good old fashioned, what we call for all the time here, justice.

Again, while technically innocent as this man arguably was, when you barracade yourself prior to exchanging gunfire with known LEOs you should expect to be killed. That isn't really the goal, but c'mon? What is the probably outcome? Death or serious injury, of course.

Good ridance. The world has one less cop killer around to harm another.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm REAL broken up that he's dead...

Apparently he thought that engaging police in a gun battle was a way to demonstrate that he was not only innocent, but pure as driven snow?

Cut me a :cuss:ing break.

[JohnBT]

Now Mike, don't go getting excited and insist on swimming upstream. Don't you know that this board is full of cop bashers and anti-authority types? You know, around here if some misguided deluded soul dies fighting the system they're a hero and all that stuff. ;)

Don't want to see you pop a gasket, man.

John

[brownie0486]

Chime time--------

El Tejon: Can you give us the location for the manual at arms relative the feds teaching arson as a weapon via tear gas for the last 30 years?

BG's shoot cops, not good guys. He admitted shooting the cop, was giving rounds downrange at them during the standoff, was using the cops radio tro communicate, refused to surrender, and now we we don't need a trial which would cost us taxpayers a whole lot of money.

It is amazing that some of the people posting here on this forum can assume the cops lit the fire intentionally or otherwise without some form of proof that their equipment or actions caused the conflagration.

I hear others say "he's still innocent until proven guilty" [ meaning the perp ] but then assume/blame the cops for starting the fire without a hint of evidence to back that up. Guess they [ the cops ] don't get the same "innocent until proven" that the perps get here by some hey?

Little lopsided to my way of thinking. Judge the cops first, it had to be their fault, right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brownie

[gburner]

"I guess everyone on the board is fair game then."

Ya' know...it's those kind of well reasoned, intellegent comments that remind one of the stunning, intellectual give and take found in the 18th century salons of Europe.:barf:

[Mike Irwin]

"I guess everyone on the board is fair game then."

You know, the simple fact of the matter is that you may well be.

You may run into a situation in your life where the police, in a case of mistaken identity, target you for arrest.

You know, that happens.

A few years ago when Buford Ferrel shot up the Jewish Community Center in LA? I'm a dead ringer for that guy. If it had broken out into a national manhunt, I conceivably could have become the target of an investigation based on my physical appearance.

But guess what...

I sincered doubt that the police are going to shoot at me, and possibly burn my house down, UNLESS I barricade myself in and start shooting at them.

Hey, I'm innocent, I know in my heart I'm innocent, so I have the RIGHT to barricade myself in my home and shoot at those jackbooted thug :cuss:holes, and if they shoot back, well then THEY'RE in the wrong! Right?

Matter of fact, they're wrong just for being there in the first place! Right?

That's the tortured and moronic logic that far too many people seem to apply these days...

That the guy barricaded in the house, sometimes with a hostage, is nothing more than a Saint who tithes to the church, works with underprivieledged (sp?) children and unwed mothers, collects winter coats for kids, runs a free food bank, tutors at-risk children at the youth center, is a lay minister in First Congregation of Peaceful and Meek Souls, volunteers at the local old folks home, and gives blood regularly.

It's only the unjust presence of those jackbooted thugs, those Hitler wannabes, those Stalinist transplants, those dog kickers, those haters of children, those ungodly sodomites, that makes Johnny Saintgood pick up a rifle and start his battle with the unmentionably evil forces of the oppressive agressor government. Right?

And everyone knows that killing one of these jackbooted thugs (etc.) is really striking a blow for FREEDOM! Right?

God...

[cordex]

You may have a point about the flammable tear gas being a bad idea, but its probably flammable because its particulate matter suspended in
Plus, there is the common (but not universal) pyrotechnic dispersal system to consider.

Preventing suicide by cop through applied arson leading to death? Riiiight.

Sounds like this scumbag deserved to burn. On an electric chair. After being duly convicted by a jury of his peers. Not in a home. If he's actively shooting at cops, they have no choice but to return fire (with firearms, mind you, not firebombs). I question the use of fire as a valid police weapon (which so many of you seem to defend), as an officer using it cannot make the distinction between a threat and a non-threat whereas a sniper or officer armed with a firearm can pick and choose his or her targets based on apparent threat levels.

If the police in charge were in fact using pyrotechnic CS cannisters as deniable firestarting tools, this was an inappropriate application of force.

Police are generally not out to get us all, however their actions should always be subject to serious scrutiny.

[TheeBadOne]

I question the use of fire as a valid police weapon
I question where there's any evidence that police used (or use) fire as a weapon? :confused:

[SteyrAUG]

TheeBadOne, who do you believe they vented the building?

Was it to concentrate the gas?

[cordex]

I question where there's any evidence that police used (or use) fire as a weapon?
So do I. Which is why I said:
If the police in charge were in fact using pyrotechnic CS cannisters as deniable firestarting tools, this was an inappropriate application of force.
Do you disagree?

Pyrotechnic CS cannisters are capable of starting fires. True? If the officers had even minimal training in the use of these tools, they would know this. True? The police fired some sort of CS cannister into the home (possibly the pyrotechnic variety). True? Some time thereafter, the house burned to the ground. True?
Strikes me as sufficient cause to at least discuss the validity of using a known fire-starter in standoff situations.

We're debating almost entirely on a theoretical level anyway as we don't know the accuracy of this report and even if it were 100% accurate, the article is limited in its coverage.

[Mike Irwin]

God forbid the police use something DANGEROUS in trying to entice this guy to leave his home.

Lord knows we don't want these Hitlothugs to be able to hurt anyone.

[mod12]

why am i even reading this? burn baby burn!

[Selfdfenz]

"Sorensen, a 12-year veteran, was answering an Aug. 2 trespassing call on his day off in the small desert community of Llano when he was gunned down. "

was answering an Aug. 2 trespassing call on his day off

MG what a sad thing.

All the hoopla about the guy in the shack and none about this officer. I'm not one to hold back when LE goes too far (which they darn sure do sometimes) but this officer deserved better than this fate. He went the extra mile and looked what happened.

Tragic for the officer and his family.

S-

[cordex]

Oh for the love of Mike, calm down Mike.

Of course they'll play dangerous with a dangerous criminal, but there is a limit to what we allow them to do. Or are you all for pumping nerve gas into any place where a violent felon might be holed up? Why not just hit it with air-dropped munitions? Or tacnuke it?
Because of collateral damage first (that includes the kiddies that might be cowering in the corner somewhere, you know. as well as the neighbors), and due process of law second.

*sigh*

But apparently anyone who doesn't get in line to applaud every police needs to get jumped on. Another victory for the Us vs Them crew - on both sides.

[TheeBadOne]

TheeBadOne, why do you believe they vented the building?
- SteyrAUG
Where in the article does it say the police "Vented" the building? :confused:

[willyjixx]

so you mean they purposefully rammed the building to make a big air hole an not to create a means of entry?

[hammer4nc]

It is amazing that some of the people posting here on this forum can assume the cops lit the fire intentionally or otherwise without some form of proof that their equipment or actions caused the conflagration.

Here's one example: About a month ago, the Michigan State Patrol inserted a "flash-bang" (per the MSP press conference) into Scott Woodring's house...turned out it was SIX POUNDS OF TNT! The deliberate lie would have never been questioned, except in that case, someone got video footage of the roof of the house being lifted off, fireball rolling out the front door. MSP also floated the "suspect caused the fire" phlegm; when they coundn't find the suspect's scorched remains in the ashes of the burnt house, they had to retreat from that "theory". The suspect had escaped some time before the final assault.

Moderator Justin stated:

Debate the tactics used.

In every profession, employees learn the "rules", and know the "ropes"; the latter being informal procedures for getting the job done.

The REAL LE SOP (i.e, "ropes") for anyone suspected of firing at an officer, or worse killing an officer in this case, is "scorched earth", once the determination has been made. Of course no LE training manual will state this explicitly. So the request for a training manual citation is somewhat of a red herring.

We can debate the appropriateness of the "determination". In this case, it sounds like a mental problem...middle aged man with no prior criminal history. That's sad.

What I take issue with most are the absurd, pre-scripted LE press releases, whose intent is to demonize the suspect, rather than report the facts. "Flash bang" (wink-wink). Shameless indeed. If you intend to declare war, then declare war; please don't insult my intelligence with this sanitized, lying, CYA drivel.

[TheeBadOne]

Here's one example: About a month ago, the Michigan State Patrol inserted....Hasty Generalization


The REAL LE SOP (i.e, "ropes) for anyone suspected of firing at an officer, or worse killing an officer in this case, is "scorched earth", once the determination has been made. Of course no LE training manual will state this explicitly.Burden of Proof



What I take issue with most are the absurd, pre-scripted LE press releases, whose intent is to demonize the suspect, rather than report the facts. "Flash bang" (wink-wink). Shameless indeed. If you intend to declare war, then declare war; please don't insult my intelligence with this sanitized, lying, CYA drivel.Straw man

[hammer4nc]

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201378835

[Mike Irwin]

"Or are you all for pumping nerve gas into any place where a violent felon might be holed up?"

For all the pissing and moaning that's going on you'd think that's exactly what's going on, Cordex.

The simple fact of the matter is that tear gas is a LESS THAN LETHAL method of getting someone to surrender.

Is it completely safe?

NO.

Statistically, though, I'd bet it's a LOT safer than the bullets that they were already trading with the guy.

But is there any indication of what started the fire? At this point, no, yet the immediate assumption is that it WAS the equivilent of a tacnapalmnukenervegas attack.

For all we know a bullet (remember, it doesn't seem that anyone's moaning about those) could have hit the electrical panel and caused a short circuit.


"But apparently anyone who doesn't get in line to applaud every police needs to get jumped on."

Yeah, sure, and statements like this are just peachy :cuss:ing keen, aren't they?

"But I guess burning suspects alive is ok."

It just REALLY frosts me when someone who's already actively engaged in the attempted murder of police officers by shooting at them somehow comes out to be a hero for civil rights.

[Erik]

"The REAL LE SOP (i.e, "ropes") for anyone suspected of firing at an officer, or worse killing an officer in this case, is "scorched earth", once the determination has been made."

Hogwash.

Though the often noted and loudly complained about virtual prohibition from going right to guns certainly gets toned down a bit.

[cordex]

The simple fact of the matter is that tear gas is a LESS THAN LETHAL method of getting someone to surrender.

Is it completely safe?

NO.
Exactly. Since one side-effect to using some kinds of tear gas in some kinds of buildings is uncontrolled fire, use of that sort of dispersal method by police needs to be reconsidered.

I'd have had no problem if they'd dropped the scumbag with aimed rifle fire as he was trading shots with them. If he was the genius who set the fire (questionable at best, in my mind ... few cornered rats choose to burn themselves out, and suicide was what he had in mind, he had some better choices), then I'm glad it ended without more death than just him.
IF, however, the police intentionally or negligently used a dangerous (not just to scumbag, but anyone else cowering inside the house, and other homes surrounding it as well) pyrotechnic device to drive him out, then they screwed up. Simple as that.
Yeah, sure, and statements like this are just peachy ****ing keen, aren't they?
Only when accurate. Except I left out a word. I intended for it to say "police action". My bad.
It just REALLY frosts me when someone who's already actively engaged in the attempted murder of police officers by shooting at them somehow comes out to be a hero for civil rights.
He's NOT a hero for civil rights. From what I understand, he's a 'terrasphere', an unstable nutjob, a murderer and as I said in my first post on this thread he probably "deserved to burn."
What was it that the anti-war types loved to say? "Just because we're against the war doesn't mean we're for Saddam" Well, kind of like that ... just because I'm against the police torching buildings because they think a suspect is in it at the time doesn't mean I worship those suspects. Did the police torch this building? Don't know. Never claimed to.

When have I ever said anything nice about Mr. SuspectedCopKiller? No hero of mine. Doesn't mean I have to like the tactics used against him (if the tactics I dislike were in fact used, of course).

[TheeBadOne]

Lotta if's...

Some go the other way too :scrutiny:

[JohnBT]

"...SIX POUNDS OF TNT..."

I'm still trying to find out where this number came from. The cast plastic boosters I've been able to find for sale run from a few ounces up to five pounds.

Just curious.
_____

On the original topic...Are law enforcement officers required to respond with equal force? Knife for a knife, handgun for a handgun, etc., or can they use enough force to get the job done?

John

[cordex]

John,
Explosives do not have to be a single homogenous lump to be effective. Duct tape and det cord, baby.
who do you believe they vented the building?

Was it to concentrate the gas?
Or possibly to disperse the gas, as it can be harmful or deadly in extreme concentrations. Or maybe the reporter go the order wrong. Smash hole in door/wall/window and then throw the gas through the resulting hole?

[oldfart]

I followed this saga from the moment the Deputy was killed and the area was flooded with LE officers. The area is subdivided into homesites with named and numbered streets, many of which are unpaved. The fire, however intense it was, didn't endanger any other homes. The house in question had been inhabited by a Latino family who was allowed (by the bad guy) to walk away before the firefight began.

Since the suspect was found,_partially burned, ouside the house, it is reasonable to believe that he didn't start the fire, but the possibility can't be ruled out. He might have started it to keep from being taken by the police, then, when the heat becaame too intense, changed his mind. We'll never know.

There is one thing in this and all other situations where the police are subsequently accused of excessive force, the truth will never come out. Police forces have nothing to apologize to the Mafia for when it comes to Omerta-- they clam up and cover their butts as well as any Godfather could. While this is regrettable, I can't say that I blame them. I know that if I had ratted out a fellow officer on one occasion, I'd be worried if I had to rely on him or one of his buddies for back-up later.

As to whether this "tactic" is becomming commonplace-- "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is a conspiracy." Do letters go between jurisdictions touting the efficiency of burning out suspects? No, but cops read newspapers too and they can see what works, and if it works without endangering them-- so much the better. I think we'll see more of it in the future rather than less.

[TheeBadOne]

As to whether this "tactic" is becomming commonplace-- "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is a conspiracy."
Was it the same agency every time? Was it the same state every time? That's like saying that 3 plumber from 3 different companies in 3 different states stole from their clients, all events separated by 5 years. Does that make a pattern for all plumbers?:confused:
The crayon is yours, color how you like. That doesn't mean that the picture you paint is accurate. Perception is an individual thing.
Do we need to look at these events? Dang right! But we must be:

1) Impartial- if not it's a which hunt in search of a result (pro or con)

2) Honest- if the facts (F A C T S, not speculation, or "yeah, well one time...") support a finding less tastefull to you than the other, accept it, embrace it, do not supress it.

3) Patient- if there aren't enough facts to make a judgement based on #1 & #2, wait until there are. These events happen and less than 1 hr later people are posting "facts" on exactly what happened, even though law enforcement is still on scene gathering evidence, taking statements, and continuing the investigation.

All the best

[brookstexas]

Is it now a matter of $$$$ in personnel time?
Shut off power water and electricity and at least give someone a few days before imolation.
Now if he admitted on the radio he did it and it was recorded, what the hell...
-BrooksTexas

[SteyrAUG]

TheeBadOne, IIRC LASO has several tear gas fires to their credit.

The MO is pretty consistent. Introduce the gas, vent the building (usually with a mechanical ram) and then light (usually by means of gunfire). Then they ponder if the fire was started by the victim.

[TheeBadOne]

vent the building
The alleged venting is a hole made by the ram...for the purpose of allowing the entry team to enter through and unexpected area and hopefully allow them to enter w/o being immediately fired upon. It's not a 'vent' hole.

[Erik]

Anyone know how many times a year less than lethal rounds such as we are discussing are used with success and without incident wach year?

Anyone kow the percent which erupt into uncontrollable fire?

Anyone...?

[hammer4nc]

It's not a 'vent' hole.
So, the incident commander can revise all known thermodynamic laws by merely making this statement. And anyone who would question this is unfairly criticizing LEO's. Is that your point?

Anyone kow the percent which erupt into uncontrollable fire?
Probably a low percentage. However, of those standoffs that end in fire, LEO's would have us believe that 100%, "may have been caused by the suspect". An absurd, pre-scripted, pre-meditated fallacy.

OK, I've responded you your questions, now respond to my previous question:

In the Scott Woodring standoff in MIchigan, how could six, one pound sticks of TNT be mistakenly reported by MSP as a "flash-bang", "percussion round", "distraction device"? I can't wait to hear the answers to this one.

[TheeBadOne]

So, the incident commander can revise all known thermodynamic laws by merely making this statement. And anyone who would question this is unfairly criticizing LEO's. Is that your point?I guess that by your way of thinking if they had entered by opening the front door they would have been "venting, ie: creating a vent... :rolleyes: They use the ram to create an entry point, pure and simple. That tactic has been used for 25+ years...

OK, I've responded you your questions, now respond to my previous question:
In the Scott Woodring standoff in MIchigan, how could six, one pound sticks of TNT be mistakenly reported by MSP as a "flash-bang", "percussion round", "distraction device"? I can't wait to hear the answers to this oneA perfect example of a conclusion in search of a arguement.

[cordex]

Anyone know how many times a year less than lethal rounds such as we are discussing are used with success and without incident wach year?
Probably quite often, when used outdoors.

[Coronach]

Introduce the gas, vent the building (usually with a mechanical ram) and then light (usually by means of gunfire).This would seem to make no sense. If it is the CS that allegedly starts the fire, why does it need to be 'ignited by gunfire?' That makes zero sense.

People, CS is used every day to force an end to standoffs. Every day. Heck, I'm sure its multiple times each day. A building catches fire once or twice a year. Sometimes it is due to some department ill-advisedly using old, pyrotechnic CS as opposed to newer stuff that is billed as non-pyrotechnic. Sometimes it is due to other factors starting the fire. As far as this:LEO's would have us believe that 100%, "may have been caused by the suspect". An absurd, pre-scripted, pre-meditated fallacy.Well...all that the police said, in plain english, in the thread that started this all, was this:We don't know what started that fire, it could have been our tear gas, it could have been our suspect.
Wow. Yeah, they're really trying to snow us with that one. Admitting it might have been one or ther other, or possibly even something else. A completely prescripted and premeditated fallacy. Yup, you caught 'em.

I'm not anti-LEO but there was no mention in the article about contacting the guy via phone or whatever, and trying to talk him out. Perhaps it's just lousy writing, maybe not.Contacting the guy via phone or loudhailer is something that actually is SOP (as opposed to arson, as was suggested earlier). I'm confident that all avenues were exhausted prior to attempting to storm the building.


Is it now a matter of $$$$ in personnel time?
Shut off power water and electricity and at least give someone a few days before imolation.

Now, lets think about this for a moment. Do you really want the police doing this every time a suspect holes up? Do you?

Once we had a woman taking shots out of her window with a pistol. We cordoned off the area and talked to her and negotiated with her for 7 hours. At the end of that period they threw CS, stormed the apartment, and took her into custody without incident. For the record, I think our SWAT team and the patrol units supporting this effort did an outstanding job. I was just one pawn on the chessboard, but from my front row seat I cannot think of anything I'd have done differently if I were in charge.

During that 7-hour period, one quarter of the city went to hell in a bucket. We were averaging a 15 minute response time to serious crimes, in progress. Motor vehicle accidents? Yeah, good luck. Exchange your information, push your car off the highway and walk to an exit. Theft reoprts? Call back tomorrow. You're in a fight for your life with a home invader? OK...we'll send our first available unit. He'll be coming from 10 miles away in rush hour traffic. Have fun.

Also during that 7 hour period, everyone in the vicinity was displaced from their homes. The perimeter had to stretch far enough to keep people out of her line of fire. This meant that upwards of 50 families were evacuated and were waiting patiently (uh, yeah...right) outside of the line to go back home.

And you want this to go on for days? Do you, really?

I humbly submit to you that you don't. I submit to you that it sounds like a neat idea. It seems like a way to avoid the potential bloodshed of forcing an end to the confrontation. But it sounds a whole lot less peachy keen when you come home from a hard day's work to see a police line strung up across your street and a uniformed cop standing there, explaining that "Yeah, we tried to execute an arrest warrant on your neighbor, but he's holed up in his house and won't come out, and has threatened to shoot. So, we're just going to wait him out. By the way, we'll probably be here for a week, so you might want to get a hotel room or something." :scrutiny:

This was a bad guy with a warrant for his arrest. (Remember that document we all revere called the Constitution? When a warrant for your arrest, based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, is issued, the proper thing to do is answer the charge in court. He was opting not to do this) He was already the suspect in the shooting of one cop. He opted to hole up and not come out. He opted to shoot at the cops surrounding him, attempting to lawfully arrest him.

This is on him, people.

Mike

[Coronach]

Anyone know how many times a year less than lethal rounds such as we are discussing are used with success and without incident wach year?Probably quite often, when used outdoors.Quite often when used indoors, as well.

Mike

[pax]

During that 7-hour period, one quarter of the city went to hell in a bucket.
Nothing like a few Unintended Consequences to bring you back to the real world! :D

pax

[hammer4nc]

This incident took place last August...part of the ongoing debate focused on whether the police purposely burned the building, to flush out or kill the bad guy. A few LEO's were quite indignant at the suggestion that arson was used by police to end the standoff. How dare could you suggest such a thing! Give us citations from police training handbooks!

Well, after five months, they admit it's true.

Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7835376.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted on Fri, Jan. 30, 2004

LA deputies set fire to structure with flares during desert shootout with fugitive
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - Sheriff's deputies threw burning road flares into a desert compound to end a gun battle with a man who had admitted killing a deputy, sparking a fire that may have helped kill him.

The charred remains of Donald Charles Kueck, 52, were found inside a home following the Aug. 9 shootout in Lake Los Angeles. Kueck dead of "multiple firearms wounds with other significant conditions as probable effects from thermal burns," according to the county coroner's office.

The propriety of using burning flares to flush Kueck out is under review by the county district attorney's office and the sheriff's department's homicide and internal affairs bureaus.

Sheriff Lee Baca called the tactic "unorthodox" but justified because the man was "using deadly assault weapons against us" during the eight-hour gun battle.

Authorities initially said only that they fired hot tear gas into the home where Kueck was holed up, in a Mojave Desert community 70 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Kueck killed sheriff's Deputy Stephen Sorensen, a 12-year veteran, authorities said. Sorensen was answering an Aug. 2 trespassing call on Kueck's property on his day off in the small desert community of Llano when he was gunned down. His radio and service pistol were missing.

Before Kueck died, he told authorities over the slain deputy's two-way radio that he killed Sorensen because he warned him not to come on his property.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: Now, I'm not saying that this tactic was necessarily bad. However, don't ask me to believe the authorities when they say "we don't know how the fire started"...

And don't expect people to accept press releases given by authorities concurrent with the incident, if they don't have the ring of truth. File this case as a prime example of willful lying.

[rayjay]

He's a cop killer, let him burn:fire: Saves the tax payers a ton of money too.

[cordex]

Once again, I'm not sad that this murderer died, but I'm appalled that the police made the willful choice to burn someone out - even someone who deserved to die. Glad that they finally admitted it and that it is being investigated, but I'm disgusted at the potential precident that this sets.

Arson is not an appropriate weapon for LEOs to employ. It is entirely too indiscriminate and unpredictable. It should not be used for the same reasons booby traps and land mines should not. Actually, fire is even worse than those weapons as it can unintentionally spread.

TBO, Brownie, et all.
What say you now?

[Mike Irwin]

"TBO, Brownie, et all.
What say you now?"

I guess I'm included in that list.

So, what say I.

I'm still glad the guy's dead, that's a given.

It's still on the dead guy for starting the situation in the first place.

I'm NOT at all happy that the police started the fire, and it took them this long to admit it. They should be prosecuted.

CS gas remains a viable method of forcing someone out of a standoff situation.

Ultimately, however?

The situation still ended in a manner that I'm happy with.

[cordex]

Mike,
Sounds about right to me.
Except that while the incident may have turned out as well as can be expected after a police officer is killed, whether the "situation" turns out well depends on whether or not the police who screwed up are actually held responsible.

[Baba Louie]

but I'm disgusted at the potential precident that this sets.
Authority figures have been burning out sieged personnel for how long? and you're worried about precedent?
If you're an innocent bystander whose identity is mistaken, are you going to stayed holed up? Probably not.

Interesting ethical dilemna for LE. Lose one or two more "good guys" while sending a team in or use all the tools in the toolbox? Pretty simple to me.

No tears here, except for the family of the original deputy down doing his job.

If it were me and my house, I'm coming out, arms up with a white rag. I can't imagine being put in that position in the first place. What was that line in Micheal Douglas' movie Falling Down (talk about having a bad day) "I'm the bad guy here?"

[Trebor]

Ok, the Police DELIBERATELY set fire to an occupied dwelling and than LIED about it for months afterwards, and some people here still think that was acceptable?

Yes, the suspect was a cop-killer, but that does NOT excuse the actions of the police, ESPECIALLY the cover-up. What if their was someone else in the residence? What if the fire spread to other buildings? What precedent does this set for next time?

[roo_ster]

1. Admitted murderers still on the loose & shooting at cops & others (there are probably civilians downrange) can and should be taken out as swiftly as possible. Non-lethal if feasable (does not endanger any cop/others more than a lethal means). If necessary, use lethal means. An end state where the murderer is dead is entirely acceptable.
--
2. Give the cops the benefit of the doubt when making judgement calls under severe time constraints (shoot/no shoot, etc). Lotsa quick judgement calls to be made in the real world. Getting a snap judgement call wrong is not necessarily evidence of malice/wrongdoing/whatever. Sometimes a guy just makes the wrong call. Unfortunately, making the wrong call in policework can lead to some serious & seriously bad consequences for cop, bystanders, suspect, others.
--
Given the above, can folks agree that slinging road flares into a flammable structure filled with CS particulates is a BAD IDEA? I mean, it's not a split-second shoot/no-shoot decision that was made. Somebody had to come up with the bright idea, walk back to their vehicle, grab the flares, light 'em, and chuck them into the structure. Time enough to consider one's actions, I'd say.
--
Also, this had to be squeezed out of the participants, over time, or maybe only surfaced after arson investigators turned up the cause of the fire. The original police spokesman may not have been a witness to the shoot/burn out, but plenty of other cops were. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that more than just the cop(s) slinging the road flares saw what occurred...but then kept it to themselves.
--
I do believe I have to fall down on the side of those not approving of such tactics. One or more guys made the call to chuck flares. One or more guys don't have the judgement to continue in thier current profession.
--
CS Gas in general:
I don't know about y'all, but there seem to be entirely too many uses of CS that end badly in a conflagration. I wonder if anybody has manufactured a practical alternative, such as an OC gas dispersal grenade or the like?
--
On the bright side, an admitted murderer is no longer around to cause any more damage. Unfortunately, such incidents as described herein work to erode the confidence of a lot of us who are sympathetic, vocal supporters of cops. We don't like being lied to more than anybody else does.
--
This reinforces a belief that I have had for a while: Intelligence counts, whatever your job: ditch-digger to rocket scientist.

[Mike Irwin]

The problem with CS gas is two fold.

1. It's not a gas, it's actually a very finely atomized organic solid, similar to a military smoke grenade. Organic solids, in sufficient concentrations, can be flammable or even explosive. Grain mills (wheat flour dust) and mines (coal dust) have gone sky high because of organic dust explosions.

2. Because it's similar to a smoke grenade, these delivery vehicles get VERY hot. There have been numerous fires started by the cannisters themselves.



Part of the idea of punching a hole in the wall of the building and pumping CS into it is get very high concentrations spread throughout the structure quickly and which will rapidly neutralize the threat.

It also allows delivery of the CS via a vehicle that's not as prone to start fires.

That said, however, pumping large quantities of CS gas into an enclosed area can be concentrations up to levels that make flash fires/explosions possible, levels that normally aren't achieved when using individual CS grenades or shells.

There have been some investigations into how to make CS less flammable/explosive, but as far as I know they've been unsuccessful so far.

[pistolero]

gburner,

What if Gore, Reno, or Hillary were President or Vice Pres? Then it would be that all of those gun owners are BGs. If these cops have the authority to burn this man alive, then by the same authority (liberal gun-owner haters such as Feinstein, Schumer, etc.)they can do it to you also. This is what I have been preaching to people for years about Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[cordex]

Authority figures have been burning out sieged personnel for how long? and you're worried about precedent?
My concern is that it may become an sanctioned method of dealing with barricaded suspects.
Sure, it has been used since Og torched Ud's cave, but the question is whether or not it'll be accepted by Law Enforcement authorities (as a few members here seem to have).
Interesting ethical dilemna for LE. Lose one or two more "good guys" while sending a team in or use all the tools in the toolbox? Pretty simple to me.
There we disagree.
Burning someone out is not a tool that should be in the LE toolbox for a plethora of reasons.

For military operations? Fine. For those that "Protect and Serve"? No thanks.

[RikWriter]

What if there had been someone else in the building with them, unknown to the cops? What if he had his kids in there and hadn't told the cops?
It was a stupid thing to do...criminally stupid. Know your target.

[gaston_45]

TBO, I would have to take exception to your theory that the holes are punched to allow teams to enter undetected. I cannot fathom how someone could NOT hear a vehicle ramming a huge hole in the building they are occupying. Now that I have read on and see that the police admit to torching the house there is something everyone has missed. IT WAS NOT HIS HOUSE!! In the earlier article it states that he allowed the owners to leave, so now the police have torched the home of someone who was not even involved. I wonder if the department bothered to replace this displaced family's home?