Another One Up In Flames...

[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... 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 one

A 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."

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!

pax

 

[hammer4nc]

UPDATE: Deputies admit to purposely torching the building.

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 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]

Bonehead Call

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?