http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs04.htm
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.
Exactly right.
They had this guy holed up in a cabin. Form a perimeter, cut power and water, and he will come out. Start playing the theme song to “Barney” and he might just come out screaming for mercy.
But instead they started lobbing in tear gas grenades. By the way, that means someone was within 100 yards or so if the house, and in harms way. This was done very quickly.
Now for a more, shall we say, interesting take. There was a stand off in my area not that long ago. The perp killed three people, and locked himself in a rural house. The cops keep watch for a few days till he walked out and was arrested. No fire bomb, no tear gas, just a bunch of deputies with guns and a decent negotiator getting the guy to talk.
But he didn’t kill cops, so the rule of law applied to him I guess.
Can you see my, and others, concerns? If three “civilians” died, they would not have torched the building.