" I was addressing the undertone I'm feeling here that "police forces shouldn't have used any lethal force at all to prevent them from being judge, jury, and executioner."
I don't think that anyone is finding the legal killing of someone as reprehensible. It has been MANY years, however, I remember learning levels of control. For instance, if someone used an open hand, you would use a fist. If someone used a "soft" weapon, (a misnomer is you ask me) you would use a "hard weapon (ie. justifies using lethal force)." I can easily control where I point my rifle or throw a fist. How can the police control a fire??? As was mentioned earlier, this fire could easily have gotten out of hand. Additionally, at any point in time, this killer could have seen the futility of his situation and surrendered. Granted, this was far from likely but still a definite possibility. As the saying goes, not impossible, just improbable. By the police setting fire to this structure, they started a lethal force that was far out of their control and, in my opinion, not a legal choice for these officers to make. What if this scumbag was trying to surrender and found his exit barred by the fire?
Lastly, does anyone know why the LAPD was in Big Bear?? I mean, it is a little far out of their jurisdiction isn't it? Would they be the ones to respond to a situation of similar significance?
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see