Someone explain to me what I am missing in this story. A guy kills a sheriff’s deputy, holes up in a shed in the California High Desert, and continually fires at deputies over the course of eight hours.
If they shot back, they would be trying to kill him, right? And that would be okay, right?
Instead, after numerous other unsucessful efforts to force him out with a battering ram and tear gas (during which he continued to fire at him), they tried to force him out with road flares.
He died, and his charred body was found in the shed. The coroner said he died of “multiple firearms wounds with other significant conditions as probable effects from thermal burns.” (That sounds to me like he was shot to death — which we already agreed would be fine — but let’s assume that the fire “contributed to his death” as the article asserts.)
Numerous experts are quoted as saying this is horrific.
What am I missing?