You do know that people with knowledge of the effect of hot tear gas canisters on wood are perfectly capable of using that information to deliberately cause a fire?
Other sources have suggested there's evidence of the police deliberately allowing the fire to burn through the entire building including basement before allowing in the fire brigade. If the fire was an accident, why let it burn?
Recording a radio frequency does not support your claim that there were sources present at the scene that was cordoned off by law enforcement.
Let's not think too hard. Blizzard. Mountainous area. Police lock down. Guns. If you start thinking for a change you'll easily understand it's not an easy task to even consider trying to put out the fire.
There is no reason why fire rescue should be put in danger. Let the house burn.
The house was not purposely set on fire. There is no evidence to support that. None. Zero.
Indeed, I'm listening to some of the info coming out now. (not sure if it's true)
The guy sounds like a real hard ass. Silencers on nearly all his guns, Those "hundreds of rounds" were the cops guessing where he was within the house. The guy was definitely a pro. They were forced to burn the cabin down.
I have a few friends in California who support this guy. The LAPD has been known as incompetent for many, many years now. This guy is just bringing attention to it by making it more obvious. Do I think that justifies killing? Of course not, if we want to have a civilized society we should investigate corrupt cops and bring them to trial, not have a vigilante go out and kill them. That being said, the court system has been incredibly ineffective for decades at bringing corrupt cops to justice.
It's a complex issue.
If this were a movie like Boondock Saints, most people would be cheering him on.
I also have doubts that he just put a gun to a woman's head and killed her, anyway (which may seem like strange doubts to have given the circumstances!). The 'manifesto' suggests he wouldn't do that. Her fiance was a cop, too -- so maybe she got caught in a crossfire. He's only been charged with killing policeman at this point, anyway, so maybe she's not even dead, just being protected, etc.
He was referring to police/military, not the general gun owning public, of course. Actually, when he said it, he was comparing the Finnish army (in which he was some small type of small unit leader) with the American army. What he actually said was, "In America they teach the soldiers to shoot. In Finland, we teach them to aim." It's been a tradition since the Winter War, when supplies for the Finnish side was scarce, necessitating accuracy.
very much not true about the US military. In fact the opposite.
The "myth of the lone gunman", is a long time Army brass hangup and predjudice against assault rifles, and other small automatic weapons. it continues today, as the US is the only major world power who issues a standard issue assault rifle without fully automatic mode(3 round burst that doesn't work right).
in my 9 years in the military, I was never once instructed on the operation of firing either an m16 or m4 carbine in fully automatic or 3 round burst mode. In fact I was told never to use it, ever.
That is why there was 20 years between the Russians adopting the AK-47, and the US military adopting the m16, which was further gimped, made useless and purposelessly set up to fail, because the Army wanted everyone to not like assault rifles.(in the military).
Among the complaints, is the bullets weren't large enough, didn't shoot far enough, and weren't accurate enough at long distance.(complaints invalidated by studies that showed most combat is close)
The myth of the lone gunman, is that a basic infantry private, with a regular infantry rifle, and nothing more than regular infantry training and experience can, hold back an entire battalion of enemy by sniping at them, preferably at medium to long range.