I was just flipping through the channels and came across the History channel and video of a shoot out.  This happend in LA back in the 1960's.  Some group SLA was causing problems and using automatic weapons to do so.  The police made a "raid" on their "compound" with the people inside "firing first", boy does this all sound familiar.  After several hours of gun battles tear gas was introduced into the house, shortly thereafter the house caught on fire and burned to the ground from an "unknown" cause.

Didn't this recently happen in California again?  Isn't this what happend in WACO?  You would think after 30 years of hour long gun battles that all end with the building burning to the ground shortly after tear gas is introduced, someone would be able to figure out the connection.  Of course if they did that they would no longer have plausible deniability for such events.

Tear gas is more PC than the torches that were used 250 years ago.  The funny thing about it is, I understand there two types - pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic.  [b]IF[/b] the end result isn't to ultimately burn the "compound" to the ground, why would SWAT teams & PD's even buy or issue the pyrotechnic variety??

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm....

Both kinds get very hot once they're putting out CS. That's so they can't be thrown back at the police.

I understand that '22, but isn't it odd that the pyrotechnic variety [b]is[/b] purchased and issued to LEO's????

so why do they keep using it????

Why do you think?

We introduced flammable gas into the structure, and it burned down shortly thereafter.  Clearly, *they* burned *themselves* up.

"They're burning themselves up!"
Heard over the govt. radio net during Waco.