re: #286 Charles Johnson

If it’s well-known that a tear gas canister can start a fire, and it’s called “burner” for that reason, it seems to be silly hair-splitting to argue that the police didn’t deliberately set the cabin on fire. They knew that there was a very good chance the CS canisters would start a fire, and they deliberately used them.

Again, I don’t really have a problem with this, but trying to deny this was done deliberately seems kind of pointless.

This would imply that every time the police escalated to the more potent (CS) tear gas, that resulting fires can be considered deliberate. I do not agree that this is ‘silly hair-splitting’.