Cold blooded murder that goes right above the law and decency

And a cappuccino machine.

The old one isn't shiny enough now.

High five!

Don't be so naive. It could have been a burglary that went to the worst. According to FBI Crime Statistics, provided by the City of Fresno, CA, there were 4,721 burglaries in December of 2014. With a population of approximately 509,000, that is about a 1% chance for a person to have their home burglarized in Fresno. I would say that probability is infinitely greater than the ideal of 0%. The burglar could have been confronted by Lang, killed him, and then set the house on fire to try and conceal evidence. There is no doubt with Lang's being stabbed that he was murdered and the fire was to destroy evidence.

Even if Lang was being surveilled, it is unlikely he had any evidence of corruption beyond what was publicly available in newspapers and other media. The article doesn't discuss anything about what he had said publicly; it only says that he regrets it.

One of the side-effects of surveillance is paranoia induced in the target. This can be a useful weapon, but it can also deliver uncontrollable blow-back, i.e. if Lang took things into his own hands. If he was under surveillance, and they did try to make it obvious to him, it was to cause paranoia and probably to establish further grounds to either have him commit a crime and arrest him or to convince a family member or friend to have him committed involuntarily.

It's sad that he was murdered, but without more evidence than the body, it is only speculation as to who killed him and why.

Edit: backnblack92, I can't reply because of downvotes. Voat has a weird system for that. To your point, burglaries do become murders. Which seems more plausible to common sense: he was murdered during a burglary, or there was an actual conspiracy of government and LEO to kill him for saying things? Criminals try to outrun the law all the time. No criminal wants to get caught during or after a crime. Many times they try to hide evidence, and sometimes that includes burning down buildings. Without more evidence, it seems that he was murdered during a burglary, and the murderer tried to destroy the evidence by burning it up. If you have more information besides what the OP contains, please share it.

Edit: ElspethTirel, do you have an argument, or are you just a terrible person in life?

Edit: mleczko, can you specify the clues you are referencing?

Edit: Downvote without comment. At least provide a reason instead of being spineless slaves to the opinion in a groupthought.

Edit: Void_Start, 16 hours old? Name, ok. Shrill? I provided my opinion based on statistics. One reply provided his/her opinion provided with statistics. Seems like good contribution. Thanks for the welcome.

Edit: 2_U, Prove the statistics I used were wrong. Show that they were collected in a biased manner. Every link you posted as evidence are just the opinions of Lang. He speculates that someone was interfering with his life, but he doesn't provide any evidence to support this. Since Lang is the accuser, he holds the burden of proof. This is the same benefit that any defendant enjoys.

Edit: cheetos, ... Are gang violence and crimes relatable to any predictable behavior? Do gangs only target other gangs, or do they prefer an easy victim? Just because it is rare for a burglary to involve arson doesn't mean it never happens. Just because it is rare for a burglary to end in homicide doesn't mean it never happens.