Posted on 03/14/2002 6:03:27 PM PST by Lloyd227
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This agent, the others at the scene and this agent's supervisors need to explain their actions in open court.
Is this as off-the-wall a statement as I think it is? My impression is that police officers have the same right to kill in self-defense or the defense of others as the rest of us. What they really have is 'a friend at court' so the consequences for them aren't as messy as they are for us.
I find it hard to desire to read anything else that follows, after reading this line.
That ain't the way it is at all, bub. The fundamental truth about this country, is that any citizen has the authority to use deadly force, whether against fellow citizens or members of law enforcement (should officers of law enforcement abuse their trust) at any time should it be necessary to do so.
Simon is implying that public safety is the sole province of the state. In reality, it rests with the public. We police ourselves, and "police officers" are merely paid volunteers who have chosen to make a profession of every citizen's responsibility.
There is nothing wrong with any average citizen killing another if it a measure of last resort. We would do well to discover that truth again.
... because that's the fruit of "common-sense" gun "safety" laws that they have enacted. MD is #1 in the country in a number of violent crime stats - the friuts of the Commie Mommies, who rate MD an "A," come home to roost.
I know this may seem like a debate in semantics, but... the word used in Mr. Simon's article was actually "authority".
I'm no legal scholar but I believe there is a distinction. As much as I do not like to admit it, I think that possibly the author is correct. Law enforcement officers do have the authority to kill.
As the author also points out, this authority was supposed to carry also a tremendous responsibility.
Law enforcement on the other hand have AUTHORITY to use deadly force within certain boundaries which are supposed to be described by law.
My take on the distinction between the words RIGHT and AUTHORITY are that the citizen's right flows from natural law while the authority of the law enforcement officer is only bestowed as a servant of the collective citizen. This authority of the law enforcement officer therefore is temporal, much more restricted and subject to continual review, assessment and re-approval.
The right's of the citizen have none of these extra limits.
I've just one lil' kink to point out in it though: human nature. And the proclivity for collective might (almost always identified as "the state") choosing NOT to hold the "public servants" accountable, as is increasingly taking place.
What you have just described is what America used to be like... perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. Keep railing about it no matter what, though: who knows, maybe we can make it that way again :-)
Beyond doing what I can to ensure the protection of my own immediate family, all I know to do issues like this are to just keep posting and talking to people I know.
Maybe enough attention on this one will at least get Mr. Barga off the street
This agent needs to be put on the "bow and arrow squad" for a very long time. Perhaps five or ten years.
There may be some who do not understand the term "bow and arrow squad".
It means all right to carry lethal weapons be removed from this agent.
Chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
Please forward this to Mr. Simon. I have no desire to submit a letter to the editor.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your fundamental point that the FBI should be held accountable in the same public way as most other police agencies, I believe you missed the boat with the following statement:
"In this country, only a law enforcement officer has the authority to use deadly force against fellow citizens in time of peace."
Even in California, where I live, the police have no more right or authority to use deadly force against fellow citizens than I do. All citizens have the right use deadly force to protect the lives of themselves, their families and others or to prevent the infliction of "great bodily harm". In some states, the right to use deadly force includes the protection of property.
When a citizen in California uses deadly force as outlined above and kills the perpetrator, he or she will almost certainly be arrested and the case will be investigated by the police and then reviewed by the District Attorney. If the facts do not support that the use of deadly force was "justified" (i.e., to save a life or prevent in infliction of great bodily harm), the citizen will be charged with murder. In some fact situations (i.e., when a perp has made forced entry into a private residence), the presumption is that the residents were in danger for their lives.
When the police use deadly force, there is an investigation by the police followed by a review by the District Attorney --- the same as with any citizen. Despite the parallel process, some citizens believe tendency is for the agency to "protect its own" and for the D.A. to support "law and order" by giving the police the benefit of the doubt. Other citizens believe the actual operation of the parallel process is quite fair, considering that police are required by the nature of their jobs to seek out confrontations which may put their lives in danger.
That said, I agree with you that the FBI should be no less accountable for the use of deadly force than any other governmental agency.
Unless the guy was working undercover, or they had plans to use him that way, I really don't know what the FBI is worried about. No other Fed in recent history has ever been held accountable for shooting or murdering unarmed citizens. In fact, some of them have been given promotions...
Incredibly heartless and cruel comment, after "family man" agent Braga SHOT HIS 20 YEAR OLD VICTIM'S FACE OFF!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.