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.
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...
Considering that the colonists were subjects of Great Britain at the time, their patience with their masters was understandable. This government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people", making government employees "employees of the people". Much of this country has gone nuts, and the lunatics have seized control of the asylum.
the LAW authorizes virtually anyone to employ deadly force, in self defense, ( one may even CARRY a tool for that purpose, i.e., a 'gun' ), in how many states? Actually, deadly force may be employed with any instrument at hand in virtually every state ( with some conditions, esp. a few states which may require attempts at evasion ).
The telling point is that at Ruby Ridge and at Waco, NOT ONE OFFICER walked away, not one refused to gun down their fellow Americans. These were not vicious criminals. They were all citizens that the law enforcement people had inserted themselves into their lives.
In the Maryland case, they really let the Federal Cowboys loose on the range.
Proof of the pudding is that the perp cowboy will walk. They will admit it was a mistake, but, they will say he said something or made some motion that WARRANTED the cowboy protecting his own life.
What really erks me about this statement, and so many of us have missed, is that this may be somewhat alright if it was an agent who had shot a perp. But that is not the case at all. This agent shot an innocent man who had NOTHING to do with ANY criminal activity. There's no way in HELL that the policy applies here. I'll bet 10 to 1 that the policy was originally applied to keep mafia dons and drug dealers from going after agents who shot their homies. It should not and cannot be used by Special Agent Hunt and the FBI hierarchy to prevent disclosure when an innocent is shot.
Dang! I WANT to support the government and law enforcement. How can they be so arrogant? This case is turning me from a law and order supporter to one who is now distrustful of them. They all need to be fired. No one is above the law, and this BETTER NOT be swept under the rug. I post often on Free Republic about various things, but very rarely take it beyond this forum. I have the urge now, and WILL, write my representatives expressing my outrage and a demand for accountability. I'm most concerned about how the FBI is handling this in such a arrogant manner.