Replies

ATF was the original name and the B was added in 1972. The fact this happened in your area of responsibility should make you even more aware of it. Clearly there have not been major reforms put through the ATF as the same site has numerous more recent examples. I stated originally that there was an incident in Towson Maryland and I was not sure of the year. I never specifically claimed that it was in the 1990's but that checkingf through the furor over the discussion of Jack Booted thugs in the 1990's would yield the name and other specifics.

An innocent man paralyzed is not a joking matter and tends to be a very significant result at least to the paralyzed person and his family.

I ask you now about the Maryland man who was deprived of his civil rights that was cited more recently. If ordered to go seize any guns he possessed would you carry out that order? Knowing the facts of the case as stated. Would you do it? If the answer is yes I then refer you to the Nuremburg and Andersonville precedents of people following orders who faced punishment for following orders after a major political change.

By the way when I first posted this I was not absolutely certain of the Towson location only that it was somewhere arround there in Baltimore County.

What we are talking about is thirty year old charges that did were not subject to loss of civil rights at the time the person may have plea bargained.

What happens if subsequently driving at a speed over a specified limit becomes an offense that results in a loss of civil liberties? Would you enforce that? Remember disorderly conduct used to have a maximum under a year and usually is treated as a violation not even a misdemaenor in most juridictions.

A more likely case is Operating Under the Influence of alchohol becoming punishable by more than a year in jail or alternatively an implied consent violation being treated that way. In some states that has already been proposed for repeat offenders, but I am not talking about repeat offenders I am talking about the one time for a person over the .08 limit. How about if asd MAD has proposed they drop the limit down to where one beer with dinner causes one to be over the limit (.03) and in some case it has been proposed .01, what about then?

At this point, I am still more than a tad upset about your commenting on the case before I had a chance to do the research. I am further upset about your questioning the specifics of that case with discussing the fact that the FBI in the Braga case did not use proper felony stop procedures as supposedly all agents were ordered to do with any suspect they presume might be armed.

You have stated that you are a Maryland LEO. If you were involved in a stop of someone who you reasonably believed was armed would you just walk up to the car pointing a rifle with your finger on the trigger? I belive you would take a position where you could keep the occupants in view and order them to exit the vehicle carefully. Have subjects reach out the window to open the door from the outside? If you did not follow proper felony stop procedure and someone was shot would you not expect to be hung out to dry and be facing criminal charges?

Let me try to answer the latest myriad of questions you pose.

1.)"ATF was the original name and the B was added in 1972. The fact this happened in your area of responsibility should make you even more aware of it."

I am confused....the fact that the B was added in 1972 and was in my "area of responsibility" should make me more aware of it? I don't understand that statement. Complete sentences with a subject are easier for me to understand. If you are referring to the Maryland Man shot in 1971....the State of Maryland is not as large as say, Texas, I do not know where this incident happened. Do You? The article you linked to mentions simply "Maryland". Not every 30 year old case is known in detail to every LEO in Maryland. Sorry, but I was 9 years old at the time and lived over 400 miles from the state line. My interests didn't extend to reading out of state newspapers at that age. As for the ubiquitous alleged "Killing" by ATF in Towson I await your research.

2.) "An innocent man paralyzed is not a joking matter and tends to be a very significant result at least to the paralyzed person and his family."

I fail to see where any of my posts have made light of that incident. Perhaps you could be more specific.

3.) "I ask you now about the Maryland man who was deprived of his civil rights that was cited more recently. If ordered to go seize any guns he possessed would you carry out that order? Knowing the facts of the case as stated. Would you do it? If the answer is yes I then refer you to the Nuremburg and Andersonville precedents of people following orders who faced punishment for following orders after a major political change."

Please see my pervious reply to you regarding Mssrs. Arnold and Dickens. As you seem confused over the "facts as stated"
I am unsure as to which incident you refer to.

4.) "By the way when I first posted this I was not absolutely certain of the Towson location only that it was somewhere arround there in Baltimore County."

Again, which incident do you refer to? The location of the 1971 incident has not been found by either you or myself. Or do you again refer to the alleged killing by ATF in Towson? It daily gains momentum as a free republic urban legend. I await the results of your research.

5.) "What we are talking about is thirty year old charges that did were not subject to loss of civil rights at the time the person may have plea bargained."

Rule #1.... if you are charged with a crime GET A LAWYER! You know, if you can't afford a lawyer one will be provided at no cost to you (pass it on). Mr. Arnold's 1969 placed him in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1), part of the gun control act of 1968. He has been prohibited, under federal law, since the date of his plea (entered into without a lawyer).

6.) What happens if subsequently driving at a speed over a specified limit becomes an offense that results in a loss of civil liberties? Would you enforce that? Remember disorderly conduct used to have a maximum under a year and usually is treated as a violation not even a misdemaenor in most juridictions. A more likely case is Operating Under the Influence of alchohol becoming punishable by more than a year in jail or alternatively an implied consent violation being treated that way. In some states that has already been proposed for repeat offenders, but I am not talking about repeat offenders I am talking about the one time for a person over the .08 limit. How about if asd MAD has proposed they drop the limit down to where one beer with dinner causes one to be over the limit (.03) and in some case it has been proposed .01, what about then?

Harpseal you are quite good at posing hypotheticals. I am not a lawyer. It's not a cop out (no pun intended), but I don't have an answer for you. If it's a prohibiting conviction I presume that the answer would be the same as my reply to #5.

7.) "At this point, I am still more than a tad upset about your commenting on the case before I had a chance to do the research. I am further upset about your questioning the specifics of that case with discussing the fact that the FBI in the Braga case did not use proper felony stop procedures as supposedly all agents were ordered to do with any suspect they presume might be armed."

First, sorry about your ruffled feathers, you should develop a thicker skin. It's very helpful to possess one here.
As for the felony stop prceedures, or lack of same, followed in the Braga / Shultz shooting please note that violation of departmental procedure is not a crime. Check the Constitution. I agree with you that it contributed to the events as they unfolded but again, the simple fact that proceedures are or are not followed does not prove guilt or innocence.

8.) "You have stated that you are a Maryland LEO. If you were involved in a stop of someone who you reasonably believed was armed would you just walk up to the car pointing a rifle with your finger on the trigger? I belive you would take a position where you could keep the occupants in view and order them to exit the vehicle carefully. Have subjects reach out the window to open the door from the outside? If you did not follow proper felony stop procedure and someone was shot would you not expect to be hung out to dry and be facing criminal charges?"

I believe it would be beneficial at some point in the future that you take the opportunity to do a ride along with an average street cop. Ask for a precinct or sector with a high volume of violent crime. Read a binder or two of the department's general orders. Check and see if the officer has the general orders memorized and see if he correctly applies them in every situation you and he respond to that night. See if the situations all unfold "by the book".

I have been involved in many felony car stops, with armed individuals in the vehicle. Sometimes they stop right away, often the don't. Sometimes they get out of the car, sometimes they don't. If I always followed your apparent definition of "proper proceedure" I'd still be out there waiting for the bad guys to comply.

Since you are an afficiando of hyportheticals here is one for you:

Maybe when the bad guys finally decide to comply and pull over they've pulled up next to a school playground at recess or a supermarket parking lot. Should I call set up a perimiter and call for a hostage negotiator as I see him slap a magazine into his Mini-14? I really don't expect an answer but I hope you see my point.

I have approached vehicles following a stops with my weapon drawn, for example once following a shooting from a vehicle and once when three known armed individuals were on their way to shoot a rival drug dealer. They did not comply with numerous commands to play nice and exit the vehicle, open the door from the outside etc. In the case with the three individuals they finally stopped on a three lane highway when traffic came to a standstill. Traffic had stopped due to an accident that had happened moments before and without their or my knowledge. I doubt that the innocent motorists stuck sitting next to three armed individuals would have appreciated my calls for the SWAT team and the hostage negotiator who would have been stuck futher back behind me in the same traffic. Calling them out would have presented the possibilty of a hostage, a carjacking, or another innocent person being shot in and exchange of gunfire.

I have not seen, in any account, that SA Braga approached the vehicle with his finger "on the trigger". Have you? My training has always been to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. I'm resonably sure that that is somewhat standard for firearms training in the LEO community.

My point here Harpseal is twofold. "Proper proceedure" does not cover each and every situation. They don't always unfold in real life like you see on TV. I was not at the shooting of Mr. Shultz that night but I still believe that SA Braga would not have shot had he not sensed a threat (correctly or apparently, incorrectly). From accounts I read in the Baltimore Sun Mr. Shultz may have been unbuckling a seatbelt in respose to the agents commands. If SA Braga saw a seatbelt in Mr. Shultz's hands as he brought it up from his lap he may have mistaken a chrome plated buckle for a firearm in the dim light. Not making excuses here, just presenting food for thought.

Secondly If I did not follow proper proceedure and shot at, and killed an armed individual who pointed a firearm at me, I would not expect to be brought up on criminal charges. Would you?

However if I continually presented facts in court as loosely and as imprecisely as you present them here I would expect at least a finding of no crediblity by a judge or jury....at the worst perhaps a charge of perjury. But obviously nobody here has to present facts under oath. So why should anyone worry about being precise?

Regards: OTA