FBI Agent Cleared Of Criminal Charges After Shooting Pasadena Man

It is quite sad that we don't even have a peep from the federales about "we will improve our procedures to avoid this kind of mistake in the future." It's like they hardly even CARE.

It's that government bunker mentality, us(DOJ/FBI) against them (citizens).

I guess it is unreasonable for the general public to expect Robert Mueller or the head of the FBI in Maryland, Lynne Hunt to step up to the plate immediately after an incident such as this,and explain to the public that a horrible mishap has taken place, and then do what the law requires them.

If the FBI did this,I think the general public might have a little more empathy for the FBI.

Mueller remains,"conspicuously quiet"as if by doing so this will all go away without tainting his career, and Hunt in Maryland (speaking only thru a spokesman)follows Muellers lead until the media finally shames Hunt into making a public statement about this incident.

Mueller and Hunt are organized crime technique,where they only speak thru a mouthpiece.

From the article:

...The panel began considering the case last week, and heard testimony from the shooting victim, Joseph Schultz, and his girlfriend, Krissy Harkum...

Thanks for the correction on my error !!!!!

Here's the crux of your whole rant excerpted from the story you posted in reply # 79:

... documents ... appear to show ...

Two things stand out:

#1. It APPEARS that these so-called secret docs AREN'T that clear as to 'guilt' or culpability.

#2. Doesn't your GUT tell you if those document were that incriminating that a) they wouldn't heve been FILED in the first place or b) they would have been shredded upon their discovery ...

Ya know, just applying some simple common sense seems to defuse and render this 'story' fully null and void ...

All in all I tink you build some pretty un-convincing stories on some slim to zilch evidence.

ANYTHING that points to guilt or culpability ought to indicate that point a little more forcefully than the weak and fading phrase 'it appears to show' ...

The bulk of the burden still lies with you as to proving guilt.

Since the victim did not die, probably to the great regret of the agents involved

Extremely COLD and assuming ...

WHY the hell do you post all that crap in here?

He is satisfied wth the result and there is nothing he can say that would excuse this behavior.

Assuming and incorrect.

I wasn't there to observe the original 'event' so how could I judge these people like YOU seem able to do with nothing more than relying on a non-existant sixth paranormal sense ...

It takes more than the account in a newspaper or to convict or indict.

His boys were still in place when Reno ordered the burning of Waco.

Why do you people OUTRIGHT LIE on these matters?

Is it to better whip-up the frenzy here?

On the word of Gramme Craddock (a Davadian) - THE DAVIDIANS STARTED THE FIRES.

This was told to a Texas Ranger by Craddock. Craddock received burns on his hands from fooling around with an accelerant just prior top escaping the compound.

Are you people THAT developmentally challenged to have MISSED this fact all these years?

OR does it better serve 'your agenda'?

We're all f*cked.

That's why I never plan my life much beyond the next weekend or two. :-)

He's still working for the FBI?

The young man was a model citizen until he got his rude awakening.

What are you talking about?! I read he was an eagle scout and you know those folks are a bunch of haters from way back. /sarcasm

not taking anything away from the lousy actions of the Feds in this case, who acted wrong, poorly, lousy, without honor (pick a phrase) I think W. Bush had other things crossing his desk 4 months ago that were a little more pressing.

Just curious, how many years did this Craddock guy get compared to the other Davidian survivors?

The comment about the agents regretting the survival of the victim is based upon their denial of aid.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

I wasn't there to observe the original 'event' so how could I judge these people like YOU seem able to do with nothing more than relying on a non-existant sixth paranormal sense ...

I was basing my presumption that a trial before a jury was necessary based upon the admitted facts, (statements of the agents involved to the press. The person shot was shot at close range from teh side. The agent who shot approached teh vehicle from the front. Following the Platt Matix shootout in Miami a felony stop procedure was supposed to be standard operating procedure for all FBI agents. Ergo we have a prima facia case of reckless endangerment at minimum. When a prima facia case exists then clearly the case should procede to trial. That is more than one newpaper account's worth. The other case on which you were asked to comment on was the FBI leaving innocent men in Boston. If you do think this shoot was clean please inform us of a scewnario in which it was a clean shoot. Alas I can think of no way to justify this shhooting if I could I would state it. Beyond that I can think of no justification for any delay in allowing paramedics access to the injured young man. The key fact is that the agent was at the side of teh car and at very close range with an M4. That is negligent tactics in any situation and asking for an negligent death. You will not all I have demanded was a trial and I do compare FBI immunity to the strict scrutiny given otehr agencies by this same FBI.

So presuming from your post you think there is insufficient information to form an opinion I presume you have some alternative theroy as to why felony stop procedures were ignored then a young man was shot.

We haven't heard from enough _Jackboots yet. Pinging Dane!

Well, you showed up. Yet you didn't answer my questions before you attempted to divert attention with your spinning.

- How many felony stops have YOU conducted?
- How many times have you drawn YOUR service weapon?
- How many years of law enforcement experience do YOU have?
- How much training have YOU received in officer survival?
- How much legal education and training do YOU have?

I'll bet you must answer these questions with a big fat ZERO.

Harpseal has already tried to explain to you why felony stop procedures are developed. You NEVER, EVER approach an occupied vehicle - especially from the front. It is just too dangerous for the officer and too dangerous for the occupants. Multiple agents swarmed a vehicle, all shouting conflicting orders to the driver and passenger.

A proper felony stop is conducted from the rear of the suspect vehicle. ONE officer gives simple commands via loudspeaker and orders each occupant out of the suspect vehicle in a very specific manner: Use hand opposite door to reach out window; open door from outside. Get out facing front of suspect vehicle; without looking back, walk backwards toward the sound of the voice; officer guides suspect via simple commands (one step left, two steps right, etc.) between the police vehicles; arrest officer cuffs suspect and then repeat until vehicle is clear. All officers remain behind cover of police vehicle with officers designated to observe each individual. Movement to unbuckle a seatbelt, therefore, are not threatening as the officers are under cover with their firearms trained on the suspects; the suspects are FACING AWAY from the officers who have plenty of time to observe whether the suspect only unbuckles the seatbelt or comes up with a gun.

The FBI agents involved F#cked UP royally and needlessly endangered two innocent kids. They totally disregarded their training and created, by their reckless behavior, a situation where this agent felt threatened when the innocent kid obeyed a shouted order from another agent and unbuckled his seatbelt. Therefore the agent(s) is/are exposed to at least a reckless endangerment charge...at a minimum. But a gutless prosecutor tanked the grand jury process - bottom line.

But you don't care - the FBI can do no wrong in your mind...there is always someone else to blame.

You are a worthless piece of human flesh that wastes time, space and air.

Let's see what the story "appears to show," you J@ck@ss:

They also indicate that agents were told about the plot two days before it happened and apparently did nothing to stop it.
...
They strongly suggest that the FBI's chief witness at the 1968 trial, legendary Boston hit man Joseph "The Animal" Barboza, framed Limone and several other men.
As Limone languished in prison for three decades, documents that might have proved his innocence sat in secret FBI informant files in Washington and were never turned over to the defense, attorney John Cavicchi said.

Gosh, it appears to show that the FBI is absolutely guilty of obstructing justice and was absolutely in contempt of court by not turning over exculpatory information to the defense. I'd have no trouble proving both of those crimes, I'd only have to introduce into evidence certified copies of the Discovery Requests filed by defense counsel and call two witnesses, the US Attorney invesigating FBI corruption who discovered the report and the defense counsel to testify that he requested all exculpatory information and that he didn't receive this report. Would take longer to pick the jury than to try the case.

...

One key report states that on March 10, 1965 -- two days before the murder -- an unidentified FBI informant told Special Agent H. Paul Rico that Flemmi was planning to kill Deegan and that the murder had the blessing of then-New England Mafia boss Raymond Patriarca.
"Informant advised that he had just heard from Jimmy Flemmi, and Flemmi told the informant that Raymond Patriarca has put out the word that Edward 'Teddy' Deegan is to be 'hit,' and that a dry run has already been made and that a close associate of Deegan's has agreed to set him up," Rico's report states.
One day after the murder, another informant told Rico that Flemmi, Barboza and three other men had committed the crime.

And, oops, it appears to show that the FBI agents are dfeinately accessorys to murder because they failed to stop an impending crime of which they had been made aware. They were aware of a conspiracy to kill someone and that substantial steps had been taken in the furtherance of the conspiracy. (dry run to kill the victim) Basic criminal law regarding conspiracys and crimes in general - if you have knowledge of a conspiracy/crime and aid in the commission or aid the prevention of arrest of the suspects you are as guilty as if you committed the crime. The FBI had information before the murder, did not act on it and then concealed the fact that they had the knowledge and that their prior knowledge indicated one of their own informants would be the killer. Then they allow the prosecution of another individual based on the previously named informant/killer's word and do not disclose the contradictory information to the Court. [Basic police procedure and case law: when dealing with informants who make you aware of impeding felony crimes you must prevent the crime, even if it means burning your informant. Informants cannot be allowed to commit crimes, either.]

....

The reports were turned over to Cavicchi, Garo and Suffolk County District Attorney Ralph Martin's office by Special U.S. Attorney John Durham, who for the past several years has been investigating corruption in the FBI's informant relationships with gangsters Stephen Flemmi and Whitey Bulger.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise...it appears that a US Attorney thinks there is corruption in the FBI...

________

So, that's what the shows to anyone with a brain and no pro-FBI at all costs agenda.

Oh, and Uncle_Bill posts that "crap" so that us serfs know what evil is being perpertrated by those whose actions you attempt to cover up with almost every post, and who are supposed to protect our rights, you moron.

BUMP !!!!!!!!