Posted on 07/02/2002 2:09:18 PM PDT by caa26
The second problem I have is: where's the deadly weapon or fear of death/serious physical harm by the agent?
The agent saw no gun because there was no gun. I bet he said in the investigation that he thought the victim was drawing a gun on another agent so he shot. Still, he did not see a gun.
We can only use deadly force when threatened with death/serious physical harm, not every time someone makes a hand movement.
When I was a rookie and riding with my training officer we got a call of two men in a 4x4 next to a convenience store and the caller said they had guns in the car. We pulled the 4x4 over and I approached on the passenger side with our shotgun.
The passenger (who was 16) opened the door and immediately reached under the seat. I waited until he pulled out whatever he was going for. It turned out to be a piece of paper. Had I shot I think I would have been more justified than the agent in this story.
Heh, I see you're getting piled on again.
You'd be surprised to learn that if I was forced to take a guess about who started the Waco fire, I would say the Davidians. If I was forced to take a guess as to what happend to this kid that has his face disfigured, I'd say it was a tragic accident.
However, you're missing the big point here.... these things shouldn't be happening. Easily frightened and undertrained FBI agents shouldn't be running around suburbia with weapons of war, just as the Treasury Dept. shouldn't be conducting massive commando Ops for firearms violations, just as the Justice Dept. shouldn't be crashing tanks into buildings.
The thing that infuriates many of us is not these events in themselves, but nobody EVER is held accountable for their actions. Nevermind prosecuted, nobody is ever fired or even given a slap on the wrist.
After shooting her dog and number one son and before running tanks and poisonous gas into a church!
Turns out the shotgun was the first firearm his deceased father had given him, so he didn't want to drop in on the concrete. Seeing me draw down on their relative (he was related to the individuals involved in the domestic) defused the argument between the other three. The family were all frequent flyers at our department and the kid with the shotgun had gotten into an argument with his mother who promptly kicked him out. He left with the shotgun but returned when he saw me arrive because he thought I was going to arrest one of his family members and planned to interfere.
The backup officers all said they would have shot him after the first three commands to drop the gun....guess it was a good thing they arrived late.
I've been involved in 5 or 6 incidents such as this where I would have been cleared if I would have shot a suspect - but I never fired my weapon due to good training, a calm head and common sense. Wonder why the FBI has so much trouble, I was just a lowly local cop - you know, the kind held in such contempt by the Feds.
Of the close calls I've had I just didn't think it was the right time to shoot, I did'nt feel threatened enough; and two of the three I almost shot were coming towards me with knives. And I did have an incident with a man with a shotgun also. (you start to forget over the years)
Theres a huge gray area there but I think you have to wait until you at least see a weapon.
They also indicate that ... apparently did nothing They strongly suggest that ... ... documents that might have proved ...Three sentences and five different 'weasel word' sets - and you proceed to state the following:
"Gosh, it appears to show that the FBI is absolutely guilty of obstructing justice and was absolutely in contempt of court "
I notice that *you* used another weasel word in YOUR responses.
That must mean that you understand that a) you know exculpating evidence exists (but not yet revealed here) OR b) you are afraid that such evidence exists ...
Good work.
From the second part of your reply we find:
" it appears to show that the FBI agents are dfeinately [sic] accessorys to murder because they failed to stop an impending crime "
More 'weasel words' - because all you really have to make this point is the slimmest of material. A few lines excerpted from a 'story'.
Gee, I wonder what that the bureau up there was doing that month - how many other active cases, how many security-clearance interviews, background checks, etc, they were conducting?
I have noted that Classical Conspiracy Theory always assumes that those involved with the conspiracy have nothing else to do except involve themsleves with the conspiracy at hand, when in fact, these people have other responsibilities and duties to discharge - a lot like you and I do. What were the workloads of these men - were they called away or otherwise involved in other activities? Court appearances? Bank-robbery investigations? Other crime investigations conducted on/involving Federal property?
Common sense should also still tell you that if this material were that damning it would have been destroyed loooooooooong ago.
*IF* this material were that damning ... I'd expect something actionable out of an 'investigation' soon. I'm not going to hold my breath though ...
I think overall that you're putting way too much stock into a few loose press reports.
Better if you were to stand back and with a cooler head take a look at the bigger picture, use a little common sense and get the story that (I'm sure) exists on the other side of this coin ...
FACT - The documents were NOT turned over to the defense.
FACT - They indicate that another individual did the crime.
FACT - The FBI had information the crime was going to occur before it took place.
FACT - The FBI is required to turn ALL of that information over to the defense.
You can't refute them, they are, after all, facts. Again, it would take longer to pick the jury than to put on the evidence - But you've been ignoring the facts because they don't suit your agenda.
Back to the original subject of this thread - why haven't you addressed all the facts in that story.
FACT - The agent disregarded police procedures and ran up to the front of a vehicle.
FACT - When the occupant obeyed another agent's orders to unbuckle the seat belt he was shot.
FACT - The shooter had already seen that the victim's hand was empty.
Prima Facia case of reckless endangerment, due to the agent's actions in ignoring proper procedure for felony stops.
But you haven't addressed anyone's posts on that point either...but then you never do when the FBI ignores police procedure.
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.