Self-defense for FBI agent killer?

[law dawg]

Is there any evidence that she was a criminal? The only information that I could find was that the husband had a warrant/was the target.

She knew his business and he kept dope in the house. She knew. She's in on it, IMO.

Like everyone said, there's going to be a lack of objective info on this one.

Executing a SWAT raid on a house w/ little kids seems pretty aggressive to me. As much as I want to defend the cops on this one, I think this should have been planned better. Was there a real threat that the husband was going to destroy the evidence/drugs at that moment? Could they have detained everyone a few hours later when they were outside? Is the risk of destroyed evidence worth the risk to the officers?

Wasn't SWAT. If the FBI had used their SWAT it would have been the HRT.

The rest of the questions are good ones and are the ones you're supposed to ask prior to going in.

 

[bishop375]

Was the agent that was shot and killed the first one in the house? Was he in the doorway? How many agents raided the house?

If the first agent in was shot and killed, she would have had to have moved pretty damn fast from a bedroom to get a gun, and position herself to get to a point where she could open fire.

Something isn't right.

 

[law dawg]

None of this is going to make a shit anyway when the zombie apocalypse happens. We'll look back on all this and say - "We were getting worked up over such small stuff? Man those were the DAYS!"

It's all about perspective, I guess.

 

[Raoul Duke]

If you want to wield a handgun, know what the f*** you're shooting at. If it applies to us LEOs, it applies to others as well. She shot the gun, she owns the bullet.

Thing is, it doesn't appear to apply to LEO's in any consistent way.

So, why is it that a citizen who makes a very very understandable mistake is "all done" in your words, when an LEO who makes an equally understandable mistake simply gets a few days off and then it's back to business.

It's the double standard that's pissing people (me) off so much. Why is it that it's all in the line of duty when it's an LEO but it's a criminal offense when it's a civilian. The negative attitude towards LEO comes from two things:

1. The fact that most people fear the Police as much or more as they do criminals

2. The fact that the double standard is so so clearly laid out even by the more thoughtful LEO such as yourself.


oh...yeah, you are are right about the Zombie thing. I'll shoot back to back with any badged individual when the zombies are attacking but by my clock we still have a few more weeks...

 

[jmhorrible]

None of this is going to make a shit anyway when the zombie apocalypse happens. We'll look back on all this and say - "We were getting worked up over such small stuff? Man those were the DAYS!"

It's all about perspective, I guess.

Do zombies knock first?

 

[FunYun]

Let's stipulate that this is, in fact, what occurred (you're stating what she believed at the time, which none of us really knows) - she's still guilty of murder of a fed. As for being ashamed of myself - sorry, I'm not. I said she's done like dinner and she is. I wouldn't make flippant statements like that if she was dead or seriously injured. But to someone who shot a fed doing his job? Oh yeah.

If you want to wield a handgun, know what the f*** you're shooting at. If it applies to us LEOs, it applies to others as well. She shot the gun, she owns the bullet.

She wasn't innocent of her husband's business doings. Period. She lives with a dope dealer who kept coke in the house. She's really looking out for the kids.

Whats your problem, we are not saying anything that hasn't been said before in defense of cop who shot someone wielding what was perceived to be a gun.

Well it finally came out, shes guilty cause someone else did bad things. Are you happy now that you look like a nut job?

Even then, EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves from a perceived unlawful attack. It's as f***ing natural as gravity.

 

[News Shooter]

The story in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette today says the agent was the first one to make entry

 

[law dawg]

Thing is, it doesn't appear to apply to LEO's in any consistent way.

So, why is it that a citizen who makes a very very understandable mistake is "all done" in your words, when an LEO who makes an equally understandable mistake simply gets a few days off and then it's back to business.

A LEO makes a bad shoot and gets a few days off? Where? You make a bad shoot anywhere I've worked and it's your ass.

It's the double standard that's pissing people (me) off so much. Why is it that it's all in the line of duty when it's an LEO but it's a criminal offense when it's a civilian. The negative attitude towards LEO comes from two things:

Not where I work.

1. The fact that most people fear the Police as much or more as they do criminals

So if you're pulled over on a traffic stop you're as scared as when you're being robbed?

2. The fact that the double standard is so so clearly laid out even by the more thoughtful LEO such as yourself.

Like I said, no double standard here. Where I work, if the bullet leaves the gun you own it. The standard that has to be met is - means, opportunity and intent.

oh...yeah, you are are right about the Zombie thing. I'll shoot back to back with any badged individual when the zombies are attacking but by my clock we still have a few more weeks...

Don't rest on your laurels. That's when you get eaten.

 

[FunYun]

Was the agent that was shot and killed the first one in the house? Was he in the doorway? How many agents raided the house?

If the first agent in was shot and killed, she would have had to have moved pretty damn fast from a bedroom to get a gun, and position herself to get to a point where she could open fire.

Something isn't right.

He was the first one in.

How did she get him? Well they first the broke a window to try and unlock the door. My guess is at this point they notice hubby making a run and rammed the door. The wife either heared the orginal knock and got the gun or saw he guy reaching in and got it, or even had it on her the whole time. She fire just as he entered the house and then ran for the kids.

My best guess for the lack of return fire is they couldn't see her since everyone else was outside. The leo may have also fell backwards blocking the door.

 

[FunYun]

A LEO makes a bad shoot and gets a few days off? Where? You make a bad shoot anywhere I've worked and it's your ass.


Not where I work.


So if you're pulled over on a traffic stop you're as scared as when you're being robbed?


Like I said, no double standard here. Where I work, if the bullet leaves the gun you own it. The standard that has to be met is - means, opportunity and intent.


Don't rest on your laurels. That's when you get eaten.

While saying an officer in a questionable shoot only gets a few days off is an understatement. It IS true that most officers involved in a questionable shoot are put on paid desk duty till AFTER the investigation. While everyone else goes straight to jail.

Someone breaking into your house while carrying weapons certainly meets - means, opportunity and intent.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

When you break into ANYONEs home, you MIMIC CRIMINAL ACTIONS. Just like people who point fake guns at cops, don't be surprised when B&E gets you shot.

 

[terraformer]

Hey, I was watching the game last weekend and I saw the quarterback try and complete a pass to a receiver but he was sacked first. Obviously that play is ineffective and should be scrapped. Any play that doesn't have a 100% success rate should be scrapped.

No, but maybe you use it in different circumstances, or give it an option so if it gets shut down on one option, you roll and handoff. It's a crappy analogy anyhow. I don't see where I said to dump no-knocks/barely knocks like this. But they need to be used more judiciously given the number of false positives they are getting. We have had two in 3 months to get national attention. I don't doubt that there are more we aren't seeing.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Ohhh...gooody. No one takes me on anymore no matter what kind of foolishness I spout. (See, I can laugh at myself) But on a more serious note let me address your comments.

A LEO makes a bad shoot and gets a few days off? Where? You make a bad shoot anywhere I've worked and it's your ass.

Not where I work.

Ok...not where you work.

So if you're pulled over on a traffic stop you're as scared as when you're being robbed?

I think you misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear) I don't mean that when the cops pull you over you're as scared as when you're being robed

(although I'm a white guy- ask one of the gentlemen of color how they feel for a more accurate answer)

What I meant was that the average person isn't robbed but the average person has read multiple stories of (completely unrepentant) police abuse and experienced the "LEO as G*D" attitude in a less than lethal situation (traffic stop, etc). Therefore, what I meant was this:

If the door comes crashing down at two in the morning, I am (justifiably) equally scared whether it's the police or a criminal. In fact, perhaps I'm hoping it's a criminal because if it's an LEO and I shoot him/her I will likely be "all done" in your words. However, if it's a criminal and I plug him, I MAY not even loose my license. So, with that in mind. I have far more to loose from a police raid than a criminal attack. Yes, it's true that if I was a good little peon unwilling to take responsibility for my own safety, I would be huddled in a corner pleading for my life and therefore MIGHT come out safely. Further, if I accept the supposition that I have nothing to fear from a police raid, I might also feel differently. However, that is not the situation. Anyone paying attention knows that they absolutely have something to fear from a raid whether or not they are guilty and especially if they are a dully armed citizen.

Yes- because I am a citizen who takes responsibility for his safety, I am likely to be armed, to employ that arm in self defense, and to suffer the consequences as an outcome.

Like I said, no double standard here. Where I work, if the bullet leaves the gun you own it. The standard that has to be met is - means, opportunity and intent.

Ok, I think we've established in this and other discussions, that you and your unit are statistical outliers...that is, your position vis-a-vis citizen safety is unusually solid and your peers unusually trustworthy and upstanding. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Don't rest on your laurels. That's when you get eaten.

That's the triple truth- Ruth.

Besides, I'm not sure we disagree. I'm sure a lot of it comes from your upbringing.

I was born and raised in the 70s in a part of Boston where the police were not, shall we say, "upstanding." That formed my initial opinion. Later in life that opinion solidified into a burning hatred through events I'll not get into. finally that hatred was mollified down to fundamental distrust (sans malevolence) as I got to know personally, more LEO through my interest in guns. In fact, most of the softening of my position has come through discussion with LEO such as yourself (yes, you personally) as well as people I genuinely care about who have family members on the force. This is why we have semi-productive conversations such as this instead of repetitive bitch fests.

oh...and some of those too.

 

[law dawg]

While saying an officer in a questionable shoot only gets a few days off is an understatement. It IS true that most officers involved in a questionable shoot are put on paid desk duty till AFTER the investigation. While everyone else goes straight to jail.

Someone breaking into your house while carrying weapons certainly meets - means, opportunity and intent.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

When you break into ANYONEs home, you MIMIC CRIMINAL ACTIONS. Just like people who point fake guns at cops, don't be surprised when B&E gets you shot.

I'm not surprised at all when it happens. You train for it happening. You'll notice an absence of statements like "the tragedy of this agent being shot," "how horrible," etc.

He did his job. It comes with a price tag attached, sometimes.

And yes, MIO was met in her case. The only down side is, she was associated with someone engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise. Indeed, one that he, at least partially, used his home for.

In any case with a LEO the first question asked is - why were you at where you were at? Second question - were you engaged in official duties? Third question - were you acting within that scope? Fourth question - did you follow policy? If you fail at any level, you're pretty much screwed.

She fails in the first question, while she has a right to be at home, of course, her home was being used by her husband in a criminal enterprise. I know she was aware of it. No doubt in my mind, but that must proven, of course. I'm quite sure it will be. That makes her actions from that point on shady, at best.

It's going to be hard for a jury to clear her when she was living with a dope dealer who used their home to store at least some of the product. It colors the perception of the incident. It makes her look like less of a protective mom, living in a house with the kids where dope is stored. It makes it look less likely she was protecting her kids and more like she was protecting the stash. Her "perception" it was a threat is not so mitigating.

If I have sex with a 14 year old and she told me she was 20, am I not still liable? I mean, I thought she was legal, right? My "perception" is what counts, right?

It comes down to this - she was involved, if only peripherally, with some shady stuff. That makes it likely that one of two entities are going to come crashing into her door - the cops and other crooks. They knew it's a possibility that at some point the cops or someone they wronged in the criminal world or someone they're tied into in the game would kick in the door. While she might not have thought it was the cops this particular time, you'll never convince me that she also didn't expect it to be the cops.

And I'm not even getting into the unlikelihood of a woman going for the gun. That's the first instinct of normal women in this board's experience? To go for the gun? A woman in the game, yes. A regular woman, not so much.

At the end of the day I think many people here are empathizing with this woman because one day they expect their door to be kicked in by cops looking to take away their guns. They want to be able to fight back, and the angle is to not know they're cops. If you don't know, you can fight back, whereas if you know you can't. Maybe I'm full of crap, but that's how it reads to me and it's understandable.

Me, I empathize with the LEO because one day I'm going through the door and I don't want to get shot. I don't want people just being able to say that they didn't know and that be sufficient justification.

It's all about where you put yourself, I guess.

Sorry for the diatribe.

 

[law dawg]

No, but maybe you use it in different circumstances, or give it an option so if it gets shut down on one option, you roll and handoff. It's a crappy analogy anyhow. I don't see where I said to dump no-knocks/barely knocks like this. But they need to be used more judiciously given the number of false positives they are getting. We have had two in 3 months to get national attention. I don't doubt that there are more we aren't seeing.

Not you, per se, but plenty of people have said on this board to dump no-knocks.

The analogy comes into play this way - is the problem at hand one of principle or of execution?

If it's a principle based problem, then it needs to be scrapped. It won't or shouldn't work based upon principle. LEOs don't execute suspects in the street out of principle. You don't try to bust down a door with using a herring based upon principle.

If it's a problem of execution, you figure out what went wrong and fix the problem. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[law dawg]

Ohhh...gooody. No one takes me on anymore no matter what kind of foolishness I spout. (See, I can laugh at myself) But on a more serious note let me address your comments.

Me too. Or if I don't, my wife will.

I think you misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear) I don't mean that when the cops pull you over you're as scared as when you're being robed

(although I'm a white guy- ask one of the gentlemen of color how they feel for a more accurate answer)

What I meant was that the average person isn't robbed but the average person has read multiple stories of (completely unrepentant) police abuse and experienced the "LEO as G*D" attitude in a less than lethal situation (traffic stop, etc). Therefore, what I meant was this:

I don't understand. They've read the same number of stories about home invaders and armed robbers and rapists and gangs and child molesters. And all of them were completely unrepentant.

If the door comes crashing down at two in the morning, I am (justifiably) equally scared whether it's the police or a criminal. In fact, perhaps I'm hoping it's a criminal because if it's an LEO and I shoot him/her I will likely be "all done" in your words. However, if it's a criminal and I plug him, I MAY not even loose my license. So, with that in mind. I have far more to loose from a police raid than a criminal attack. Yes, it's true that if I was a good little peon unwilling to take responsibility for my own safety, I would be huddled in a corner pleading for my life and therefore MIGHT come out safely. Further, if I accept the supposition that I have nothing to fear from a police raid, I might also feel differently. However, that is not the situation. Anyone paying attention knows that they absolutely have something to fear from a raid whether or not they are guilty and especially if they are a dully armed citizen.

Here's the rub - what is the likelihood of that happening? Of a criminal or cop kicking in your door? See, if you're in the game (like this family was) then that door being kicked in rises exponentially. Being out of the game the odds are insignificant. You'd have better odds playing the lottery. Works the same with cops. They're out there looking for trouble and therefore more likely to find it.

So, you prepare of what happens most and you'll handle most of what happens. Preparing for a ninja death squad? Not likely. Cops kicking in your door? Not likely unless you catch a lottery or are in the business. Zombie hordes overrunning your neighborhood and town? Inevitable.

So what topics do you get wound up about? Why get wound up about something that is 99.99999999999999999% unlikely to ever happen? I don't worry at night about a meteor hitting my house either.

Just sayin'.

Yes- because I am a citizen who takes responsibility for his safety, I am likely to be armed, to employ that arm in self defense, and to suffer the consequences as an outcome.

Not saying otherwise. I agree 100000% with your decision. But, when you carry, you have to put the bullets in the right place. I've seen cops make bad shoots in training many, many times. They've shot their co-workers in the heat of the moment. The disorientation, the chaos, adrenaline - it happens. And if it happens in the street, there will be a price tag attached.

Ok, I think we've established in this and other discussions, that you and your unit are statistical outliers...that is, your position vis-a-vis citizen safety is unusually solid and your peers unusually trustworthy and upstanding. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

I wish sometimes it was a little less strict. They're willing, it seems, to always believe the complaint regardless of merit. I prefer the middle way, myself. Trust your guys, but verify. All else being equal, though, I trust my people.

That's the triple truth- Ruth.

Besides, I'm not sure we disagree. I'm sure a lot of it comes from your upbringing.

I was born and raised in the 70s in a part of Boston where the police were not, shall we say, "upstanding." That formed my initial opinion. Later in life that opinion solidified into a burning hatred through events I'll not get into. finally that hatred was mollified down to fundamental distrust (sans malevolence) as I got to know personally, more LEO through my interest in guns. In fact, most of the softening of my position has come through discussion with LEO such as yourself (yes, you personally) as well as people I genuinely care about who have family members on the force. This is why we have semi-productive conversations such as this instead of repetitive bitch fests.

oh...and some of those too.

Well thank you.

I'm always amazed at people who talk about returning to the good ole days of when cops weren't so authoritarian and Nazi and whatever the expletive of the day is. I guess I remember police back then a little differently. Cock off to a cop today and most likely nothing will happen. Go spout off to a cop in the 40s-70s and it's a different story. Those saps they used got lots of play back then.

 

[FunYun]

I'm not surprised at all when it happens. You train for it happening. You'll notice an absence of statements like "the tragedy of this agent being shot," "how horrible," etc.

He did his job. It comes with a price tag attached, sometimes.

And yes, MIO was met in her case. The only down side is, she was associated with someone engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise. Indeed, one that he, at least partially, used his home for.

In any case with a LEO the first question asked is - why were you at where you were at? Second question - were you engaged in official duties? Third question - were you acting within that scope? Fourth question - did you follow policy? If you fail at any level, you're pretty much screwed.

This is why people dislike the police. As long as policy is followed, nothing else matters. Which means if the police hit the wrong house, but had good intentions, you are shit out of luck. As long as something points to criminal activity, just about anything is allowable, with recourse being suing the .gov, which is like climbing a wall of ice.


She fails in the first question, while she has a right to be at home, of course, her home was being used by her husband in a criminal enterprise. I know she was aware of it. No doubt in my mind, but that must proven, of course. I'm quite sure it will be. That makes her actions from that point on shady, at best.

Her knowledge of criminal happenings in her house does not mean she loses the right to self defence. You don't get to beat criminals because they're criminals.

It's going to be hard for a jury to clear her when she was living with a dope dealer who used their home to store at least some of the product. It colors the perception of the incident. It makes her look like less of a protective mom, living in a house with the kids where dope is stored.

That would be the fault of the jury. The fact that hubby was dealing only gives credence to the police presence. It does not bear on her perception of an unlawful attack.

If I have sex with a 14 year old and she told me she was 20, am I not still liable? I mean, I thought she was legal, right? My perception is what counts, right?

If she has a reasonable appearance of someone who is legal, then yes, you would be right in my book. In my belief, the laws on this issue are flawed. They completely ignore the lack of ability to confirm someones age. As far as I'm concerned, she perpetrated a fraud on you, and like entrapment, you should not be liable.

It comes down to this - she was involved, if only peripherally, with some shady stuff. That makes it likely that one of two entities are going to come crashing into her door - the cops and other crooks. They knew it's a possibility that at some point the cops or someone they wronged in the criminal world or someone they're tied into in the game would kick in the door. While she might not have thought it was the cops this particular time, you'll never convince me that she also didn't expect it to be the cops.

In reverse, the cops were able to find evidence to get warrants on 35 people, but not her. Your assumption is that she was simply a better crook, and didn't get caught. I would say its more likely she wasn't involved in the first place. This is where that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing comes into play.

And I'm not even getting into the unlikelihood of a woman going for the gun. That's the first instinct of normal women in this board's experience? To go for the gun? A woman in the game, yes. A regular woman, not so much.

She had a CCW permit, so I would say she has shown intent to follow the law, and intent defend herself with a firearm.

At the end of the day I think many people here are empathizing with this woman because one day they expect their door to be kicked in by cops looking to take away their guns. They want to be able to fight back, and the angle is to not know they're cops. If you don't know, you can fight back, whereas if you know you can't. Maybe I'm full of crap, but that's how it reads to me and it's understandable.

Somewhat, but less to do with guns, and more to do with their right to self defense. The realization that these things happen in seconds and the decision to act must be made immediately. This makes people very afraid because an LEO can raid the wrong house with good intentions, and the homeowner is going to have make an instant decision whether the masked men entering his house are cops or not. As you can see, I along with many people would prefer the LEO's be the ones who are responsible for what happens in a raid. The homeowner is the one who has been put in a nearly impossible situation.

Me, I empathize with the LEO because one day I'm going through the door and I don't want to get shot. I don't want people just being able to say that they didn't know and that be sufficient justification.

It's all about where you put yourself, I guess.

Do everything you can to ensure your not being sent through the wrong door. In the end, its your body. If you don't want it to be subjected to fallacies of human kind, then you should find a less exposed profession.

Sorry for the diatribe.

For me, usually the person with the most control of the situation, is the one most liable to the outcome.

 

[GSG]

Christina Korbe was with her 10-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son when agents arrived and may have feared for their safety, said her attorney, Sumner Parker.

If she was woken from sleep, as many here are saying, how did she roll out of bed, get her gun, get to the top of the stairs with her kids, to shoot the first agent in the door? Door's busted to first agent inside is what, 1 second maybe?

What kind of person (including mall ninjas) moves that fast?

 

[GSG]

© 2008 The Associated Press.

The same people who tell us that Hamas, the PLO and Taliban are "militants," who willfully overlook Brendan McKown's heroism, who are ecstatic about Barack Obama in the White House.

Gee, I wonder if there could be more to this story.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

What non-pussefied individual would not attempt to repel an invasion of their home? People other than criminals have the balls to defend themselves from perceived attacks.

Kicking in someones door at the crack of dawn while carrying weapons makes you the target. I really can't understand why LEO don't get this. Until you have unequivocally identified yourself as a LEO, people are going to think the worst, and react with that assumption.

OK... I am not talking about having balls or not in defending your property. Just ask how Mark Ragsdale nearly was charged with shooting an Officer who he thought was an intruder. Point is, if you are going to shoot someone, you better damn well know what your target is. Period.

The point I am not seeing here is that they were DRUG DEALERS. OK... Under MA law, they would be in violation of having a LTC or any other gun. So...WTF is your point that this was the Police's fault for kicking in the door?

And, who are the criminals here? Jeesh.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Obviously they didn't announce to her. She shot one, then called 911 and announced a robbery.

Nice cover if you ask me...
Drug house bust...
Trying to cover for husband running to dump the coke...

IMO...I am stunned she was not lit up on general principle.

 

[terraformer]

Nice cover if you ask me...
Drug house bust...
Trying to cover for husband running to dump the coke...

IMO...I am stunned she was not lit up on general principle.

Dopes like this are not that smart.

 

[Raoul Duke]

IMO...I am stunned she was not lit up on general principle.

Why exactly would someone want to "light someone up" on general principle?

unless of course, you are the kind of scrotum depicted in your avatar.

 

[mikem317]

The point I am not seeing here is that they were DRUG DEALERS. OK... Under MA law, they would be in violation of having a LTC or any other gun. So...WTF is your point that this was the Police's fault for kicking in the door?

And, who are the criminals here? Jeesh.

The DEA, the FBI, the CIA and the Fed? Are those the criminals you were referencing?

 

[GSG]

Why exactly would someone want to "light someone up" on general principle?

The general principle of get shot, shoot back. If she can argue that she didn't know he was a cop when she shot him, he could easily argue that he didn't know she was a CCW-holding, law-abiding mother caught up in a drug raid accidentally when he shot her back.

 

[law dawg]

The general principle of get shot, shoot back. If she can argue that she didn't know he was a cop when she shot him, he could easily argue that he didn't know she was a CCW-holding, law-abiding mother caught up in a drug raid accidentally when he shot her back.

+1

So far, whenever anyone's tried to kill me, I've tried to kill them back.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Why exactly would someone want to "light someone up" on general principle?

unless of course, you are the kind of scrotum depicted in your avatar.

Drug house bust --> One of their own is shot and killed --> Other agents have guns and do not realize that the perp in the house was not shooting at them to KILL them but is shooting at them "because they are intruders and armed burglers" --> Agents confront armed woman and take her out.

Yea...I don't see how that does not add up.

RIGHT. Now, we need to place NEON signs on the FBI saying that "We are the FBI, not a competing drug dealer trying to steal your coke, please do not shoot us."

Right...

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The general principle of get shot, shoot back. If she can argue that she didn't know he was a cop when she shot him, he could easily argue that he didn't know she was a CCW-holding, law-abiding mother caught up in a drug raid accidentally when he shot her back.

Does anyone believe she did not know her husband was in the Coke dealing business? Right... And all of that money in safes in the home and not in the bank does not set off alarm bells...

Right...

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The DEA, the FBI, the CIA and the Fed? Are those the criminals you were referencing?

By that twisted logic, I assume you believe the Coke dealer who is contributing to the violence on the streets and is causing our sport to be in jeopardy ... that he is innocent here?

WTF is the matter with you man?

 

[GSG]

+1

So far, whenever anyone's tried to kill me, I've tried to kill them back.

I was taking a Weapon Retention course, and the instructor asked us at the start "What'll you do if someone shoots you?" One student said "Die," another said "Bleed." He said "No, you're going to get mad, fight, move. Getting shot doesn't mean you're out of the fight." He went on to talk about goal-oriented individuals, and people who have been fatally wounded but didn't die until the fight was over. You're in the fight until you're dead, unconcious or paralyzed (i.e. the Miami FBI shootout).

I'm not knocking this agent, I wasn't there, I don't know what he saw, where he was shot, and how that affected his central nervous system. I've never been shot, and every shooting I've been involved with has been as person walking up on it or as a person getting involved the second it took place, but my goal is to finish any fight I get involved with, whether I want to be in it or not.

 

[GSG]

Does anyone believe she did not know her husband was in the Coke dealing business? Right... And all of that money in safes in the home and not in the bank does not set off alarm bells...

Right...

I was being sarcastic, expanding on your point.

Common sense, if someone's trafficking out of the house, the spouse should at least have a vague idea.