Self-defense for FBI agent killer?

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
906
Likes
70
Location
southwest
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.
Very well said.

Finish what was started. Stay in the fight. Save the "what-ifs" for later. Aim and fire. Repeat as necessary.
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,292
Likes
2,133
Location
New Hampshire
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? [thinking]

Wrong.

The cocaine dealer is not contributing to any violence on the streets. And it has nothing to do with the War on Private Gun Ownership.

It's the government prohibition that contributes to the violence on the streets. Government interference in the drug trade distorts market price. Supply-side attacks only shift prices northward. As the cocaine per unit price shifts higher and higher, dealers have more and more incentive to protect their supplies, raw materials and supply chain. And they often times resort to violence or subject to violence because of the grossly inflated price of their products.

I'm a father too. So I abhor drugs. Don't label me as a coke-head because it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Using sound public policy, encouraging stronger family unity, and a return of parental responsibility, will fix the drug problem. Not the DEA, not the FBI, not the US government's War on Drugs.

The government ain't part of the solution.

Again, the failed War on Drugs has destroyed two families' lives, forever, in this sad example.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
906
Likes
70
Location
southwest
Wrong.

The cocaine dealer is not contributing to any violence on the streets. And it has nothing to do with the War on Private Gun Ownership.

It's the government prohibition that contributes to the violence on the streets. Government interference in the drug trade distorts market price. Supply-side attacks only shift prices northward. As the cocaine per unit price shifts higher and higher, dealers have more and more incentive to protect their supplies, raw materials and supply chain. And they often times resort to violence or subject to violence because of the grossly inflated price of their products.

I'm a father too. So I abhor drugs. Don't label me as a coke-head because it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Using sound public policy, encouraging stronger family unity, and a return of parental responsibility, will fix the drug problem. Not the DEA, not the FBI, not the US government's War on Drugs.

The government ain't part of the solution.

Again, the failed War on Drugs has destroyed two families' lives, forever, in this sad example.

I'm no fan of drug laws. I agree they create an environment that is conducive for violence.

That said, it ain't the government out there pulling the trigger.
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,292
Likes
2,133
Location
New Hampshire
I'm no fan of drug laws. I agree they create an environment that is conducive for violence.

That said, it ain't the government out there pulling the trigger.

Yes. Any prohibitionist strategy is one that will facilitate violence. Prohibition is government interference in the market. Plain and simple. Government interference can:

1. Artificially inflate the price (e.g. Handgun prices in Massachusetts, cocaine anywhere, health insurance premiums, car insurance premiums, etc.)

2. Artificially deflate the price (e.g. Community Reinvestment Act's final impact on residential property values, Federal Reserve System's centrally planned cost of capital, etc.)

The government may not be pulling the trigger, per se. However this doesn't expunge their complicity.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
3,435
Likes
401
What the heck is going on around here? I have been working round the clock the past couple of days and come back to this mess. The irony of this is that I was executing search warrants. [wink]

First, you point out, as you regularly do, that we don't know everything and can't assume the story is accurate, but since all we have is the press reports we should work off of those, with the very prudent caveat something could be different.


Terraformer,

Thank you for taking the time to point out the specific issues that you have with this without contributing any of the anti-LEO rhetoric.

I will attempt to address some of the issues that you brought up.

We do not know the complete story but there does not seem to be much disagreement over what had happened. The big question surrounds the "announcement".


The point everyone is trying to make is if LE wanted access to the house, then why is it LE didn't wait for the house to become empty

Several issues come to light with this. Without knowing the specifics of this particular investigation. We do not know what information that they had which led to the issuance of the search warrant. Many times in investigations the only evidence that can be used against the defendant is any evidence that is recovered in his/her possession from inside of the residence.

The catch is that..depending upon the house/investigation...the only way to prove possession by the defendant is to have him/her present in the house with the illegal items at the time/execution of the warrant.

Executing the warrant when no one is home is fruitless (depending upon the individual investigation).

or at least wait for, or choose a time with a probability of a lower occupancy rate?

History/experience shows that early morning gives the highest probability of a lower occupancy rate.

It also gives the least probability of confrontation and is well documented in that. Although this incident was the exception to the rule.


The problem everyone (who has one) has with these para-military style raids is they are confrontational by their very nature. The best way to avoid any bloodshed, warranted or not, is to avoid the confrontation.

Actually as I just stated. Early morning raids have been documented to be less confrontational. The irony is that the reasons that those who are posting here state they are too dangerous are the same reasons that they are the safest.

There are generally less occupants. They are generally asleep, which gives the element of surprise and if done correctly the residents/occupants do not have time to formulate defensive measures.

In the case of drug investigations. The worst times to execute are during the day and early night when they are actively involved in dealing/consuming the drugs and where there may be many armed individuals (other dealers/customers) who are high on crack. This is far more dangerous to everyone


Yes, they wanted access to the house, but because they knew the hubby was dealing coke. If they had a warrant, they already had a good deal to implicate him in the dealing part.


Enough to implicate..... maybe not enough to arrest or convict


They could have waited for him to leave, nabbed him and knocked mid day and served the warrant.

Again...potential legal issues surrounding possession as well as potential car chase, foot chase and or shootout outside of the home where there is more potential for innocent victims to be harmed. They would have to still search the house with potentially others inside.


Or they could have waited until she was out to work, etc. Maybe she knew all about the coke dealing, but maybe she didn't I don't know,

We do not know her involvement so I cannot comment but if there was an indication that she was involved there is a likelihood that they wanted her there as well for prosecutorial purposes.

I have been involved in hundreds of these raids at a local, state and federal level.

All circumstances/situations and scenarios are considered prior to even obtaining a search warrant.

There are always discussions about balancing the needs of the investigation versus the wants of the investigation.

The question of whether to execute the search warrant at various times compared to arresting on the street and subsequently searching the house when empty are always considered.

One of the most personally disturbing and difficult parts of my job are the execution of search warrants on homes with children, particularly young children. I always picture my own children lying in bed asleep and the emotional trauma that they would be going through if they were in the home during such raid.

But the sad reality is that a job needs to be done and the police should not be blamed for it..the parents that put them in that position are to be blamed.

In the situation of children my unit ALWAYS uses the utmost discretion/sensitivity and probably sacrifices cases at that expense. There are many times we fail to search rooms where young children are asleep so as not to disturb them. Many times we later learn that the drugs were store in the kids rooms out of hopes we would not search there.

No LEO wants to have anyone get hurt in a search warrant and great pains are taken to prevent this but unfortunately you cannot predict, plan or train for the human element.

R.I.P. Agent as everyone involved in this tradgedy will carry your loss forever.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
906
Likes
70
Location
southwest
What the heck is going on around here? I have been working round the clock the past couple of days and come back to this mess. The irony of this is that I was executing search warrants. [wink]




Terraformer,

Thank you for taking the time to point out the specific issues that you have with this without contributing any of the anti-LEO rhetoric.

I will attempt to address some of the issues that you brought up.

We do not know the complete story but there does not seem to be much disagreement over what had happened. The big question surrounds the "announcement".




Several issues come to light with this. Without knowing the specifics of this particular investigation. We do not know what information that they had which led to the issuance of the search warrant. Many times in investigations the only evidence that can be used against the defendant is any evidence that is recovered in his/her possession from inside of the residence.

The catch is that..depending upon the house/investigation...the only way to prove possession by the defendant is to have him/her present in the house with the illegal items at the time/execution of the warrant.

Executing the warrant when no one is home is fruitless (depending upon the individual investigation).



History/experience shows that early morning gives the highest probability of a lower occupancy rate.

It also gives the least probability of confrontation and is well documented in that. Although this incident was the exception to the rule.




Actually as I just stated. Early morning raids have been documented to be less confrontational. The irony is that the reasons that those who are posting here state they are too dangerous are the same reasons that they are the safest.

There are generally less occupants. They are generally asleep, which gives the element of surprise and if done correctly the residents/occupants do not have time to formulate defensive measures.

In the case of drug investigations. The worst times to execute are during the day and early night when they are actively involved in dealing/consuming the drugs and where there may be many armed individuals (other dealers/customers) who are high on crack. This is far more dangerous to everyone





Enough to implicate..... maybe not enough to arrest or convict




Again...potential legal issues surrounding possession as well as potential car chase, foot chase and or shootout outside of the home where there is more potential for innocent victims to be harmed. They would have to still search the house with potentially others inside.




We do not know her involvement so I cannot comment but if there was an indication that she was involved there is a likelihood that they wanted her there as well for prosecutorial purposes.

I have been involved in hundreds of these raids at a local, state and federal level.

All circumstances/situations and scenarios are considered prior to even obtaining a search warrant.

There are always discussions about balancing the needs of the investigation versus the wants of the investigation.

The question of whether to execute the search warrant at various times compared to arresting on the street and subsequently searching the house when empty are always considered.

One of the most personally disturbing and difficult parts of my job are the execution of search warrants on homes with children, particularly young children. I always picture my own children lying in bed asleep and the emotional trauma that they would be going through if they were in the home during such raid.

But the sad reality is that a job needs to be done and the police should not be blamed for it..the parents that put them in that position are to be blamed.

In the situation of children my unit ALWAYS uses the utmost discretion/sensitivity and probably sacrifices cases at that expense. There are many times we fail to search rooms where young children are asleep so as not to disturb them. Many times we later learn that the drugs were store in the kids rooms out of hopes we would not search there.

No LEO wants to have anyone get hurt in a search warrant and great pains are taken to prevent this but unfortunately you cannot predict, plan or train for the human element.

R.I.P. Agent as everyone involved in this tradgedy will carry your loss forever.
+1
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,292
Likes
2,133
Location
New Hampshire
No LEO wants to have anyone get hurt in a search warrant and great pains are taken to prevent this but unfortunately you cannot predict, plan or train for the human element.

I'm sure they don't. Sane, peaceable individuals don't want to hurt others.

That being said, we can always petition our government and educate others on the dangers associated with government prohibition. Prohibition always gives rise to crime. So logically, the government should tread carefully when it comes to prohibition and public policy.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
3,435
Likes
401
That being said, we can always petition our government and educate others on the dangers associated with government prohibition. Prohibition always gives rise to crime. So logically, the government should tread carefully when it comes to prohibition and public policy.


The same could be said about obeying said prohibition and obeying the law. To knowingly disregard the law (regardless of your political or moral beliefs) is knowingly placing yourself and love ones into a potentially similar situation.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,986
Likes
24,670
The same could be said about obeying said prohibition and obeying the law. To knowingly disregard the law (regardless of your political or moral beliefs) is knowingly placing yourself and love ones into a potentially similar situation.
True, but the real question should be "does prohibition increase or decrease risk to those members of the population who obey the law?"
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
3,435
Likes
401
True, but the real question should be "does prohibition increase or decrease risk to those members of the population who obey the law?"


That is the million dollar question my friend...but the fact remains that if possession/use of an item is prohibited by law then those who continue to possess and or use said item is knowingly placing themselves and those who they love into a potentially bad situation.

This has nothing to do with ones beliefs as to whether said item should be prohibited or not.

And BTW...I believe this to be off-topic as the tragedy of this incident at hand would have most likely occurred even if the offense had not been drugs.
The tragedy occurred during the execution of a search warrant. It did not matter whether the search warrant was for stolen property, drugs, a dead body etc.......it just so happens that it was for drugs.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
41,019
Likes
37,119
Location
The foothills of Monadnock
You can not attack an innocent person and then act all indignant if they fight back. (not with any sense of morality or humanity, anyway)

You can not, as LEO, know with certainty that a house contains nothing but bad guys. You are flatly lying if you say you can. The fact that even a single raid has ever been conducted on the wrong address or with bad information makes that absurdly obvious to any thinker.

Of course, you can do it and get away with it, but don't be too offended when some people see you in the same light as the criminals.

And if she WAS covering for her husband, hang her high. But on the basis of the news (which is all WE have to work with) that raid was a fail on many levels.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
3,435
Likes
401
You can not attack an innocent person and then act all indignant if they fight back.

Who attacked an innocent person?


You can not, as LEO, know with certainty that a house contains nothing but bad guys. You are flatly lying if you say you can. The fact that even a single raid has ever been conducted on the wrong address or with bad information makes that absurdly obvious to any thinker.

What is your point? The police should never enter any house for fear that there might be a person inside that is not involved in the crime?


Of course, you can do it and get away with it, but don't be too offended when some people see you in the same light as the criminals.

Get away with what?

But on the basis of the news (which is all WE have to work with) that raid was a fail on many levels.

With what experience do you base this on? And what aspect was a failure? I have a lot of experience in this topic and I am deeply saddened that an agent lost his life and a woman is facing a murder charge for it.

The fact is that we do not know what happened and therefore do not know what went wrong to cause this. Therefore we do not know what failures there were.

I am very interested in learning the real story of what happened so as to critique it honestly and learn from it if necessary.

But to make a blanket indictment on the situation just shows your closemindedness and anti-LEO sentiment.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
41,019
Likes
37,119
Location
The foothills of Monadnock
Who attacked an innocent person?

That was at least in part meant in the general sense. I have no idea if she was innocent or not, and neither did the LEO.

What is your point? The police should never enter any house for fear that there might be a person inside that is not involved in the crime?

No. The point was, if you do enter and someone innocently shoots back (NOT talking about coke hubby here) then don't abuse the intent of the law to "cook him/her for dinner".

Get away with what?

That. Just above "Get away with what?".

With what experience do you base this on? And what aspect was a failure? I have a lot of experience in this topic and I am deeply saddened that an agent lost his life and a woman is facing a murder charge for it.

I have no professional experience in this. My comments are observational and based on my opinion of how things ought to be, not based on how the law is likely to be interpreted.

The raid resulted in the death of an agent with presumably extensive training by a (probably) casually trained civilian. I have no doubt it was sheer bad luck, but how can that possibly be graded as a success?

On those points, we agree completely. The agent should not have died and on the basis of the "facts" so far, the woman should be focussed on what to do to save her kids from the fiasco, not wondering if she's going to jail or worse.


The fact is that we do not know what happened and therefore do not know what went wrong to cause this. Therefore we do not know what failures there were.

I am very interested in learning the real story of what happened so as to critique it honestly and learn from it if necessary.

But to make a blanket indictment on the situation just shows your closemindedness and anti-LEO sentiment.

I'm cynical about people. Nothing personal against LEO. In fact, IMO the actions of the husband are far and away worse than anything else in the case. Charge HIM with that death as murder and I'll cheer.

There are bad cops and there are good cops. You can replace the word cop with politician, fireman, cashier, programmer, homemaker, etc.

I'm pretty sure you are a good one, but you appear to have as much tendency to defend all LEO actions at least as much as some here attack. Maybe that is just a matter of wanting to fix problems out of view, but privacy is a thing of the past for us all. You are stuck with armchair quarterbacks whether you like it or not! [smile]

..
 

GSG

Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
5,825
Likes
563
Update on her trial.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_708360.html

Lawyers for a woman charged with killing an FBI agent can't use expert witnesses on police procedures in an attempt to argue the agent's death was the result of sloppy police work, a federal judge decided yesterday...

Husband was sentenced two months ago.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/25141132/detail.html

PITTSBURGH -- The husband of a woman accused of shooting and killing a Pittsburgh FBI agent has been sentenced to 25 years in prison on the drug charges that brought the agent to their home that day...
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
3,622
Likes
4,050
Location
SE Mass
Assume for the moment that everyone is telling the truth, and that the media is reporting it correctly. I fail to note any serious conflict between her version and that of the agents. If I'm asleep upstairs and someone knocks forcefully on my front door while shouting the word "police" at the top of their lungs, is it reasonable to assume that I hear anything particularly intelligible? Chalk up another casualty (or two) in the wonderful war on (some) drugs and the increasing militarization of police operations.

Ken


.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
780
Likes
21
Location
South of Boston
I believe HRT does not serve drug warrants, it would have been the SWAT team from the Philly office most likely. It doesn't appear this was a SWAT warrant service. If it had been, there would probably have been a different outcome. Federal SWAT operations are usually very well planned, with enough bodies to quickly secure the house.
 
J

Jose

In the federal system you don't need knowledge of the officer's job/status in order to be charged, even with assault. You assault an undercover agent, not knowing it's a FLEO, and it's still assault of a fed. Same with murder.

In essence, she's screwed.
One more reason to dissolve the union.

We are serfs and our overlords rule over us with impunity.

And people wonder why I want The United States to fail.
 

Mass-diver

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
5,996
Likes
1,255
Location
South Shore, MA
Sounds like this trial still has not happened?

Apparently she made a bunch of phone calls from jail and can be heard admitting she had coke in her system at the time of the shooting. I'm not saying that alone makes her wrong, but it doesn't help her cause.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,986
Likes
24,670
Apparently she made a bunch of phone calls from jail and can be heard admitting she had coke in her system at the time of the shooting. I'm not saying that alone makes her wrong, but it doesn't help her cause.

The article linked from a previous post mentions she is also facing drug charges.

It's amazing how stupid people can be - the only jail calls that are not monitored (or, if monitored, cannot be used as evidence) are those between the inmate and attorney.
 
Top Bottom