FBI agent arrested in shooting

[vcdgrips]

FYI-While it is alway better for a federal LEO to state their status when dealing with potentially assaultive behavior, there is longstanding case law in multiple circuits that the potential defendant's knowledge of the potential victims's "federal" status is not a required element of the offense under 18 USC 111.

See-United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 676 n.9 (1975) (finding “the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act
made criminal by the federal statute.”). See also United States v. Wallace, 368 F.2d 537 (4th Cir. 1966) (same). The law is the same in my "home" circuit as well. See- United States v. Lynch, 58 F.3d 389, 391–92 (8th Cir. 1995).

While this case is a state case, I would note that MD is in the 4th Circuit such that federal law might be instructive on the issue should this go to trial.

[jlw]

So we're still basing our entire judgment on CNN's journalistic integrity?

We is those discussing a "watch your mouth" comment. Myself included, caught by the narrative presented as much as anyone. We really have no idea that phrase was said, that a phrase like it was said, or that the event was over until the agent reinitiated a dialog. All of that is based on CNN. A source that I, like you and hopefully many others here, have no trust in.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed." - Mark Twain

In my initial post, I included the qualifier of "if" regarding the accuracy of the report. I dealt with the media for a dozen years as PIO and saw certain outlets change the town in which I was raised, change the name of the school I attended, change the name of the county in which I work and many more such examples.

I do take this as an opportunity to remind myself to accept victory:

[paherne]

Thanks @blues - While reading this section for years has made me aware of all of this, reiterating all of it so succinctly is of value to the forum.

I guess I'm just wishing for a world where prosecutors -and the court of public opinion- actually go after bona-fide bad guys with such diligence.

Uh, didn't you get the memo? Cops are the bad guys. Look at what many of these Soros-funded prosecutors are doing around the country. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea about the political leanings of Montgomery County prosecutors in this case, but it's definitely a trend.

[jnc36rcpd]

The Montgomery County State's Attorney just announced that he is spending $500,000 to have a study conducted to ensure there is no bias in prosecution. This is from a guy who has spent his career in the SAO and had been the State's Attorney for several terms.

That, along with prosecutions of current and former officers for use of force, should give you an idea of his political leanings.

He's also anti-gun.

[Cory]

In my initial post, I included the qualifier of "if" regarding the accuracy of the report. I dealt with the media for a dozen years as PIO and saw certain outlets change the town in which I was raised, change the name of the school I attended, change the name of the county in which I work and many more such examples.

I do take this as an opportunity to remind myself to accept victory:

I understand your qualifier of "if". I am not willing to even speculate what happened or resulted based on the CNN reporting. I've seen so much reported wrong, it's insane. I don't even thought game an event like this anymore because it assumes to much. If it later turns out this report is correct, then so be it. Right now it's a gas station burrito level mistake to trust it.

While the topic of accepting victory may be worthy of discussion, I don't think the current story - and thats what this absent real fact. A story. - is necessarily a good example. Mostly because we don't know.

[DDTSGM]

FYI-While it is alway better for a federal LEO to state their status when dealing with potentially assaultive behavior, there is longstanding case law in multiple circuits that the potential defendant's knowledge of the potential victims's "federal" status is not a required element of the offense under 18 USC 111.

What is the case law on officers who are in plainclothes, not prominently displaying their badge of office, and do not identify themselves?

[GJM]

I think there is a difference between the law and the interpretation of the law. These days, the interpretation seems to be moving quickly and not in favor of LE.

[vcdgrips]

DL

"It depends."

I would not feel comfortable opining without knowing the jurisdiction and doing up to date research in that jurisdiction.

It is a matter of public record that defendants have been charged in the 8th circuit after assaulting somebody who they thought was a "customer" or was otherwise acting in an undercover capacity. Those defendants, at the time of the assaultive behavior, had no idea that the "victim" was a FED LEO. I cannot find a press release on any of those cases in the 5-10 mins I looked. I am going on memory w/o checking Westlaw or Lexis online legal research tools)

See also:

3rd Circuit (NJ)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/t...agent-gunpoint

5th Circuit (TX)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr...deral-officers

[DDTSGM]

And what would have happened if that red line pirate had kept walking, instead of turning around to re-engage over being told to quit swearing?

Why is there so much thinking, TTP's, and beliefs in this section that seems to absolve these perps of all their responsibility of their bad outcomes?
I get the 'extreme ownership' angle from a CYA perspective these days - but that needs to be a cognizant response to unreasonable prosecution patterns, NOT considered reasonable.

I think the best way to put it is to ask 'are we supposed to be the attitude police?'

If you think about 'winning' the confrontation, who really won? Sure the bad guy has holes in him, but who's paying the bills?

Actually if you think about it, if the goal was to avoid subsidizing the panhandler, the officer had won when the bad guy turned and began walking away from him - mission accomplished.

If we ask why the bad guy was spewing a stream of invective language as he walked away, the answer could be 'well he's cra cra' or 'he wanted to get a reaction.'

When the officer told the guy to watch his language, he potentially (actually probably) played into this guy's hands by giving him the acknowledgement he wanted.

So who actually won? Who's in deeper shit? Sometimes it's best to let words zing over your shoulder without letting them hit their intended mark.

That is a long ass way to say that if you can ignore the actual words folks say and focus on their meaning in terms of threats to you or others, it is easier to do the police thing. I think.

[DDTSGM]

DL

"It depends."

I would not feel comfortable opining without knowing the jurisdiction and doing up to date research in that jurisdiction.

It is a matter of public record that defendants have been charged in the 8th circuit after assaulting somebody who they thought was a "customer" or was otherwise acting in an undercover capacity.

Those defendants, at the time of the assaultive behavior, had no idea that the "victim" was a FED LEO.

Hmm. Our statute requires, some form of identification as an LEO, either uniform or 'proper identification'

21-3413. Battery against a law enforcement officer. (a) Battery against a law enforcement officer is:

(1) Battery, as defined in subsection (a)(2) of K.S.A. 21-3412, and amendments thereto, committed against: (A) A uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer's duty; or (B) a uniformed or properly identified state, county or city law enforcement officer, other than a state correctional officer or employee, a city or county correctional officer or employee, a juvenile correctional facility officer or employee or a juvenile detention facility officer or employee, while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer's duty; or...

I can understand the desire to enhance penalties for those who assault undercover officers, etc. Don't know how that would apply, if it would.