Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 147

Thread: FBI agent arrested in shooting

  1. #51
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    As a sworn fed.gov LEO, does the SSA have a duty to "keep the peace"
    Given that the context on what jurisdiction applies was cleared up, let's just assume it was DC for the sake of answering your question.

    tl;dr

    No. "Be a good witness" is the common guidance, and any law that compels us to act is very limited.

    Longer Version:

    While DC is a federal district, they act in a semi-sovereign capacity as a local government. Some of DC criminal code was established by Congress prior to the 1973 Home Rule Act, but even those laws are crimes against the District (local crimes), and not crimes against the United States ("federal" crimes). Thus, they're not crimes that federal agents are generally concerned with. The unique separation between federal and local was further defined under the 1973 Home Rule Act, which established Washington, DC as the independent city that we know it as today.

    Just to drive it home, federal agents are empowered as police officers in the District under § 5–133.17. Cooperative agreements between federal agencies and Metropolitan Police Department and § 5–301. Powers and duties of federal law enforcement officers when making arrests for nonfederal offenses. The fact they needed to write laws to incorporate us into their criminal code is evidence that it's not our primary jurisdiction, and it even refers to DC laws as "non-federal offenses". Just like any state which empowers federal agents as police/peace officers, it does not in any way impart a duty to act (the USG being sovereign and Article 6's supremacy clause applying, a state can't dictate our duties).

    Further, the only federal law requiring federal agents to act is 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony, and even then it doesn't say we must confront you and put you in cuffs. Under a modern interpretation, presenting it to an AUSA would be fine, and l imagine even just reporting it to the relevant agency would suffice.....it's just not something that federal agents are charged with, as it's understood that the purpose of our employment is not as a peace officer. In general, federal agents are cautioned against taking off-duty action or acting under state authority on blanket authority statues (as opposed to specific ones, like when working on a task force) unless it's an imminent life or death situation; while we certainly have the power to, it invites trouble.....doubly so given our bona fides do not generally include being trained on a given local statute/issue, which makes our actions under such statutes an easy target for defense attorneys.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  2. #52
    So we're still basing our entire judgment on CNN's journalistic integrity?

  3. #53
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Cory View Post
    So we're still basing our entire judgment on CNN's journalistic integrity?
    Who's we? I certainly wouldn't and won't.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  4. #54
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Good points, and I think the take away here is (not to judge but to learn in future circumstances) is what would have happened if he had ignored the expletives and not told him to watch his mouth?
    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.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    Who's we? I certainly wouldn't and won't.
    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

  6. #56
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Cory View Post
    So we're still basing our entire judgment on CNN's journalistic integrity?
    Anyone spitballing in this thread is absolutely doing that.

    So far we have 6 pages of mostly non-technical uninformed feelings "speculative information".
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  7. #57
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    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've always had a natural predisposition to get involved, (whether a smart move or not is up for debate), but it has been drummed into us from early days to avoid involvement if possible.

    For example, I started my LE career in the early 80's. NYPD would visit our agency to discuss "peace officer" status and would emphasize that not only with us feds, but even with their own "off duty" officers, they preferred the "good witness" and "making a phone call", to direct involvement unless it was a matter of life and death (or grievous bodily harm).

    Things have clearly worsened over the intervening years from that time to the point where LEOs and citizens who take steps to intercede on behalf of others are the target of prosecutions, civil liability, and now the cancel culture and doxxing.

    It's very hard to not be paralyzed like a deer in the headlights with the "should I / shouldn't I" dilemma over getting involved. And clearly it's a matter that each of us has to give much thought to in advance. Not only for our own physical and mental health, but the emotional and financial health of our families.

    Now that I'm older and perhaps slightly wiser, I try to avoid circumstances where I will need to confront those choices. But I still struggle with my predisposition to want to come to the aid of others, even when I know it might be best to avoid involvement. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with such in some time now.

    Doling out some deserved frontier justice to a dirtbag comes with a very high price tag. One has to consider the cost.

    (Believe, me @JRB , I am with you all the way in how you feel.)
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  8. #58
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    I've always had a natural predisposition to get involved, (whether a smart move or not is up for debate), but it has been drummed into us from early days to avoid involvement if possible.

    For example, I started my LE career in the early 80's. NYPD would visit our agency to discuss "peace officer" status and would emphasize that not only with us feds, but even with their own "off duty" officers, they preferred the "good witness" and "making a phone call", to direct involvement unless it was a matter of life and death (or grievous bodily harm).

    Things have clearly worsened over the intervening years from that time to the point where LEOs and citizens who take steps to intercede on behalf of others are the target of prosecutions, civil liability, and now the cancel culture and doxxing.

    It's very hard to not be paralyzed like a deer in the headlights with the "should I / shouldn't I" dilemma over getting involved. And clearly it's a matter that each of us has to give much thought to in advance. Not only for our own physical and mental health, but the emotional and financial health of our families.

    Now that I'm older and perhaps slightly wiser, I try to avoid circumstances where I will need to confront those choices. But I still struggle with my predisposition to want to come to the aid of others, even when I know it might be best to avoid involvement. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with such in some time now.

    Doling out some deserved frontier justice to a dirtbag comes with a very high price tag. One has to consider the cost.

    (Believe, me @JRB , I am with you all the way in how you feel.)
    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.

  9. #59
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    As a sworn fed.gov LEO, does the SSA have a duty to "keep the peace" or otherwise intervene in a situation that his training, judgement, and experience says is going to "go south"? While the SSA may never have met this individual, he may have met enough other individuals like him to form a judgement based on his training, judgment, and experience. And that informed his decision on how to proceed.
    I want to address this part as well, since whether you volunteer to act is a completely different conversation than being compelled to act...and just because a federal agent volunteers to act does not mean they're wrong. Most of the time, they're right.

    Throughout the entire United States (to include its districts and territories), a federal LEO is considered within the scope of their duties to intervene in a crime of violence regardless of there not being a federal statute that codifies such as an offense against the United States when not on federal property or against federal officials. I.e., I can't act under the federal statute for murder/attempted murder unless you committed such on federal property, against a federal official or there's some other nexus that somehow ties it to federal jurisdiction.

    I'll take @jlw's post as an example. I don't know what Georgia's laws are pertaining to federal LEOs and whether or not we're assimilated as peace officers under Georgia law, but from what he wrote it sounds pretty limited. However even if GA does not grant federal LEOs any authorities, feds are still 100% in the scope of their duties to intervene in a crime of violence. In addition, if that crime of violence is against a fed, then a fed is undoubtedly within their federal authorities as 18 U.S. Code § 111 criminalizes assault on a federal officer as long as they are on-duty or the violence is committed knowing that the Fed is a Fed. Example: If I'm plainclothes and identify myself as LE, then any further violent actions against me would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 111. I need not be on federal property, working a federal case, or working under state authorities/deputation for 18 USC 111 to apply.

    I chose to intervene in a crime of violence within the state of Texas when travelling there. Some other management who didn't know their ass from their elbow tried getting me trouble over it, but our internal affairs unit backed me and turned the investigation back onto them for being massive retards, and they actually got in trouble. Turns out the hump agent (me) knew more about our authorities than our fuckup management actually posted in Texas....both as a federal LEO and under state law as well, since I make a habit of reading up on the relevant statutes for feds when I travel to a given state. Texas law reads that a federal agent is not a peace officer, but still has state arrest authorities for felonies. It's too bad the management at our office there had failed to read past the first comma in that sentence. Similar to as you noted, my report specifically cited my training, knowledge and experience of what I did prior to LE and dealing with EDPs (working in EMS, specifically for a crisis center), and that being a basis for why I intervened early when I did. And thus, I was okay.

    But, make a slip up when acting on state authority and your agency will dump you quick, as they didn't direct you to intervene on state authority. It's simply an option that a given state may allow a federal LEO to exercise if need be. As we say, "You have as much rope as you want, just be careful not to hang yourself with it."

    Of course, all of this is again distinctly separate from the next conversation, that any federal agent can also be affirmed the right to self-defense as a private citizen like any other human being. Of note, our firearms policy actually specifically mentions that nothing in our firearms policy can be construed to limit the ability of an agent to carry and use a firearm in their capacity as a private citizen, or qualified LEO (the latter added within the last few years to clarify our stance on LEOSA).

    This is all a very technical conversation because of how dumb we have become as a country. My agency didn't even have statutory authority to carry firearms prior to 1985, because it was simply understood when we were established over a hundred years ago that if you have a badge and are titled Special Agent, then you have the ability to carry a gun and do what's morally/ethically right when something happens in your presence; shit didn't need to be laid out "by the numbers" back then. So we ended up covering ourselves with Special Deputation from the Marshals until we retitled the agency and got our own statute that clearly defined our authorities.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  10. #60
    Words matter. If the mugger was screaming at him that he was going to stab/shoot/anally probe the guy and was making moves to indicate that he was going to follow through, it's probably a good shoot. If he was just insulting him by telling him that his mother is a hamster and his father smelled of elder berries, not so much.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •