15 Year Old Boy Mugs Off Duty FBI-Agent, Gets Shot
352 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24559642]That is just fucking stupid, you don't make a move while the hostile still has a killshot on you or your friend[/QUOTE]
Because the robber couldn't be distracted or anything, right? It's happened before where a robbery victim was able to pull a gun on an armed robber and shoot him. It takes like a second to unholster a gun and shoot someone. This guy was an FBI agent too so he has plenty of firearms experience.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559694]That doesn't mean he can just take over. The FBI investigates federal crimes.[/QUOTE]
I think that robbing a federal agent is a federal crime.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/url]
[quote]Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. [/quote]
Hm. This really sits pretty close to the line.
The officer knew he was armed and knew that he was not only willing to knowingly mug an FBI agent, but now had an FBI badge.
But the mugging never turned violent.
Of course had the mugging turned violent, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
Gaaaahhhhhhhh.
[QUOTE=BagMinge101;24559702]they also have an obligation to stop crimes in action/criminals fleeing.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean you can shoot them in the back.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559694]That doesn't mean he can just take over. The FBI investigates federal crimes.[/QUOTE]
So why does the FBI have a SWAT team?
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559723]Because the robber couldn't be distracted or anything, right? It's happened before where a robbery victim was able to pull a gun on an armed robber and shoot him. It takes like a second to unholster a gun and shoot someone. This guy was an FBI agent too so he has plenty of firearms experience.[/QUOTE]
The kid probably had his gun in his hand. It takes even faster to shoot someone when you don't have to unholster, faster than someone could react.
[editline]04:06AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559736]That doesn't mean you can shoot them in the back.[/QUOTE]
According to the post above yours you can within reason, which I believe this was.
[QUOTE=BagMinge101;24559747]The kid probably had his gun in his hand. It takes even faster to shoot someone when you don't have to unholster, faster than someone could react.[/QUOTE]
You must have not read all of my post. The suspect could have been distracted or something. It HAS happened before.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24559731][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/url]
Hm. This really sits pretty close to the line.
The officer knew he was armed and knew that he was not only willing to knowingly mug an FBI agent, but now had an FBI badge.
But the mugging never turned violent.
Of course had the mugging turned violent, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
Gaaaahhhhhhhh.[/QUOTE]
"poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer [b]or others[/b]."
That's basically what we've been arguing the other time. He had a loaded gun and was a threat to society and innocent people. The FBI agent acted correctly in disabling this lunatic from harming the community.
and jesus fucking christ...lmfao @ "JDK721v3".. realized his logic fails and now he's trying to use the reasoning that the fbi agent should have pulled some fucking bruce lee move to disable the gunman...fucking ridiculous LOL I guess this guy must be trolling
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24559743]So why does the FBI have a SWAT team?[/QUOTE]
To assist with hostage situations, etc.
The problem is we do not have the full story.
The agent might have shot a person square in the back
The suspect may have turned and raised the "weapon" towards the agent
We won't know until there is more concrete information.
Read up on what happened to Gary Fadden when he was attacked and said to shoot his attacker "in the back."
[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/[/url]
[QUOTE] He pulls into the front area of the plant, the automatic mechanism taking an achingly long time to raise the gate. As the gate opens, the pursuing truck comes to a stop behind his, both men jumping out and running to Gary's Ford, their hands clawing at his door handles. He guns the engine and gels away from them, sweeping up to the front door and locking up the brakes in a skid.
The plant is Heckler and Koch.
Gary Fadden is a salesman for HK, and among the rest of their firearms, he sells machine guns. In the truck with him is a competitor's weapon he has acquired to test, a Ruger AC556, the selective-fire assault version of the .223 Mini-14. He grabs it now as he throws open the truck door, hoping to hold them off at gunpoint. lie knows his fiancee can't make it to the building's door now, and he screams to her to get down on the floor of the Ford.
The Shooting
The passenger is running toward him, an average size man in ratty clothes with stringy hair, a long beard, and an expression of absolute rage.
The selector switch and manual safety of the AC556 are in two different locations. Gary has not yet fired this weapon and, though he has taken off the safety, he doesn't know whether the switch is set for semi, three-shot burst, or full auto. He yells "Stop or I'll shoot," points the muzzle upward, and pulls the trigger for a warning shot.
The weapon is set on full automatic. Everything is going into deep slow motion, and Gary is aware that the Ruger spits a burst of nine shots before he can get his finger back off the trigger.
There is no effect whatsoever. The attacker is still running at him, perhaps ten yards away and closing fast, reaching for knives at his belt with each hand. The assailant screams, "F*** you and your high powered rifle! I'm gonna kill you motherf***ers!"
And Gary Fadden has run out of time. He lowers the Ruger, points it at the charging knifer, and pulls the trigger one more time. in the ethereal slow motion of profound tachypsychia, Gary can see the spent .223 shells arcing lazily out of the mechanism. He stops the burst, aware that six shots have been fired, as the man in front of him falls heavily to the ground.
Gary moves quickly, putting a big brick planter between himself and the onrushing pickup as cover. The truck stops and the driver, the larger of the two bearded men, shrieks. "F*** you! You killed one of the brothers! You shot him, you motherf***er!" Gary's weapon is level and ready, but this time instead of waving the revolver, the man looks as if he's trying to hide it in the cab of his truck. Gary can see now that the third person in the truck, the one who has always stayed in the cab, is a woman.
And then, the police are there. "They've got guns," Gary shouts to the officers disgorging from two patrol cars. He sets his rifle down and steps back as the officers swarm the pickup truck, taking the surviving man and woman into custody. In a moment, a cop is standing with Gary. "I did it," Gary says. The cop answers, "Did what?" "I shot that man." The officer picks up the AC556. "It's loaded," Gary warns, "Do you want me to unload it'?" The policeman answers. "No, I'll do it. Why don't you sit down?"
Gary Fadden sits on the curb. For a moment, it seems as if the whole bizarre nightmare is over. Unfortunately, it has only begun.
The man he had shot. Billy "Too Loose" Hamilton, was dead. He had been hit by all six rounds of Winchester 55 grain FMJ, headstamped "'WCC81." One bullet had struck behind the lateral midline in the instant that he turned away from the gunfire, taking out a chunk of his spine as is skidded across his back from side to side. This would be interpreted later by the prosecutor as having been "shot in the back."
The partner, who went by the name of "Papa Zoot," had gotten his weapons out of his hands by the time police arrived. In the front of the five-year-old Chevy pickup that had chased Fadden for more than 20 miles, police found a .22 auto pistol and a four-inch Smith & Wesson L-frame .357 Magnum. The revolver had three live and three empty cartridges in the cylinder. More fired brass was on the floor, and a plastic bag with more live amino was open on the seat. Though Fadden heard no shots and no bullets hit his truck, he was convinced then and now that they were shooting at him during the chase.
Hamilton's two knives, a Schrade folding hunter and a nondescript fixed blade, were found with his corpse.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559736]That doesn't mean you can shoot them in the back.[/QUOTE]
Well he did shoot him in the leg, for all you know the shot in the back was from a second shot aimed at his leg and simply him falling down causing it to hit his back
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559787]You must have not read all of my post. The suspect could have been distracted or something. It HAS happened before.[/QUOTE]
How can you tell if someone is distracted when you are distracted yourself and chasing them?
Also, read my post. The officer had every right under the law to utilize potentially lethal force to stop the kid from escaping and posing a threat to others.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24559731][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/url]
Hm. This really sits pretty close to the line.
The officer knew he was armed and knew that he was not only willing to knowingly mug an FBI agent, but now had an FBI badge.
[highlight]But the mugging never turned violent. [/highlight]
Of course had the mugging turned violent, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
Gaaaahhhhhhhh.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][highlight]One of the robbers put a gun on the friend's head and said, "Don't turn around or I'll blow your head off." [/highlight][/QUOTE]
Eh, also under most laws simply pointing a gun at someone is classified as felony aggravated assault
[QUOTE=Warhol;24559318]you don't shoot children with pellet guns[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with the shooting in the back but I would if he was still in danger. Statements like this show that you literally have the worst [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias"]outcome bias[/URL] I have ever seen, and it shows in almost everyone of your other posts. Is it impossible for you to place yourself in someone else's shoes?
To elaborate the FBI agent at the time didn't know that either:
1. The mugger was 15
2. He had a pellet gun
Only now do we know those two facts yet you assume that the agent had that information at the time so making statements like that is just stupid.
Don't quote me on this but I think if you put a pellet gun up against someones head and fire it could still kill them.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24559806][url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/[/url][/QUOTE]
Whoever decided to press charges is a moron.
[QUOTE=BagMinge101;24559871]Don't quote me on this but I think if you put a pellet gun up against someones head and fire it could still kill them.[/QUOTE]
Blanks fire a small bit of packing which at point blank range is lethal. I'm not sure pellets have the same force and even then it would have to be on a soft part of the skull. It doesn't really matter what kind of weapon he had though because the agent made a choice with the information he had and can't really be faulted for things he didn't and had no real way of knowing.
I am okay with this. Go FBI! :patriot:
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24559846]Eh, also under most laws simply pointing a gun at someone is classified as felony aggravated assault[/QUOTE]
It was only potentially violent because the act of simply placing a gun to someone's head does not cause injury or death. If he shot the kid while he was pointing the gun at his friend it would be justifiable but he fled and showed no further threat. However, if the agent chased the boy and he turned around during the chase and reached for the gun then that would be justifiable.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24559846]Eh, also under most laws simply pointing a gun at someone is classified as felony aggravated assault[/QUOTE]
True. I suppose that does take it over the line and give the officer reasonable cause to shoot him.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24559928]It was only potentially violent because the act of simply placing a gun to someone's head does not cause injury or death. If he shot the kid while he was pointing the gun at his friend it would be justifiable but he fled and showed no further threat. However, if the agent chased the boy and he turned around during the chase and reached for the gun then that would be justifiable.[/QUOTE]
This is basically what I've been saying.
The agent didn't know he was so young and that it wasn't a real gun. From his perspective, if more cops were called the kid might try to kill them, take hostages, etc. If he wasn't found, he'd have a fuckload of power and be extremely dangerous because of the real FBI ID he had. He put a gun to someone's head and said he was willing to kill. If he had just crippled him he might have turned and shot back. It's a tough call, and definitely hard to make so quickly, but he made the right choice given the possible outcomes. You can't second guess yourself when the risk is that high. The kid should have known better, especially after seeing the badge.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559945]This is basically what I've been saying.[/QUOTE]
just gonna post this again
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/url]
[QUOTE=BagMinge101;24559963]just gonna post this again
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/url][/QUOTE]
The suspect fled. He was no longer an imminent threat.
And I just read that Wiki. What a terrible ruling. The officer was reasonably sure that the suspect was unarmed and yet he shot him in the back of the head just because he decided to flee, and the courts think that's okay? It wasn't even a violent crime. He stole $10 and a purse from a house.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24559731][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner[/URL]
Hm. This really sits pretty close to the line.
The officer knew he was armed and knew that he was not only willing to knowingly mug an FBI agent, but now had an FBI badge.
But the mugging never turned violent.
Of course had the mugging turned violent, he wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
Gaaaahhhhhhhh.[/QUOTE]
Simply being in possession of a firearm and fleeing from the police does not constitute a threat to bystanders unless he points it at one or has already attempted to shoot someone.
For example if he shot the FBI agent's friend and ran it would be okay to shoot him but he never pulled the trigger.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559898]Whoever decided to press charges is a moron.[/QUOTE]
I think the story is fake, considering H&K hates civilians
I wonder if all FBI-agents are as badass as this guy.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560013]The suspect fled. He was no longer an imminent threat.
And I just read that Wiki. What a terrible ruling. The officer was reasonably sure that the suspect was unarmed and yet he shot him in the back of the head just because he decided to flee, and the courts think that's okay? It wasn't even a violent crime. He stole $10 and a purse from a house.[/QUOTE]
You have a mentally unstable kid running around with a gun. At any moment within a fraction he can raise his gun and shoot it, faster than you could react. Arguably if he raised his gun it would be an even worse decision to shoot because what could be a bluff can turn into shots fired. Sounds like an imminent threat to me.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24559928]It was only potentially violent because the act of simply placing a gun to someone's head does not cause injury or death. I[highlight]f he shot the kid while he was pointing the gun at his friend it would be justifiable[/highlight] but he fled and showed no further threat. However, if the agent chased the boy and he turned around during the chase and reached for the gun then that would be justifiable.[/QUOTE]
Making a sudden move while someone has a gun at someone else's head is a reckless as hell decision no person would be willing to take no matter what
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560013]The suspect fled. He was no longer an imminent threat.
And I just read that Wiki. What a terrible ruling. The officer was reasonably sure that the suspect was unarmed and yet he shot him in the back of the head just because he decided to flee, and the courts think that's okay? It wasn't even a violent crime. He stole $10 and a purse from a house.[/QUOTE]
To awnser your point about the validity of the ruling:
When the Supreme Court decides on a case, they also have to take into account other circumstances that could be affected by the ruling. Sure, the man in this case was unarmed, and would not be covered by the ruling. However, if an armed felon was fleeing, it would make more sense to take action.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.