[…][F]rom 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.The last two years have followed the same pattern: an F.B.I. spokesman said that since 2011, there had been no findings of improper intentional shootings.
How is this different from Hoover days?
Update: The Hoover reference isn’t to JEH’s files or the other corruption that flourished there, it’s to the FBI culture that projects an image of Bureau perfection at all costs.
PeakVT
How is it different from any other law enforcement agency? Almost every shooting is determined to be justified when it is done by someone authorized to use deadly force.
NickT
In how many of these cases was there evidence of possibly improper conduct? If we are going to make comparisons to the Hoover era, it would be a good idea to make a bit more of a case. Are we looking at 10% of cases being dodgy? 30%? 50%?
Derelict
How is this different from Hoover days?
You don’t have the FBI director secretly cross-dressing in his closet?
RSR
let’s see how the feds judge the Philly PD
Federal review of Philly cops’ use of deadly force to begin in July
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Federal_review_of_Philly_cops_use_of_lethal_force_to_begin_in_July.html#2Qu0My2awy6wLZqv.99
.
.
.
As Philly.com first reported last month, police-involved shootings in 2012 rose to their highest level in a decade even as the rate of violent crime continued to plummet. Philadelphia police shot 52 suspects last year. Of those shot, 15 people died. The sheer number of bullets fired at civilians also climbed last year to 474, more than double the 211 rounds police squeezed off during Ramsey’s first year.
In April, Ramsey said the department followed best-practices and saw no need to reevaluate the use of deadly force.
Of the statistics, he then said, “The numbers fluctuate from year-to-year.”
.
.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
That’s almost a 20-year period. 150 over that period? Doesn’t seem that high.
NickT
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
Four killings a year is practically genocide. But hey, it’s not nearly as bad as the FEMA death camps.
Punchy
Why is “subjects” in quotes? Shouldnt that word be “blacks”?
Steeplejack
Uh, back then nobody would have even thought to ask the “justified” question?
Barry
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): “That’s almost a 20-year period. 150 over that period? Doesn’t seem that high.”
What’s high is that according to the FBI, 100% of those 150 shootings were justified. Either the FBI has found the secret of human perfection, or they’re lying.
The Red Pen
It was justified. He pulled first.
magurakurin
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
It seems stunningly low. Only 70 killed? Christ, that many were shot just last week in garden variety gun accidents and shootings across the country. And they happen every week, week after week, year after year.
If this is supposed to be evidence of the FBI as out of control jack booted thugs, I’m thinking the FBI needs try a lot harder to earn those jack boots.
And the best quote about the Philly cops was Frank Rizzo’s comment to Tom Snyder (I actually remember seeing that interview) when he said they were strong enough “to invade Cuba and win.” That was back in ’79.
NickT
@Barry:
Well, it shouldn’t be too difficult for someone to provide documentation of misconduct then, right?
Let’s at least see some actual evidence before we start making allegations.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Barry: Okay, I’m not making a defense of the FBI here, but if you were to have an average of 8 shootings a year, is it possible that they could all be justified?
weaselone
That’s it? Five year-olds have probably killed more people over the same period.
El Cid
They also denied having gained any weight or lost any hair.
mistermix
@NickT:
Who knows? The point of the piece is that the FBI investigates itself and finds every shooting justified.
roc
@PeakVT: It’s different because — contrary to some high profile exceptions (*cough* LAPD *cough*) — not every LEA whitewashes these sorts of investigations. That’s why the experts can immediately say the near-zero number of improper shoots is exceptional and thus suspicious.
magurakurin
@mistermix:
I get how you are seeing it, but that really, really isn’t very many shootings for a 20 year period. Maybe they are bullshitting on the definition of “justified” that they are using, but I see this news as showing that the FBI seems to have a lot of restraint on the use of deadly force. Or, they just don’t have much cause to use it. That there are so few shootings actually stands out more to me than the assertion that the FBI are lying fucks who cover for their agents no matter what the circumstance. Now if there had been 7000 deaths and 15,000 shootings with every one justified, different take, I’d reckon.
Cassidy
Really Mix? Are you aware if how a ROE works? Are you insinuating these shootings were just cover-ups to deliberate murder? Do you have anything besides distrust of law enforcement to suggest that the proper ROE was followed and that the shootings were not justified? Are we gonna go full firebagger by the end of the month or save that for the next election?
NickT
@mistermix:
No, the point is that you are making an extreme accusation without providing actual evidence of misconduct. If you are going to make comparisons to the Hoover era, you need something a lot more impressive than empty allegations.
Jay C
Well, in one major way: the FBI no longer engages in massive PR programs to brag to the public about how many “bad guys” they’ve blown away.
Mike E
@magurakurin: Line from Witness:
It’s alright, we’re police officers… Philadelphia police.
Since this bit of FP trolling is an obvious attempt to elicit a “Get off my lawn”, here you go… wtf was that last night? Basketball? The best I can describe it, Miami looked like the manifestation of a Lebron James crab dribble. Horrible action.
NickT
@Cassidy:
And people wonder why Americans are losing faith in government! Seriously, if we are going to waste time on conspiracy theories based on no evidence, we might as well declare this site Teabagger-Balloon-Juice and give up.
mistermix
@Cassidy:
Do you have anything other than reflexive protection of authority to justify taking the other side? Because I don’t think it’s wrong to distrust the idea of any large organization performing a random, high-stress, dangerous and infrequent task perfectly.
NickT
@mistermix:
You’re the one making the wild allegations about the Hoover era here. Don’t try twisting this back on the people who are holding you to a realistic standard. You know, things like evidence, proof, facts.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@mistermix:
You’re the one who compared it to the Hoover era. Not one of your best posts, MM.
ETA: I see you added an update, but the update doesn’t really shed any light on the matter. There were 80 people who were injured, according to the quote you pulled. Surely some intrepid journalist could find one of those 80 people and ask them what they say happened. Or is that somewhere in the rest of the story (I don’t get out of the boat often here, even for the NYT).
Bobby Thomson
What an inane post. This is like arguing that the sign in a plant that says it’s been 500 days since the last accident must be lying because shut up that’s why.
magurakurin
@mistermix: But there isn’t a lot of evidence in the article you posted either. There is a line about “critics” who find the report suspicious, but there is no mention of exactly who those critics are. There also is a mention of “5 bad shoots,” cases in which a gun was fired against guidelines but no one was hit. The Times informs that there are few independent reports to compare with, but the case in MD in which the FBI paid a 1.3 million dollar law suit for shooting an innocent person offers some insight. But even that case, while it does seem to give the agent a wide latitude and benefit of the doubt, is hardly outright damning. And as the agents attorney reminded the reported, the grand jury declined to indict the agent in that case for wrongful shooting.
So, yeah, it’s a little light on the evidence. I certainly am willing to be convinced that the FBI is full of shit about this and wouldn’t be shocked if shown the evidence, but I don’t really think the article you posted (when read to the end) makes any super damning claims or provides much compelling evidence.
Cassidy
@mistermix: So, I should take that as a “no” and your completely blowing shit out your ass?
C’mon dude. It’s one thing to not trust law enforcement, I get that, but to insinuate that there is something fishy about those numbers, especially from an organization not prone to violence, without anything other than your reflexive distrust of authority is silly and childish. The only thing you missed is a reference to “jack booted thugs”.
When we ask [sarcastically] for better trolling, we didn’t mean plaster it onto the front page.
Shortstop
If we cut the Hoover hyperbole, is there anything wrong with what mistermix said? Why wouldn’t anyone raise an eyebrow at the idea of an internal investigation finding absolutely no mistakes in a process that’s inherently imperfect and comes with high stakes and irreversible results? Have they discovered the secret of infallible human judgment in tense, rapidly unfolding situations?
Bobby Thomson
And the update is chicken shit. “Yeah, I used a deliberately inflammatory and provocative comparison, but just ignore all the stuff that makes it inflammatory and provocative, K?”
red dog
Having been alive for both the Hoover and modern eras, I agree with most of you. All these armed people and the deaths of the bad guys were minimal because they were trained properly. MM does not state how many were captured without gunfire. MM, this was pointless.
mattminus
@Cassidy: the resident badge licker springs into action!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Because we didn’t have the internet to turn this into a scandal.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Shortstop:
If we cut the Hoover hyperbole, mistermix didn’t say anything, it would be just a blockquote.
Shortstop
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Almost. His first sarcastic word, “perfection,” pretty much sums it up for me. But I was also referring to his additional comments in the thread.
mistermix
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): RTFA, In addition to the lead story, which is about the shooting of an unarmed man in custody where the story has changed multiple times (more here since your google is clearly broken: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-changes-story-again-ibragim-todashev-shooting-114132404.html) it goes into great detail on two other questionable shoots:
But OMG, I brought up the sainted FBI’s awful history and wondered if those knights of law enforcement might just possibly be bullshitting us by saying every shoot where their agents hit someone since 1993 was perfect. How dare I question their authority!
Steeplejack
@magurakurin:
The absolute number sounds low when you think of it, as most people probably do, in comparison with those from police departments, who are out “on patrol” on a daily basis and have many more occasions to draw and fire their weapons.
And I agree with Barry above: nobody is perfect at anything, and “100% clean shootings” strongly suggests that there is less “reviewing” going on and more rubber-stamping and ass-covering.
Also, good thing the reporting period starts in 1993, because that excludes that whole messy Ruby Ridge thing from ’92.
magurakurin
@Shortstop:
Except it didn’t really find that there were “no mistakes.” There were mistakes, and the Bureau actually paid out a 1.3 million dollar lawsuit because they shot the wrong guy. What the report said that the mistakes themselves were justified based on the circumstance and the danger that the agents felt or encountered. I think some of the trouble is how everyone is defining “justified.” They clearly have shot the wrong people and said as much, but they also consider that it was okay because of the situation. Now, clearly one can take issue with such a position. One can say that if you ever shoot the wrong person it is never justified no matter what. But that is a very different accusation than saying the FBI just lies about what happens and they just claim their agents are perfect. That isn’t what they did. The agents weren’t perfect the the danger and the stress of the situations excused the mistake. That sort of justification might be total crap, but it isn’t lying and it isn’t a claim of human perfection.
Todd
@mistermix:
The point of the piece is bullshit. The I isn’t a routine patrol agency with routine contacts with the populace on petty stuff. They’re mainly top notch investigators who statistically don’t pull out service weapons. They happen to also have a top notch, well-disciplined, well trained hostage team that does have to fire in situations of intense fluidity.
I’d say I’m disappointed in you, but recognize that you’ve got some deep inner firebagger whom you must satisfy in the far right-far left theory that holds that Americans have the constimatooshinal right to hold an armed standoff and not submit to process.
Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey
Jesus Christ, Mix, NickT and Cassidy are right. This is nothing more than argument from incredulity. Just because you can’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Get back to us when you have evidence that any of those (stunningly few) shootings wasn’t justified.
aimai
Lets just take a recent case–the case of the guy “associated” with the Boston Marathon bombers who was shot during an apparently peaceful interrogation, as he was being asked to sign a document attesting to his confession. The FBI claimed he lunged at them, possibly with a knife, and so they were forced to shoot him to death. Why did it ever get to the point of interrogating/questioning a potentially armed suspect? Why were two or three FBI agents (because I believe there were that many in the room) completely unprepared to subdue this guy if he turned violent? Why didn’t they invite him down to a police station for the interrogation and strip him of weapons? If, indeed, he had any weapons? That situation, however “justified” after the fact, is just sheer incompetence, its basically white collar incompetence. If these guys don’t know how to handle their situations/interrogations they shouldn’t be armed.
Emma
@mattminus: And if that’s your only comment you’ve lost the fight. I think MM is making a point: when an institution always absolves itself of guilty, it gives the appearance of guilt. BUT if the files are available and someone is interested in looking, surely there are other viewpoints out there. The story mentions “critics,” but as someone pointed out, there’s no follow up on it, except for one person calling it “suspiciously low”.
Lousy story to begin with. Par for the course these days.
(edited) I am not saying the FBI is right; I’m saying the Times had the opportunity to really look into it and punted.
(edit) see Aimai above.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@mistermix:
You post a single blockquote from an article, don’t mention any of the confounding factors and expect me to hustle off and read the Times to confirm your thesis? Fuck that noise. You could have added that context to your post, instead of having to spend the time here in comments defending it.
Cassidy
@Shortstop: Context is everything. The modern FBI is not an organization prone to violence. Now, if this report was about the BPA, who routinely intereacts with undocumented immigrants, coyotes, and smugglers, I can see being a lot more skeptical. Secondly, how does this number compare to other large LEO’s that and how does that break down as a percentage of interaction? Is it 150 shootings over 20 years out of 1000 interactions or 150 out of a million? There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical, but let’s be objective about the skepticism.
@mattminus: Seriously? What’s your next trick? Poopyhead?
Steeplejack
Golly, here’s an FBI shooting from just last month that seems a little odd:
“Man Tied to Boston Suspect Is Said to Have Attacked Agent Before Being Shot.”
“More Details on FBI Shooting of Ibragim Todashev.”
“The FBI Changes Its Story (Again) on the Ibragim Todashev Shooting.”
Cassidy
Is it drama queen martyr day? I didn’t ge the memo.
@aimai: That’s a dishonest representation of the situation. Why don’t you tell us more about the suspect? Nice how you present a conclusion without all the facts, though.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Here we see one of the most vitriolic and spittle flecked Botsplainers turn its braying stupidity in the direction of anyone questioning authority.
Please note, once again (and again and again) the use of the pronoun “WE” as a call to tribal membership and an attempt to shore up its tremulous and insecure psyche. Who is “WE?” No one is sure.
Also note how the Botsplainer attempts to influence/control the front page postings of a blog on which it is not a poster. It remains a mystery as to why it does not, as it has urged many dissenters to do in the past, simply take its fat ass to another blog.
RSA
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
It’s not. I won’t comment on the perfect record part, but for context, here’s a USA Today article with statistics showing that between 1994 and 2007, police in the U.S. shot and killed (“justifiable homicide”) close to 400 people every year.
Ted & Hellen
@NickT:
Yes, you should totally do that.
Another Halocene Human
@RSR: In April, Ramsey said the department followed best-practices and saw no need to reevaluate the use of deadly force.
I know it’s Philly, but that quote above is absolutely shocking. Most LEOs at most PDs are taught not to use deadly force except in certain extreme circumstances. The mindset and training are different than, say, a military mission. Of course, you have SWAT, which is muddying the waters. I’d be interesting to see how much of Killadelphia’s police shootings are SWAT, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a ton of it is non-SWAT. It speaks of arrogance and disrespect for the public.
Contra that idiotic LA gangland movie, the cops are not in a war for the streets. What really ends up happening are people getting killed by warrants served on the wrong houses or beaten or killed by police for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time”–you know, having diabetes and pulling over to the wrong side of the road, going to the gas station at 2am for some OTC meds for your infected toe, trying to walk home from your swing shift in the dark…
(Note also, LA cops in that era were corrupt as fuck. The movie was entertaining but complete fantasy.)
Chyron HR
@Ted & Hellen:
P.S. Leave George Zimmerman ALOOOOOONE
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Steeplejack:
And those are all good questions that deserve answers. Nobody’s arguing that the FBI is completely pristine here.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Again…who is “WE?” The wildly bloviating Bostplainer, in its haste to defend an arm of the security state, makes an unsubtle demand to be recognized as a member of its imagined tribe.
And again, it demands that its tribe’s preferences in front page posting be respected.
mistermix
@Cassidy:
I have to remember that there’s no point in trying to put facts in front of you, because in true troll fashion you ignore them. Lesson re-learned, no need to waste time with Cassidy, just let him fight with T&H all day and pie them both.
Cassidy
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Absolutely, but “shut up that’s why” is gorrible evidence of wrongdoing.
@Ted & Hellen: blah, blah, blah…same boring schtick from pedobear. You’re boring timmeh. Outside of laughing at you, you don’t even elicit any emotion anymore. Your whole faux documentary thing was overdone during inddependent films in the 90’s, so it really isn’t going to have any effectiveness on a crowd that watched a lot of movies. I think, your out of your league at this point. You’re not even smart enough to stay current.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Another Halocene Human: I know this has gotten your dander up, but the world is larger than what they show on the nightly news:
What really ends up happening is that the police are still over-targeting minorities, but most of the time most cops and civilians cross paths with nothing happening.
Cassidy
@mistermix: Facts? You presented none.
negative 1
Sorry y’all but I’ve got to call shenanigans on this post — unless anyone has a specific case to discuss this is essentially an accusation of murder, with only a statistic to back it up. Come with better evidence, or don’t come at all. Yes, it is possible that the FBI were only drawing weapons in situations where they felt threatened. They train for it. Is it possible that they didn’t? Yes, but in that case do better homework and point one out. As it stands this post is lazy, glib, and snide.
Another Halocene Human
FBI needs a cleanup. Maybe Obama in his last two years or maybe the next president can appoint a commission to review EVERYTHING the FBI does, from profiling, to CODIS, to counterterrorism–EVERYTHING. Also need an internal audit and review all of their personnel policy and procedures. FBI has this aura, or used to, of almost magical confidence and competence. It’s crap, and what happens is that they have some truly talented detectives out there who are not able to make great things happen because the organization–as a team–is so dysfunctional. There’s also a lot of reliance on wooey investigation methods… Mully and Sculder was a documentary!… as documented by, guess what, non governmental organizations who clean up after the FBI’s fuckups. Plus, in their fight against organized crime, the FBI became compromised on the inside.
For people my age, the FBI means: losing shitloads of laptops, back when those things were expensive, and who the hell knows what data is on them; misidentifying people with fingerprints, because GOK when it’s something as serious as terrorism charges we shouldn’t follow up the computer ID with a human review; getting pantsed by the legal profession for using unvalidated profiling methods and ending up looking like a bunch of jerks; getting kicked in the nuts by GWB and cut out of investigating OBL (not that that was their fault); letting Whitey Bulger continue his reign of terror because one of their own thought a) he was a hero and b) seemed to figure an Irish crime lord was preferable to an Italian or Black one; in doing so, repeatedly screwing local law enforcement until they caught on that the FBI was the leak; bungling counter-terrorism efforts; letting fugitives from justice slip through their fingers.
Now the last is often the fault of local law enforcement, some of whom don’t call for help until they’ve completely fucked something up, giving their perp plenty of time to fly away, but still … ugh, this one guy killed his girlfriend and the sexist AZ cops didn’t believe it until he was long gone… then they realized he had a fake ID factory in his abandoned apartment. Oops. FBI tracked him to Mexico but couldn’t find him. Herp derp. Apparently Mexican authorities weren’t cooperative. He committed another family annihilation killing there. And then he finally died of a heart attack. One more win for the FBI! Jesus.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Again the subject cries out for tribal inclusion to bolster its sagging and overweight psyche. Too much movie popcorn?
Cassidy
@mistermix: Seriously Mix, grow the fuck up. You’re too damned old to be doing the coffehouse philosopher thing. You present an opinion you can’t support and then start goin “oh noes, how dare I question authoritay” when people ask you to back up your claims? Jesus, we get more intellectual honesty out of Freddie. for fuck’s sake, my 12 year old could have shot holes in your “position”.
Ted & Hellen
Wow. Another thread to expose how rife with military/law enforcement fetishists Balloon Juice is. Creepy.
“BADGE LICKERS” is an excellent description and shall be employed going forward. Thanks to its originator above.
Patricia Kayden
@mistermix: Not seeing 150 shootings over a 20 year period as a big thing. The problem with the FBI under Hoover was that he was an unrepetent racist who targeted Dr. King, among other activists. Big difference.
Cassidy
Boring rape fetishist is boring.
aimai
@Cassidy: How is what I said dishonest? I haven’t been following the case closely–but you can read other people’s links. I correctly represented what the FBI asserted during the first instance when the information got out that they had shot a guy they were questioning.
It ought to be obvious that there are shootings and shootings. We ought not to be comparing the FBI body count to the body count of Police Officers because the numbers are going to be way off and the situations completely different. Most Police Officer shootings involve chaotic, out of doors, fast reaction, situations that are largely uncontrollable from the get go: mistaken identity, confusion about weapons, responses to situations that are ill defined or incorrectly defined. You ‘d expect the number of accidental/wrongful shootings to be much higher given those circumstances and the fact that the Police are engaging with 300 million plus people every day.
The FBI brief is completely different. They aren’t called to the scene of domestic disputes. They aren’t called to calm down someone’s schizophrenic son. They aren’t walking a beat in a subway. These guys were interviewing a suspect in a closed room. There were multiple officers present. And they lost control of the situation. That’s mallpractice any way you slice it. They should never have lost control of the situation. They were, at the very least, complaisant and unprepared (if, indeed, anything happened the way they said). And they lost the only viable connection they had to the Tsarnaeve brothers.
As Talleyrand said of the murder of the duc D’Enghien “It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.” They should all be fired for losing their own suspect.
Ted & Hellen
Hey Assidy: Who IS “us,” “we,” “our,” etc?
Why the need to always be speaking for someone other than your gaseous self?
Another Halocene Human
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Don’t tell me that when I’ve seen the cops cruising around, looking for trouble. Even with a black chief of police, it’s still happening.
Hell, I even had a new hire go off on a veiled racist tirade when I asked him about some neighborhoods. (It was completely inaccurate, incidentally.)
I’ve had the cops approach me for no damn reason, and I’m white (but I guess in the “wrong” neighborhood–happened to some of my friends, too).
The cops in my town are badly underresourced. Property crime is through the roof because the thieves believe with reason that they won’t get caught. Fencing occurs in the open. Yet the cops still fill a lot of their day being stupid jagoff assholes (for example, throwing eggs from a truck at residents of a poor neighborhood near an industrial area, and that’s just what they got caught at doing). Maybe if they spent less time laughing at citizens and businesses who file police reports and less time rolling up on Black teenagers babysitting their baby siblings and more time studying crime stats, focusing their efforts, and also engaging the community in much more visible way to address, for example, domestic violence, they might actually effectively fight crime around here. They could partner with the health dep’t and the schools. If they wanted to. Cuz there ain’t SHIT they can do after somebody’s popped a gun and some poor victim is bleeding out on the pavement. That shit’s already OVER.
LAC
@magurakurin: I am at loss as to what this is supposed to mean? Did mistermix run out of stories about the pretty, put upon Snowden and the ebil gubberment conspiracy thingee? Besides Ted and the dog he tongues kisses, who is supposed to get worked up by this? Is there something more to this?
Poopyman
@Cassidy: Let’s not bring my family into this, ‘kay?
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
BTW, while I disagreed with the post, and some of your defenses here in the comments, major props for actually hanging around and trying to defend it.
negative 1
@Another Halocene Human: Why does the FBI need cleanup? Your post isn’t any better than the original. If it does, site your work, but do better than “the numbers seem bad”. Site a case, say why it is evident of a larger systemic failure, hell say “I don’t like FBI Agent X who lives next door to me” but as it stands you seem to be totally fact free. When essentially accusing someone of murder, or at the least manslaughter, be serious enough to present something like evidence or else people should honestly be calling bullshit on you.
We / I / democrats don’t like the ‘government must be doing it bad’ stuff for any reason, we say it is intellectually lazy/dishonest when the right does it. Well, this is the same thing. After all, the FBI are a branch of the government.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ted & Hellen: How is the behavior of a so-called “botsplainer” in reflexively doing what it does any different than your behavior in reflexively doing what you do?
Cassidy
@aimai: The part you left out is that the guy was a professional fighter. The moment he got agressive, he was dangerous. This wasn’t some poor schlub being interrogated; this was a young, in shape individual who would have been very dangerous to people not trained at his level. Someone like that knocks you to the ground and starts to come at you, you put bullets in them until they stop moving.
Now, is that what happened? I don’t know. I see no reason to not believe it. He fought at 155 (one time professionally according to Sherdog) and those guys are exceptionally strong with a significant level of muscle mass. Are there serious questions to ask as to why this situation was able to happen? Absolutely. But insinuating that this was a normal interrogation of a normal person is not accurate. It’s not unreasonable to think that they didn’t think it was a consideration as he seemed to be cooperating.
Another Halocene Human
PS: the “wrong” neighborhood was where I happened to live
as for my friends, they were visiting other friends who… lived there
way to go, racist cops
I don’t hate all cops or even coppery (coppitude?). Heck, I talk to the FOP president pretty frequently. We share information. He’s a smart guy and he fights hard for his people and I respect that. And I honestly think my town is trying to get police services for a discount and that shit never works.
What I don’t do is ignore the evidence from my own eyes that the force in general has a LOT of issues and does a lot of counterproductive and/or pointless shit.
Hell, I’d be happy if they stepped up traffic enforcement (I know, that makes me crazy, nobody likes traffic enforcement). More people get killed on the streets by cars every year in this town than murdered by other weapons.
Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey
@mistermix:
What facts? All you’ve presented is your own personal incredulity that 150 shootings over 20 years could all be “justified” (in the law enforcement sense, not the lefty blogger sense).
Troll harder, please.
Steeplejack
@negative 1:
A shooting that is not 100% justified does not automatically equal murder. There can be errors in following procedure or policy, there can be bad policy, all of which can lead to an “unjustified” shooting.
Cassidy
@Poopyman: Sorry, my bad.
Frankensteinbeck
Mix, the reason you’re getting so much push back is the strength of your complaint. If you had asserted originally that a 100% approval rate is so suspicious as to be unbelievable, and a sign of corruption like that puts the whole system in doubt… well, you wouldn’t have gotten absolute agreement, but you’d have gotten a discussion. The very low number of incidents total does suggest the overall system works well. Instead, you capped your argument with a comparison to Hoover that even if taken as hyperbole reads that you think this is clear proof that the FBI is engage in massive coverup of agent violence. There isn’t even close to enough evidence to suggest that, and people get snarky about overreactions like that. We drown in them in the political arena.
Another Halocene Human
@negative 1: You’re the one who’s fact-free. Guess you have that emotional attachment to the G-men?
FBI profiling is NOT scientific. They just got pantsed over that issue.
Whitey Bulger? Ring a bell? The FBI tipped him off that the state police were coming, allowing him to continue his reign of terror.
Remember the 1990s? Over 100 missing laptops? Nobody had any idea where they went?
Did you forget about the guy who was falsely identified as a big-time terrorist because of fingerprint identification? Who’s in charge of that? Who didn’t check their work? Oopsie.
Yeah, I know examining police methods closely is scary because it upends our notion that life is fair and crime and punishment are just. But if we never evaluate the effectiveness of our methods we’ll never get any better. Science in forensics is something that has had to happen for a long time. FBI is part of the LEO world, and they’ve had the freedom to hire the best and the brightest and resources most local governments could only dream of. They need to be not just as good as but better.
magurakurin
@Omnes Omnibus:
Forget it Jake, it’s Pederast Town.
Another Halocene Human
@magurakurin: But FBI is mostly involved in detective work. They usually use informants (not agents) in their undercover work. So it is a little odd that the interrogators had to shoot so many people that needed killin’.
NORMALLY people do not die in police custody or in the interview room. Just saying.
Also, too, most PDs now videorecord their interviews because, shit, court. Appeals court. Lawsuits. Plus the subject might have said something you missed the first time. Keeps everybody honest and keeps cops from getting focused on the wrong stuff and screwing up the investigation.
So…. the FBI doesn’t use a mature technology and method that just about every dinky two-cruiser outfit would use?
I suspect they’re secretive because they have something to hide. And what they’re hiding is a history of failure after failure. Rather than get better, they sweep it under the rug because they believe exposing their failure will give criminals reason to believe it’s open season. (As if criminals, especially the white collar kind, can’t figure that out for themselves.)
They need the cleansing power of sunlight.
Steeplejack
@Frankensteinbeck:
For what (little) it’s worth, I didn’t read Mistermix’s original post as saying that. I took it as a comparison to the Hoover era’s FBI reputation as a cadre of hypercompetent supermen vs. the subsequently revealed reality of feet (and ankles, calves and thighs) of clay.
Another Halocene Human
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): I wish the public felt that way when a bus driver runs over somebody. I mean, obviously that member of the public was just asking for it, messing around the back axle of the bus like that….
Another Halocene Human
@Jay C: They do plenty of bragging. They’re just more subtle about it.
ruemara
I may agree that the militarization of our police force is bad and still think this article is a bit specious. The criteria for “justification” does not seem to be defined and since that is the basis for what is written, I fail to understand anything new, but I gain a lot of paranoia points for reading. Is this truly what journalism is about, fear everything stories? Yes, it is suspicious that 100% of the shootings were justified. But 150 over 20 years is not a high amount of shootings and beyond the two cases listed, I’m not really seeing the culture issue the writer is bringing up. There’s a number of city PDs that could give the writer a real run for their money on justification of excessive force.
aimai
@Cassidy: A) I did not know he was a professional fighter. B) Professional fighters aren’t trained to fight after being shot in the leg. They had multiple people there who should have been better trained to handle a potentially violent witness–they weren’t and they didn’t. I don’t expect much from the FBI, actually–they clearly were not prepared to deal with the witness they were interrogating if they treated him like an accountant and he was actually a super secret deadly spy. But I don’t actually believe that and I believe that the FBI had a duty–a duty both to a potentially innocent party they were questioning and a duty to the state on whose behalf they were questioning him NOT TO FUCK IT UP. Even if one or more of the FBI agents got his face pushed in. No: its not ok to take someone into custody and wind up shooting him. Its just not. I can’t believe you think this is ok or somehow normative or expectable. Its sheer incompetence.
Another Halocene Human
@Bobby Thomson: What an inane post. This is like arguing that the sign in a plant that says it’s been 500 days since the last accident must be lying because shut up that’s why.
No, it’s more like walking into a plant with no sign (and lots of safety red flags around even in the public area). You just know that the tally would be embarrassingly low. Then you find out somebody lost a finger yesterday.
Most of this thread seems to be arguing that having a safety failure once a month is normal and justified. Wouldn’t it be nice if the FBI went 500 days without killing somebody?
How many bad guys do regular PD detectives shoot? Remember, these aren’t the guys who get called out during active crimes–they’re the guys who get called up when the police service technicians are chalking the outlines of the bodies and counting shell casings. (Think First 48, not Law&Order, also, too.)
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Another Halocene Human: you really want to compare FBI agents to bus drivers? C’mon.
Another Halocene Human
@aimai: Yeah, here’s my issue: why would the subject be allowed in that room with weapons, and why would the interrogators be in close quarters with him with weapons? Shouldn’t your armed guards be standing outside of reach? Guns suck and close quarters, while knives are deadly. Dude with gun should be out of reach. And no stabbing matter allowed.
This whole thing about him stabbing somebody just makes me think the fuckups started long before they walked into the room. And anybody who doesn’t think this is massively embarrassing to the FBI is just fantasizing.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Another Halocene Human:
Actually, as others have pointed out, there’s no baseline for comparison. How many interactions did the FBI have over the period in question? If they only had 200, then the number would be high. If they had 100,000, then the number might be low.
Also, this:
Is that all the FBI does? I honestly don’t know, because I have an image of them in suits. But don’t they do undercover work as well?
Hoodie
@Frankensteinbeck: This. The FBI has lots of issues, but the evidence presented about this particular practice — review of shootings — is merely suggestive. Hence, people bringing up the missing laptops, the incident in the Tsarnaev investigation, Whitey Bulger, etc. to try to bolster the original premise. The post was a backasswards way of bringing up the subject of the competence and self-regulation of the FBI, a subject everyone should be concerned with. The allusion to Hoover was plain stupid. BTW, if modern entertainment is any indication, no one thinks the FBI is anywhere close to perfection, as they’re typically the object of derision in cop dramas, variously portrayed as sinister, political, controlling and incompetent.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Another Halocene Human: The Tsarnaev-related shooting is not from the time of this article. I can see both Cassidy and Aimai’s points, and would like more answers. I actually think everyone in this thread would. So it’s neither here nor there wrt the OP.
Cassidy
@aimai: You don’t shoot people in the leg. It’s a smalll target and easy to miss. When someone who carries a gun for a living decides to draw and shoot, you aim center mass (the torso) and you shoot to kill. You know this. We, collectively, have had this conversation many times. Not likeing it doesn’t change the training or the reasoning behind it. Any insistence otherwise is hollywood thinking.
Actually, FWIW, professional fighters fight with broken ribs, legs, arms, etc. pretty routinely. I don’t know this guy, but again, this was not a normal person.
Again, I don’t disagree that these guys lost controll of the situation, but, again, it’s not unreasonable to think they had things under control with a cooperating witness. Shit happens. I’m sure any number of LEO’s have walked into a situation that got volatile very quickly with no warning. Hell, I get an EMS newsletter and it’s common for EMS personnel to get attacked while trying to help someone.
Another Halocene Human
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Of course not. I just think it’s hilarious that so many people on this thread are stridently rationalizing the killing of a person of interest in an interrogation room, something that should NEVER happen, but they’d be the first to judge any bus driver who ran somebody over, even if the person who was run over did something boneheaded like running alongside a bus in traffic.
We can all think of scenarios where the bus driver should have been more careful and done more to prevent harm.
ARE THERE NO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR DETECTIVES? I mean, come on. So, bus drivers, with much less training than detectives, have professional standards. Bus drivers are entrusted with that 15-20 ton vehicle and expected to behave accordingly. Detectives are entrusted with a gun and
expected to behave accordinglyare always right because shut up! that’s why.Steeplejack
@Hoodie:
Criminal Minds is on line 2 and would like a word.
Cassidy
@Another Halocene Human: As I pointed out, his fists were weapons. Two, if they were questioning him, and he wasn’t under arrest, why would he be cuffed? Everyone here decries the use of police power, yet here in this situation, they showed some restraint and now they’re incompetant.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Another Halocene Human:
1. Cassidy is the only person rationalizing the Tsarnaev-related incident.
2. They weren’t in an interrogation room, apparently, but in some house.
3. Having no information about the 150 shootings in question, I can’t say where those were.
4. Again, is that all FBI agents do? Interrogate people?
Another Halocene Human
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Is that all the FBI does? I honestly don’t know, because I have an image of them in suits. But don’t they do undercover work as well?
I have no idea how many undercover agents the FBI has, but I know that, for example, in organized crime and financial crime the FBI relies on whistleblowers and turncoats. For one thing, those people are already on the inside. For another thing, often the agents don’t understand the nature of the fraud or racket well enough to be effective at gathering information.
The FBI does raid places in the course of investigations and that can be dangerous. I mean, generally they would attempt to mitigate so that a) info isn’t destroyed before they arrive and b) they don’t get fired upon. But it’s not like federal agents never get shot. “The Sausage King” killed USDA inspectors over some undercooked linguiças. (No, for real.)
I will back off my high horse and acknowledge that more information is necessary. Some comments on this thread kind of set me off. FBI doesn’t police itself well and there are actually good (as in cognitive/psychological) reasons that they don’t, so let’s be rational and take this issue on. I think our country deserves better.
aimai
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): I don’t understand why people are giving mistermix such a hard time. I didn’t bother to read the article because I was more interested in the thread but, basically, you can’t know whether any of the numbers are significant, or what they mean, unless you are measuring against some standard: number of incidents in the first place where the FBI interact with possible suspects, protocol for finding a shooting legitimate, relationship of the standard “legtimate” from a bureau point of view to “legitimate” from a citizen/subject point of view. Right now the police in Colorado, I think, are trying to argue that shooting a little girl while she slept on a couch during a raid they performed for the sake of tv ratings could be seen as ‘justified’ under some circumstances. Is that a legitimate standard or a last ditch attempt by a negligent system with armed and negligent minions to get out of jail for the totally unnecessary death of a young child? What is “legitimate” for a police force is not necessarily what is “legitimate” for the population.
I brought up the Tsarnaev case because its a shooting that, absent public outcry, would have gone completely unnoticed by the public and the FBI are clearly determined to represent their membership as “not at fault” and the shooting as, in some sense, justified. But as everyone but Cassidy can see bringing a suspect into interrogation without securing him, failing to tape the interrogation, failing to have lawyers present, failing to search the suspect, failing to interrogate him in a room without potential weapons, and shooting him dead rather than capturing him are all pretty serious derelictions of police procedure. Whether the shooting is considered “legitimate” or not doesn’t change the fact that it resulted from some craptacular decisions.
Cassidy
@Another Halocene Human:
That’s not true and you’re a liar. Plenty of rational explanations have been suggested, the kind of rational things a rational person says when they ask “how did this happen”, but since it doesn’t fit into your narrative of how shitty cops are, you’re ignoring it.
“Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck…stoopid pigs with thar donuts and guns and shootin’ random people and FIGHT THE POWER!”
Better?
Another Halocene Human
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Actually, they assist local law enforcement efforts and spend a lot of time in cubicles, from what I understand.
Forum Transmitted Disease
150 shootings and only 70 killed? WTF are my tax dollars getting used for, giving children with cerebral palsy guns and badges?
My mother, who lives in a home with the beginning stages of Alzheimers, is a better shot than that.
Another Halocene Human
@Cassidy: Cassidy, I haven’t engaged your claims about the Caucasian superman, in part because honestly, I really don’t know anything about it. I just know that in a normal industry, if some shit like that happened the manager would want to know why and there would be a lot of activity around changing procedures. That’s why I called it an embarrassment.
You are being dishonest by conflating me with those who have challenged your claim about this guy’s unstoppable kung fu, okay?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m willing to bet that the average “botsplainer” isn’t 56 years old, as Special Tim is.
aimai
@Cassidy: I simply can’t understand you. I, myself, made the point that police (and ems too, obviously) often walk into dangerous situations. This was not one such situation. Interrogating a suspect who you have reason to believe participated in a a mass murder and was associated with your bombing suspects ought to be a situation in which you observe the most extreme caution. Absolutely you should have read the guy his rights and cuffed him. Absolutely you should have tried to transit your interrogation out of his house (if that’s where it was) and into a space you controlled better. Absolutely you should have tried to find a way to ascertain whether he was armed or better incapacitate him while you were questioning him. The fact that the FBI were taken by surprise is a huge and obvious black mark against them.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@aimai:
You answered your own question. He went from a single statistic to a comparison to Hoover.
As to the Tsarnaev-related case, yes, there is still much to be answered. But this: ” bringing a suspect into interrogation without securing him, failing to tape the interrogation, failing to have lawyers present, failing to search the suspect, failing to interrogate him in a room without potential weapons, and shooting him dead rather than capturing him are all pretty serious derelictions of police procedure.” seems to be reading more into it. If he was a “person of interest” and cooperating, they might not have been afoul of standard procedure. I don’t know.
Cassidy
@aimai:
Been explained to you. As usual, whatever scene is playing out in Aimai’s mind is more important than relevant information and knowledge. Again, the personal knowledge and experience of people who have had similiar conditioning and training is irrelevent because it doesn’t fit the pre-established narrative and conclusion you’ve come to without knowing all the facts. This has become all too common. I don’t know why I bother trying to talk to you, but since it’s been twice in two days, the lesson has been learned. Thank you for being you.
Do me a favor, make sure you actually read up on what took place before you comment. A lot of people here seem to think your a voice of gospel and it would help if you didn’t pretend to know all the pertinent information,
mistermix
@Steeplejack:
That is what I was trying to say, apparently “Hoover” is too fraught a reference. The reason this post was so short was that I do think the “perfect since 1993” part of the story speaks for itself, especially in the context of the FBI’s many different issues in the Freeh years, which were well-documented, so I was assuming that the educated readership of B-J would get that the issue isn’t the volume of the shootings, it’s the self-reported batting average of 1000.
That said, @Frankensteinbeck: I did clarify the post and I did follow up with comments calling out the key facts of the article for those who couldn’t be bothered to read it. I don’t think those facts sway any of the people reacting harshly to the original post, because they don’t want to believe them and want to drill in on irrelevant side issues, then get into pointless fights with other commenters.
Example: “he was a trained fighter”. That may be the explanation/excuse for why the situation got out of hand (doubtful: if someone in custody of law enforcement is a trained fighter, then why didn’t they restrain him more carefully in the first place?), but it does not explain the many different revisions of the story of how he was armed. He wasn’t armed, we finally find out, on the third or fourth telling of the tale.
This is how journalism works: something smells suspicious and you look for a pattern. The suspicious thing is revision of the story of the death of this man in custody. The pattern that was found is that the FBI narratives always end up in “justified” when someone is shot. As much as we’re skeptical about journalism here, and rightly so, it isn’t a court of law. And Charlie Savage, the lead reporter on that piece, is a good working journalist whose beat is national security.
Cassidy
@Another Halocene Human: Wow, you really are as stupid as you come across! I figured you were just being all chicken little and shit because “PIGS!”, but you really are so obtuse that anything resembling relevent information that might contradict your biases is disregarded. And done with you as well.
Another Halocene Human
@Cassidy: Everyone here decries the use of police power, yet here in this situation, they showed some restraint and now they’re incompetant.
This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Policing, like anything where danger is involved, is all about procedure. Not following procedure, not honing procedures, or pulling some boneheaded procedure out of your ass for stupid reasons that have never been validated by evidence is, well, irresponsible to say the least.
I have no idea what happened there that led to that result. Maybe this kid was a wily little bugger but overestimated himself. I mean, people slip out of cuffs. People break out of jail cells. Shit happens.
But to argue that “restraint” causes these things is idiotic. Restraint means keeping your cool and following procedure instead of letting your emotions and rage rule you. Restraint could mean to tackle a subject and apply restraints. Restraint could mean shooting somebody because it is the path of least harm. There is a positive alternative to either authoritarian overkill or laissez-faire.
Cassidy
@aimai:
Because you don’t listen.
Another Halocene Human
@Cassidy: Good, cause I’m really tired of talking to you.
Cassidy
@Another Halocene Human: see #111. You raise the same general dumb points that have been addressed before.
Pooh
@aimai:
If they were going to shoot him, the “to death” part is sort of part and parcel. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure “just wound him” is the kind of things villains in Die Hard movies try.
Another Halocene Human
@mistermix: Face it, mistermix, it’s hard to consider Hoover without jumping immediately to COINTELPRO.
Perhaps you should have referenced “The G-Men” or something like that.
Pooh
Also, OP has the whiff of “Jane Hamshers of the left, a group which does not include any actual Jane Hamshers” from Cole’s greatest hits album.
Cassidy
I”m sorry all. here, I’ll get with the
Teafirebagger program.Fucking Pigs. How dare they defend themselves and not shoot a moving target, at close range (where statistically it’s easier to miss) and not restrain someone who wasn’t under arrest and not let a professional fighter beat me up; that might hurt the delicate fee-fees of people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, but believe they can do it better. It’s like fucking fascism and nazis and stuff.
Did I get everything? I’m not versed in all the talking points knee jerk cop hatred.
Cassidy
Can’t edit: Not shoot a moving target in the shoulder
Another Halocene Human
@mistermix: “We’re always justified” just has this Glengarry Glen Ross feel to it, to me.
“You’re a rockstar, we’re all rockstars! Awesome job, bro!”
MomSense
Ok I’m uncomfortable with the results because my personal bias is that law enforcement is often heavy handed, dare I say excessive, in the use of force. Again, that is my bias. I acknowledge it as a bias. I also do not think that there is enough information provided in this post to make any determinations at all. 150 total shootings in 18 years and 70 fatal shootings in that same time frame is an average of 2.5 fatal shootings per year.
I do think every person who was shot and every person killed deserves a thorough investigation. I really can’t say if this was the case or not.
I do think that jumping to conclusions is not helpful if you are trying to make the case for being thorough and impartial. All that happens is people react defensively–as this thread demonstrates. Nothing is learned. Positions harden. Not a constructive exercise at all.
Another Halocene Human
@Cassidy: I thought you were done?
negative 1
@Another Halocene Human: Profiling is not the same as unjustified shooting. Yes, I know both FBI agents and cops, I work for organized labor and they are union. What difference does it make? Whether or not I like or hate cops you’re still shitposting. Back up your work, find an instance where they were unjustified, and show why the organization needs to be cleaned up. Otherwise, you’re no different than every other lazy-boy warrior yelling about the lazy city workers or how every person performing manual labor is ‘probably an illegal’.
aimai
@Pooh: I knew when I wrote that that it would get pushback from all the armchair warriors here but look, in a small enclosed space with multiple guys shooting all at once you can’t get anything but a kill. Fuck, they are lucky they didn’t all shoot off each other’s dicks. Perhaps it would be a really good idea if multiple FBI agents didn’t stand around staring into space while interrogating a suspect and then all simultaneously pull their weapons and start blasting–if the suspect were as important as this one was? Perhaps they could have chosen to risk a few bruises from super fighter dude rather than risk shooting each other or losing their suspect? Forgive me if I don’t consider these actions either heroic or prudent and am looking for some other way for my FBI to handle its interrogations so that they don’t lose the suspect before they have finished interrogating him?
negative 1
@mistermix: Journalism works with evidence. If you think that the stats make the story fishy, all that does is point where you should be looking. Not saying “oh well I can imply because I’m too lazy to research and therefore can’t report anything.”
Pooh
@negative 1:
And /thread
aimai
@Cassidy: I don’t hate the police at all, nor the FBI. I realize you are attacking Halocene but I just thought I should make that clear. Holding the armed representatives of my government to a very high standard is, of course, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can’t believe that you think that defending an obviously botched job, a massive failure and humiliation for the bureau, is doing them any favors. People who are armed and able to shoot without repercussions had better be held to a pretty high standard or we are all fucked.
Cassidy
Condescending and pretentious know-nothing is condescending and pretentious.
Pooh
@aimai:
Maybe that’s why review boards have law enforcement professionals rather than Internet experts?
There’s huge room for both of these things to be true: 1. The shooting was justified. 2. Interview procedure was not properly followed.
aimai
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): “They might not have been afoul of procedure?” Uh. If you end up shooting your interrogation suspect to death and procedure wasn’t violated then someone needs to revisit procedure.
aimai
@Pooh: Yes, obviously. So what?
Cassidy
@aimai: @aimai:
aimai
Oh, I’m sorry, Cassidy’s feelings are hurt.
kc
Shorter BJ commentariat: The FBI’s not killing people fast enough!
Cassidy
Says the person who couldn’t bother herself to be familiar withe the whole case.
Cassidy
@aimai: I wouldn’t go that far. Some privileged suburbanite who’s never done anything tough in her life beyond making sure her kid’s college has the right women’s laws isn’t really capable of hurting my feelings.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@aimai: if procedure needs to be revisited, that’s one thing. But that wouldn’t mean they are afoul of current procedure.
You’re arguing against someone who agrees with you that this seems “fishy” and would like more answers.
aimai
Please do keep posting, over and over again, about how much my opinions don’t matter to you. I agree completely. You shouldn’t let them bother you. Your life experiences are much more valid than mine. Its charming of you to drag my child into this–am I to understand that real people don’t have children?
Mnemosyne
@mistermix:
Is there any police department that doesn’t give themselves a batting average of .1000? Maybe it’s because I live in Los Angeles, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a police shooting anywhere being ruled “unjustified” even if the department ends up having to pay a settlement. FFS, the NYPD ruled that Amadou Diallo’s shooting was within policy. I’m assuming the terminology the FBI uses is also something more like “within policy” rather than the more inflammatory “justified.”
aimai
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): I agree. I’m not really arguing one thing or another, except in Cassidy’s mind. I care a lot about the Tsarnaev case because it happened in my hometown and we were affected by it–we know people who knew them in highschool, since its our local highschool. The murders that this guy was supposedly implicating Tsarnaev in happened a few miles from my house and were ignored and botched by the local Watertown police. So I’m dissapointed, to put it mildly, that the FBI didn’t tape their interrogation and that they managed to shoot the witness/suspect. This was a case of, at the time, international importance and it was incredibly important that all the t’s be crossed and the i’s be dotted, if only because at the time accusations were flying that the Tsarnaev’s didn’t do it and/or that others might have been involved.
Cassidy
@aimai: /eyeroll
Sorry. I got the impression that the most difficult thing you’ve ever had to do was pick out someone else’s college. Didn’t realize that counted “as dragging your child into it”. OH THE HORROR!
And no, on this topic, you have no life experience of which to speak, so yes, mine is more valid. When the topic involves being a privileged suburbanite who has never had to do anything difficult then I will defer to your experience.
Cassidy
@aimai: So you routinely carry video recording equipment into someone’s home when you talk to them? Tell us again about your extensive police background and training?
Villago Delenda Est
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
Well, the FBI seems to be arguing that.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Cassidy:
I would only caution about your use of the term “do anything difficult.” There are a lot of difficult things in life. Not all of them involve close-quarters combat.
FWIW, I think you both add invaluably to the discussion here, so maybe defensiveness isn’t the best approach.
rikyrah
Law enforcement finding shootings justified.
next thing you’ll be telling me is that water is wet.
Ted & Hellen
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Yay, another stalker!
Mnemosyne
@aimai:
This is part of the murkiness of the whole thing, but it’s never been clear to me that they were questioning Todashev as a possible accomplice in the triple murder at the time, just that they thought he might know some information about the Tsarnaevs and their possible involvement in it. I could see a “friendly” interview going very, very wrong if the agents realize halfway through that the guy they’re talking to may actually be one of the perpetrators and they’re not prepared to handle him.
aimai
@Cassidy: You know what? There is no requirement that people in this country have had Cassidy’s personal experience to vote, to legislate, to opine, to discuss, to consider, or to debate. None. Thank god. I’m not going to bother to point out that you know nothing about me or my personal experiences because that’s the beauty of the internet. For all I know you are a suburban dad whose closest connection to whatever violence you are claiming educated you as to FBI procedure interrogating a witness is World of Warcraft and you dress up in breastplates and a thong on your day off. I know nothing about you and have no reason to consider you an expert on anything. Your point seems, vaguely, to be “when you stand in the thin red line you will know fear and you, too, will fire off at anything that moves.” Absolutely. I’m sure its true that if I had served in a war I might be pretty prone to shooting things. But the FBI guys were interrogating a suspect who they either knew was potentially dangerous (a super martial arts guy!) or they didn’t know (so hadn’t really done their homework). Either way they had a duty to try to keep him alive until they got all the information they wanted from him. You don’t have to have served in combat, or been an EMT, or ever held a gun to know that.
Pooh
@aimai:
My point is, you’re making a pretty poor, bootstrappy argument in which you are essentially making up your own standard of conduct and applying it to an, at best, imperfectly understood set of facts.
As I understand it, interview procedure is about 2 main things: preservation of evidence and ensuring the safety of agents/officers/bystanders. In my mind it seems eminently plausible that the agents in the Todarev case were slipshod in doing this, which allowed Todarev to become violent/dangerous (which btw, is still more on him since beating people up, even cops, is bad, right?) At that point, its probably a good shooting, but the entire incident was not handled correctly.
Meanwhile, the whole thread was naturally going to go downhill as soon as mistermix used some pretty inflammatory language. If you’re going to bring the Hoover, you need a little more than a suspicious number. (And speaking of suspicious, why choose 1993 to early 2011 as your end points? Possibly to exclude Ruby Ridge from your data set? Rogoff and Reinhart approve if this methodology…)
Ted & Hellen
Anyone know if Cassidy has recently had his med regime changed?
catclub
1. Does 1993 mean after Ruby Ridge and the branch Davidians?
2. I am with mix that perfection, over long time periods, becomes more and more suspicious.
Consider flipping a coin. If it comes up heads three times in a row, no big deal. If it comes up head 18 times in a row, you start to wonder if it is a fair coin.
3. How many FBI agents are there? People keep saying that 150 over 18 years is a small number.
It would depend on how many. That many killings in a town of 10,000 would seem pretty high.
In New Orleans, it would be fabulously low.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Villago Delenda Est: Except for their settlement in the wrongful shooting death.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ted & Hellen:
We DO know that you’re slacking in your search for that fire with your name on it.
Cassidy
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): I just can’t talk to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about and refuses to listen to someone who might have more of a clue. I’m always happy to defer to people who are more educated than I about subjects. It’s not an ego thing. I don’t know shit about computers, so I ask. If I get an answer I don’t like, I don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
Aimai is incapabale of doing that. Her basis of “common sense” and good ideas is ridiculous especially because she refuses to acknowledge that certain facts adn truths exist. She doesn’t like them, so she ignores them. I can’t talk to someone like that. It’s only because of her reputation here that I’ve tried, but over the last two days, I can see it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Pooh
@catclub:
13778 special agents per the FBI website, though who knows if that over or undercounts (about 25k “professionals” work their per the same source.)
aimai
@Pooh:
I don’t understand your “its more on todarev” than on the FBI agents? Who cares? I’m not asking for the FBI agents to be found guilty of murder. I’m not even arguing that their shooting wasn’t “justified” in some limited, legalistic, way by the suspects actions (although I think the changing stories about what happened cast some doubt on that). I’m just saying that when a bunch of interrogators go into a room with a witness/suspect and come out with nothing–no taped confession, no taped interrogation, nothing but a dead suspect either procedure is fucked up, procedure was not followed, or we all need to be concerned. The FBI has no proof of anything. As far as a suspicious public is concerned they were interviewing a guy and they shot him. That ought to be a problem for us as a society–its certainly a problem for the investigation since connections to the Tsarnaev’s are few and far between.
This is not personal. It doesn’t have to be personal except that Cassidy is making it personal. It should be obvious: the FBI did not want to have a dead witness on its hands and no taped confession. So something, even from an FBI perspective, has to have gone wrong. Maybe the after action review, to which we will not be privy, will help them out with this little problem. But there was a problem. That’s obvious.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
This is why untreated/unrecovered ex military types who are clearly still suffering from PTSD from various Bush wars, or any other, should not be free to mix with the public.
You have no right to disagree with an unbalanced military fetishist. Wolverines.
Villago Delenda Est
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
The FBI seems to be, um, ignoring their own payment of a settlement.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Look for a mass shooting in a quiet suburb soon. You’ll know who the shooter is…
Ted & Hellen
I, for one, am crushed that the Aimai/Cassidy friendship has crumbled to dust over the last couple of days.
Pooh
@aimai: I think you just proved my point, you’re using a completely different standard than the one which is in place. And doing so, if I might add with all possible respect, from a place of imperfect understanding.
As far as it being more on Todarev, in my plausible scenario, he’s the one who chose to get violent/threatening with the FBI, so yes in that scenario, the escalation is more on him.
Cassidy
@aimai:
And again, this is what you do. So, somehow, me explaining to you that a professional MMA fighter, someone who makes a living hitting people, is a “super martial arts guy” because, again, you’re ignorant. So, I’ll epxlain it to you. A professional fighter spends every day in the gym with several hours of unarmed combat training, strength training and conditioning, and cardio conditioning. So, it’s completely logical to expect that someone like this, who is trained to fight, could easily hurt and or kill one or more untrained personnel in a fight. If said individual was in the lvigin room with you and your family, could all of you subdue him? This doesn’t make him a “super martial arts guy”; it makes him a trained fighter.
So, while I’ve tried to logically explain it to you, because those facts don’t fit into your pre-drawn conlcusion and biases, you go the condescedning route. Good job. Celebrate ignorance. And it pisses me off, because you always seemed so goddamn smart, admirably so, but lately, man, if it doesn’t fit your narrative, you trash the fuck out of it.
If you’d like, you are welcome to email me. Mix has my address. I will happily provide links and documents that I am who I say I am. No bullshit.
Cassidy
@Ted & Hellen: @Ted & Hellen: @Ted & Hellen: Someone’s jealous they aren’t getting attention.
Burnspbesq
@mistermix:
Is there anything other than pure speculation that provides any basis to believe that even one of those investigations would have had a different outcome if conducted by, for example, a grand jury?
Nothing-burger is not a healthy breakfast. Real journalism, in this case, would be a FOIA request for the case files and a review by an experienced former prosecutor. But that would involve real work, which apparently is no longer seen as necessary.
aimai
@Cassidy: Its ok. I don’t really care. You are hung up on this martial arts thing, and Pooh is hung up on some notion that what is at issue is “he had it coming” or something. This simply doesn’t matter to me. I am perfectly willing to accept that as soon as things got ugly during the interrogation the FBI had no other methods at their disposal other than to shoot this guy. To me *that* is a significant failure–whether its a failure of procedure or a failure of execution I can’t say and its not up to me to say since I’m not sitting on a review board. But speaking as a citizen who has had multiple relatives followed and wiretapped by the FBI,has had relatives in prison, had a personal and political interest in finding out what happened behind the Boston Marathon Bombings, I would have preferred a different outcome and I think a different outcome would have happened if the FBI had been more prepared, perhaps even overprepared, or prepared to take some injuries in pursuit of the truth of the situation.
One of the outcomes that I care about that simply doesn’t turn on whether Todarov (sp) brought this on himself is that the interrogation wasn’t taped or filmed. I don’t know or care whether that is FBI protocol at the moment–it should be. This was an incredibly high profile case of international importance. I think (yes, mere me) that the FBI should have handled this entire situation with kid fucking gloves.
Again: I’m not interested in arguing about whether the FBI was working within procedure–if they were the procedures were inadequate.
Cassidy
@aimai: I’m not hung up on anything. It’s relevant information that changes the parameters. There’s a lot of relevent information, that you don’t know nor seem to care, that changes the parameters of your misconception. Again, you’re “hung up” on the interrogation being taped or filmed. For one, since they were at a residence, interrogation is not what was happening. Two, I think your expectation that a recording suite be brought into someone’s home to videotape what appears to be routine questioning is ludicrous. Would you submit to such a thing?
Because you feel some sort of conection to this and are “disappointed” your making shit up to fix something that is an anamoly because you don’t like the outcome. That’s silly. Call it what you want, though. I don’t think “hung up on facts and relevent information” is a bad way to go through life.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: @Cassidy: At this point, you are talking past one another. IMO it is long past the point where you are both acting like douchecanoes. Perhaps you could stop it.
Burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
Shorter Omnes: get a room, you two.
AnonPhenom
“How is this different from Hoover days?”
If you want your mind blown, here is something else that has not changed since the Hoover days.
Put a recording device on the table and they head for the hills.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
Law enforcement does not equal armed combat—or at least it shouldn’t in a modern society. So perhaps your experience is not quite as relevant as you think. And your sneering condescension to a “fucking privileged suburbanite” does you no credit at all. All of us, even surburbanites, have a vested interest in how our society works and are entitled to opinions thereon. We don’t inhabit some masturbatory Heinlein/Cheney fantasy in which only “warriors” are “knowledgeable” about the “hard decisions” and the “dark side,” etc. Actually, that’s part of the problem: we probably have ceded too much control to the “experts” and the “authorities,” with not enough checks and balances.
shortstop
@Cassidy:@Cassidy: I really don’t think you’re going to pass the psych evaluation for whatever firefighting or EMS or whatever job you’re now hoping to get.
Every day it’s like this. Cassidy blows onto nearly every thread, shares some completely unnuanced opinion (usually about something he knows fuck-all about, contrary to his “I’m happy to defer on subjects on which I’m uneducated”), blows up, screams at half the people around him that they’re fucking idiots, plays the military service card in ways that make McCain look low-key, screams some more, sprints down the field with goalposts atop his shoulders, shrieks some more. And if there’s no one obvious around to fight with, he baits people who are not even in the thread, bringing up topics that aren’t even being discussed, just looking for a rumble. Because it’s the fight he wants. Nothing else.
I really don’t see any daylight between this guy and T&H. None.
Steeplejack
@mistermix:
Excellent distillation!
Christ, if a schoolteacher told me that every kid in her class got a perfect 100 on a test I’d be a little suspicious. As the sainted Ronaldus Magnus himself said: trust but verify.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
Keep fucking that chicken.
Cassidy
@Steeplejack: @shortstop: So, I’ll put you down as two more who don’t like facts with their narrative. Got it.
Cassidy
@Steeplejack:
You’re absolutely right, but since I didn’t say that, I’m going to guess context is a little out of your league. I’ll catch you up. A lot of this started with “oh noes! they should have shot him in the leg” kind of silliness. Whereas, again, I’ve explained that the training and conditioning doens’t work that way. Secondly, the statistical likelihood of missing a small moving target (like the aforementioned leg) is very high. So, regardless of the legitimacy of the shooting, which is fair to question, the hollywood notion that the LEO is going to only wound the guy is dumb. Then of course, other facts are brought into it, but since they don’t fit the narrative of how awful the police is, they’ve been ignored.
Are you with us yet, or should I use smaller words?
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
Well, if (per the New York Times story I linked above) this was the third round of questioning, and it went on for several hours (up to eight, according to Todashev’s father), and it involved Todashev writing a confession to a murder, then, yeah, it might be a good idea to bring along a camera and/or a sound recorder. It’s not like the FBI was caught totally by surprise in this situation.
Cassidy
@Steeplejack: So law enforcement only questions a person once?
Cassidy
Seriously, some of you need to stick with talking about cats and what’s on sale at Trader Joe’s this week, because on some topics you don’t know a fucking thing. either that or stop watching procedural shows. Pro-tip, the guy playing Booth isn’t a real Special Agent, or vampire for that matter.
Steeplejack
@Mnemosyne:
Jesus, he was writing a confession when the incident happened. I don’t have Cassidy’s law-enforcement expertise, but I’m guessing that’s no longer a “friendly interview.”
Drs. Dunning and Kruger
Did someone just page us? How may we help?
Steeplejack
@aimai:
Well stated.
Steeplejack
@catclub:
As I noted above, it excludes Ruby Ridge (1992). The Waco siege occurred in 1993, but I think (off the top of my head) that ATF agents were the shooters in that one.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
Jesus, you’re descending into spittle-flecked incoherence. On what basis are you saying that Todashev was trained up to the level of a professional MMA fighter? And, if he was, and “it’s completely logical to expect that someone like this, who is trained to fight, could easily hurt and or kill one or more untrained personnel in a fight,” wouldn’t that be something that (trained, professional) FBI agents should be aware of and take precautions against?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@shortstop: Cassidy has never once expressed that a child being raped in the shower would be the most awesome experience said child would ever have.
Something which we sadly cannot say for Tim.
Steeplejack
@Omnes Omnibus:
How Broderian of you. I agree that they are talking past each other at this point, but Cassidy is way ahead on douche points.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Steeplejack:
Todashev was a professional MMA fighter. Look it up yourself.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@AnonPhenom: I’d like to think I’m a fairly well-informed guy about the multitude of ways that law enforcement fucks their victims over, but goddamn that is news to me, and apparently it’s a decades-old practice.
Written transcriptions only, no recording devices allowed. Makes sense, actually. Who are you going to believe, the felon or two of America’s upstanding G-Men?
Thumb on the scales, indeed.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
What you strongly implied is that your experience in combat makes you “more knowledgeable” on law enforcement issues than Aimai. Otherwise why bring it up?
Deb T
@The Red Pen:
The Red Pen says: “It was justified. He pulled first.”
As Raylan Givens would say eh.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
WTF?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Steeplejack: Check out AnonPhenom’s link above. Apparently the FBI, as a matter of policy, NEVER tapes interviews or interrogations.
I’m honestly stunned.
Steeplejack
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Fine. My point stands: shouldn’t the FBI have taken steps not to be surprised by this dangerous suspect?
Omnes Omnibus
@Steeplejack: Probably so.
It sounds like the FBI may be looking at the decision to use deadly force only at the time it occurred not making any judgment as to screw-ups or other things that led to the situation where deadly force is used, e.g., an agent should not have gone into some place without back up but did it anyway. Because of this, he is placed in a situation where he needs to shoot. Big picture = fuck up that needs to be addressed; little picture might = justified shooting.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Steeplejack:
Frankly, this is as far into this thread as I am going to get. While I agree that batting 1000 is suspicious in itself as there is no such thing as the perfect human, MM’s post has less substance than an AL post.
Story Topic: 10/10
Story Substance: 0/10
If I was out of toilet paper I wouldn’t print it out to wipe my ass. This was written for those who would agree with it already, not as something to start a real discussion. This is something that should be talked about seriously and this post was not about that kind of discussion. Not only that but we have police departments all over the nation that have the same kind of track record involving much larger numbers of people and somehow that isn’t more noteworthy.
I think there is a problem but I also think this post had nothing to do with really discussing it.
Ted & Hellen
@shortstop:
Bastard!
Ted & Hellen
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Weird how you can’t tackle the Sandusky subject without lying about what I wrote.
Cassidy
@Steeplejack: Because he was a professional fighter. I already referenced that. Secondly, basic unarmed combat in LEO/ Military organizations isn’t a lot, so no, it’s not at the level to fight a trained fighter, hence he shot him. I would have done the same.
@Steeplejack: Again, context will kill you. Yes, my experiences in the military are more valid. Why? As I’ve stated before, the techniques and conditioning used to train people who carry a gun for a living are the same across military and LEO. They’re basic techniques that have been found to work. So when I argue that aiming for someone’s leg is dumb because of the reasons I’ve given, it’s because I’ve experienced said training. it simply doesn’t wotk that way. It’s a childs fantasy to believe that. At no point in time have i said that the case doesn’t warrant review. At no point in time have I said that things could have done better. But you all can’t differentiate parts of the situation, and that’s what it’s required here if you actually want to have an informed opinion on the matter instead of some turd of a half-assed ignorant one that tries to be all encompassing over several different parts.
Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick, at least try to be honest. Fuck. This selective reading bullshit is moronic.
Ted & Hellen
Seriously, any of you Bot Kool Kids know where Assidy lives? Because if you do, you should call 911 post haste. We have an alleged former mercenary with PTSD losing its shit. A suburb is in mortal danger.
Cassidy
@Ted & Hellen: True. I’ve never cheated on my family, lied to them for years and left them in a lurch when I had a mid life crisis and decided I wanted to do some drawings with crayons. Nor would I ever tell my daughters that being raped is not really rape and their ladybits are not theirs to govern the use of.
Ted & Hellen
@Cassidy:
Get some help, freak.
Cassidy
@Ted & Hellen: Says the pedophile defender.
Ted & Hellen
Seriously, Assidy, I loathe you to the core of your fat little BJ persona, but of late you’ve gone further and further off the rails. Now you’re not just lashing out incoherently at me and a couple of others, it’s anyone who disagrees with your swaggering, swinging, sweaty testicles of truth and knowledge.
Probably time for a stay at the VA psych ward, don’t you think? After all, they did this to you in the first place.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
And this is wrong. Full stop. You don’t need a full-on video suite to do that these days, or a high-end audio recorder.
ETA: and by wrong, I mean the policy is wrong, not that you are wrong.
Cassidy
@Ted & Hellen: Awwww, you actually said something that wasn’t really mean to be offensive as possible. I’m touched.
Still, go die somewhere.
Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey
If the concern is that the FBI is calling all 150 shootings “justified”, then we need to understand what “justified” means in this context. IANALEO, but my understanding is that “shot the right person” isn’t necessarily a criterion. It’s more along the lines of “agent didn’t discharge weapon for no goddamned reason.”
It can be a “good shoot” in the sense that the agent genuinely felt he or she or some third party were in real danger and the agent followed all relevant procedures, but still wound up shooting an unarmed or innocent person.
The Red Pen
@Ted & Hellen:
Uniforms are sexy.
Thlayli
@catclub:
Well, the FBI has jurisdiction everywhere in the US, right? So, 300 million Americans, and the FBI is fatally shooting three of them per year.
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
Talk about selective reading. You keep focusing on the mechanics of the shooting itself and “the techniques and conditioning used to train people who carry a gun for a living,” so therefore, because of your military training, you are somehow more knowledgeable about the larger law enforcement issue in question. I don’t buy that.
And you keep pounding this straw man that “aiming for someone’s leg is dumb.” The only mention of being shot in the leg I can find that is not by you is Aimai’s somewhat out-of-the-blue comment that “professional fighters aren’t trained to fight after being shot in the leg,” but it’s a stretch to read that as her—or anyone else—arguing that “Oh noes! they should have shot him in the leg,” as you repeatedly claim, and go to great lengths to rebut, and then use as a club to disqualify people’s opinions because of their hopelessly childish naïveté.
And you continue, perhaps willfully, to miss the larger point: that the FBI agents should not have placed themselves in that (supposedly) “casual” situation in which they suddenly had no choice but to shoot when the MMA fighter went ballistic. There was a clear breakdown in procedure, or execution of procedure, of which the actual shooting was only a part.
I originally brought up the Todashev case (independent of Aimai) only because after reading Mistermix’s post I did a Google search for “FBI shootings” and that was one of the first results. Regardless of how the case is eventually adjudicated, it’s certainly messy enough to call into question the FBI’s “self-reported batting average of 1.000,” as Mistermix put it, and to warrant some outside review.
Cassidy
@Steeplejack: Actually, again you’re wrong. I’ve said a couple of times in here that the whole thing needs to be reviewed.
But how was it a “clear breakdown in procedure”? Do you have conversations with people and expect them to suddeny get violent with you?
I’ve never claimed to no more about the larger law enfoircement issue. I specifically spoke of the shooting re: the wounding of said individual over killing them. Please don’t be obtuse. Aimai’s insinuation was that the LEO should ahve shot the guy int he leg and incapacitate him over killing him. That’s not how training works, not in real life anyways. I don’t give a shit whether you guy it or not; it doesn’t make you any less wrong.
Care to try again?
Pooh
@aimai: your reading comprehension is either atrocious or you’re being willfully obtuse if “he had it coming” is your takeaway from my post.
Less outrage, more actual thought please.
Pooh
@Steeplejack:
This is an extremely fair point, and is the basis for the “poor interview procedure but justified shooting” scenario.
The shootings themselves being ‘justified’ shouldn’t be read as “we did everything right in all of these incidents.” And the conflation of the two separate issues is where Aimai is getting tripped up I think.
Pooh
@Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey:
Further, “all relevant procedures” can be a pretty narrow time frame, so to stick with the Todashev example, they could have fucked up the interview all to hell (and be subject to discipline on that front) while still being ‘justified’ in the use of force once the situation escalated. The justification doesn’t then excuse the poor interview protocol, but it also means they aren’t just wantonly capping fools (which is the implication people are hoping to create).
Steeplejack
@Cassidy:
If I were a law-enforcement professional and I was interviewing—not “having a conversation with”—someone who is a murder suspect and a lethally trained professional fighter, I certainly would consider, and take precautions against, the possibility that he could go ballistic.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Steeplejack:
The question here, I think, is, “When did he become a suspect?”
And when he became a suspect, did the LEOs present have the jurisdiction to place him under arrest immediately? We are talking about a guy who was in Florida, purportedly confessing to a state felony in Massachusetts. There might have been no way to legally force him to come to a cop shop for questioning.
Mnemosyne
@Steeplejack:
That’s my point though — I can’t tell from the narrative we have so far (which has changed quite a bit) whether or not the agents knew going in that they were going to be getting a murder confession from Todashev, or if they figured it out in the course of the interview. In which case, the agents may not have been prepared for the switch and made some stupid decisions in the wake of it.
That seems to be what people don’t always get about the “in policy” determination that police agencies use — it doesn’t look at the mistakes made that led to the shooting, it only looks at whether the decision to draw the gun and shoot met policy within that moment. And, yeah, 99.9 percent of the time, police agencies magically decide that the shooting was justified by current policy even if the agent or officer got him/herself into the fucked-up situation by screwing up.
Steeplejack
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
He was being interviewed by FBI agents, who have national jurisdiction, or so I have learned from watching Criminal Minds. And they had him at the “cop shop” on two previous occasions.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Steeplejack:
And from my reading, he was there voluntarily on previous occasions. If I read correctly, he wouldn’t volunteer to go that last time. That being the case, did the FBI have grounds to place him under arrest at the beginning of that last interview? If he had actually confessed to the Waltham murders and was placed under arrest at that time, could they have gotten a signed confession from him, seeing that they’d then have to Mirandize him?
KmCO
@aimai: Not to mention that someone whose opinion apparently does not matter and is incapable of hurting the other party’s feelings probably would not inspire this:
Cassidy obviously feels that his experience in armed combat has earned him his relatively uncritical view of authority. That’s fine for him. But for the love of gawd, I do not have experience in armed combat, and quite gladly at that. My experiences are different, as are aimai’s, and we have earned our own viewpoints on the matter. Cassidy doesn’t have to like it, but he could grow up a bit about it.