Humm, could it be this way?
They (FBI agents) thought they were correct in their ASSUMPTIONS. F**k up and shot the wrong kid. Then tryed to hide it under the idea that they are supreme enforcement/government officials. Speaking out or investigating the incident threatens their superiority, and you can't belong to the "club" if you don't go along with the clique. This above the law mentality is seen daily. When was the last time you were going the speed limit, and was passed by a patrol car, going WELL above the limit NOT responding to a "call"?
this is not an absolut in law enforcement, but they too cannot be allowed to get too big for their breetches.
1)unprofessional detective work (i can't figure it out so i'll fake it).
2)prior to stopping a vehicle run the plates (sop).
3)training dictates the way vehicles will be approached, and driver/passengers will be removed.
4)keep your finger in a "ready" position (so the adrenalin stress doesn't cause a NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE.
5) back up and emergency personell should be called for immeaditly.
need i go on?[soapbox]

Damn right.  Hoover would have had that agent's ass for not taking a second shot and making sure the victim was down, then popping the female.  This whole two sides of the story thing would have annoyed Hoover.

"We're from the government and we're here to help you."

Oooooh Kay.

Damned inconsiderate of Mr. Schultz not bleeding to death even when provided ample time and opportunity. Now those hard working defenders of the public trust have to work overtime putting a cover up together.

[%(]

Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see the word(s) “assault rifle” any where in this article.  I have not seen those words in other articles pertaining to this event.

So, let me get this straight, if I have/own an M4 (semi auto) it is an assault rifle but if an FBI agent SHOOTS a civilian for ‘suspension’ of a crime with an assault rifle (select fire by definition) it is listed in the Lib Papers as an “M4”.  I can hear it now in the sheeple club, “he was shot by an M4, what is that?  Oh that is the new stun gun, he is fine now and I don’t see what the big stink is all about with the parents.”  

No one outside the firearms community knows what an M4 is, was, or will be because they don’t want to know!

“How much more will Americans take before a levy is voted?”

Iso

He [b]wasn't[/b] in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He was at the right place at the right time, minding his own business when he was shot by someone who failed to control and assess the situation.

It ain't the fact that a fvcking mistake was made. Everybody makes mistakes. Our society requires some form of retribution or punishment for mistakes.

The bigger the mistake, the bigger the retribution.

If Joe Asshole whipped out his pistol to thwart a bank-robbery and hit an innocent bystander, BY MISTAKE, Joe A. would PAY. With time in the slammer and money to the victim.

Now Joe Asshole is an FBI agent. Whips out his gun and shoots an innocent bystander [b]on fvcking purpose[/b] and his employer (the US gov't.) tries to [b]protect[/b] him from retribution!

His employer even goes so far to say what he did was [b][i]GOOD![/b][/i]

Back when I was green (actually woodland camo) it was common knowledge that there was no such thing as an accidental discharge. You were either in control of the weapon or you weren't. Even at the range, ND's were a serious matter. If the round went anywhere but down range, you could bet someone was going to be up on charges.
I can only imagine what would have happened to any GI responsible for injuring someone else as the result of ND.

One of the best things the Army taught me was the idea of absolute accountability. No one else is responsible for what you choose to do. No accidents, no excuses. You either do or you don't. Excuses are for children and lawyers.

Now I hear about a bunch of trigger-happy badge hangers shooting an unarmed man and trying to say it was his fault.

I have friends in law enforcement and they are a good bunch of guys but they do have a very dangerous attitude. They think that cops should cover for each other when they screw up. They carry camaraderie too far. They seem to think cops should be held to a lower standard than the average citizen.

If you doubt this just try to remember the last time you heard about a cop busted for drunk driving.

Do you think it's because it never happens?

No wonder cops have lost the respect of the public.

Wow!

These people(the Feds and actually all LE agencies) with their willingness and ability to cover their asses, believe in their hearts they are justified in doing so and get away with it regardless of how ridiculous their reasoning, truly, truly f-----g scare me man!

mongo

Just  so nobody forgets, we are talking about a real person here.  Joe Shultz.

Could be me.  Or you.  Your wife, your son, your dad.

We are all fair game when they can shoot an unarmed, innocent person and call it a "good shoot"

[img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/paulbritton/pics/FBI%20victim.jpg[/img]

Well having read the available info related to the shooting and the all the postings here I thought maybe I would add my .02 cents worth.

As a LEO assigned as a Firearms Instructor and Deadly Physical Force (DPF) Instructor a couple of things jumped out at me:

1. One of the primary safety rules is " Finger off trigger until you have made a decision to shoot "

Looks like this guy was on the trigger and had the selector off safe. I have no problem with the selector off safe but having the finger on the trigger is a cardinal sin in safe weapons handling.

2. Universally accepted DPF policies are that the LEO must feel an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death to himself or a third person, know this must be a result of the following:

1. Ability - the suspect/person must posses the ability to cause the serious injury or death, this translates into meaning that he/she must have a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument ( bat, pipe etc... )

2. Opportunity - the suspect/person has the means to use the weapon , this means a person with a gun  or if a contact weapon (knife,bat etc...)is involved the person is within striking distance or attempting to be in striking distance ( running towards you )

3. Jeopardy - the suspect/person is taking affirmative action against you or a third person with said weapons , such as pointing a gun at you or attempting to draw a gun at you , if a contact weapon is being used the person is deploying it in a manner in which a reasonable person would believe use is imminent ( raising it over their head as if to strike at you )

It seems to me that all three from this formula are missing.

I agree with most of you here that this appears to be an unjustified shooting . In addition it is very frustrating to see such double standards being used which allow the Feds so much latitude and presumption of innocence while local LEO's would never get away with the things the FEDS do( at least where I'm from) , they are very quick to investigate Local LEO wrong doings ( which is fine when needed) but balk at properly investigating one of their own.

While confronting potentially armed and dangerous suspects are never simple or easy its every LEO's obligation to use proper judgement and maintain the cool under pressure.

By seeing some of the posts on this topic I can see that a few of you just want to express anger, and don't want to discuss. Here goes anyway, not that there weren't prior threads covering most of this.

1) The "real" supect was caught prior to this incident. Communication was defeinitely lacking

2) The suspect vehicle and the victim vehicle were supposedly different make, model, and color. The suspect had a habit of "borrowing" vehicles however.

3) Thes suspect and the victim are supposed to look somewhat alike...... except one is 10 years older has multiple tattoos and short hair. He had also been in prison so "mugs" should have been available.

4) This "stop" was done by plain clothes officers, in an unmarked car. Not so good for a few reasons.

5) Once the victim vehicle was stopped the FBI guys "rushed" up to the vehicle. Instead of using their vehicle as cover and ordering out the occupants of the victim vehicle.

6) The victim was shot by an FBI guy at close range with a rifle.

7) The victim was unarmed and apparently complying with verbal commands when he was shot.

8) the victim was shot in the face.

9) I have no idea about how long it took for EMS to be called or arrive.

10) After being shot the victim was handcuffed. (if you think an injured person is not capable of fighting or escaping........)

I notice that someone said something about "wrong place, time" and you guys jumped him for it. If you get hit by lightning you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it has nothing to do with assigning blame. I think his point was the wrong place/time had to do with running across the FBI guys.

Nextly I keep seeing "negligent discharge". In order for it to be a "good shoot" it must be an intentional discharge.

Let's review the stopped the wrong car, with the wrong people in it, using poor tactics, and intentionally shot a passenger in the vehicle. The passenger just happened to be an unarmed guy that may or may not look like some other guy. The FBI has ruled it a "good shoot" in appx. 1 week.

Did I miss anything?

EDIT: That's not to say that in order to use deadly force that an officer must have a gun pointed at him, because by that time it is too late. But this situation seems bad from the start to finish.

Interrogation by fire.

"Shoot first, ask questions later."

How many times have we heard someone say that and thought to ourselves,"Now there's one ignorant idiot."

Hmmmmm.