Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/2/2002 3:24:32 PM EDT
As expected, the FBI cleared him, and now the civil courts. "It was a good shoot". Pisses me off to no end. [URL=http://63.99.106.201/stories/story.asp?a=2483&z=1]FBI Agent Cleared Of Criminal Charges After Shooting Pasadena Man[/URL]
An Anne Arundel County grand jury has decided not to indict an F-B-I agent in the mistaken shooting of an unarmed Pasadena man. The panel began considering the case last week, and heard testimony from the shooting victim, Joseph Schultz, and his girlfriend, Krissy Harkum. F-B-I agent Christopher Braga thought he had cornered a bank robbery suspect when he shot Schultz in the face. Schultz was in the passenger seat in Harkum's car as they were returning from a shopping tip March 1. The F-B-I and Anne Arundel County police investigated the shooting, and the county state's attorney's office took the case to the grand jury. Braga has already returned to regular duty.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:29:20 PM EDT
Color me unsurprised. Hey, at least SA Braga got to go home safe at the end of his shift, right? (gotcha covered, Imbroglio [;)])
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:30:01 PM EDT
Does this mean I can shoot people at random and nothing will happen to me?
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:33:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 3:39:20 PM EDT
Maybe they'll give him the "Lon Horiuchi Award for Shooting Unarmed Victims in the Head." God, while this doesn't surprise me in the least, it still pisses me off to hell and gone. The only thing I want to say will get me banned from this board, so I won't say it. But I'll still think it. [sniper]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:27:20 AM EDT
SOP
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:51:01 AM EDT
"good shot" ??!! FU@K YOU!!! The fedcoats are unnacountable. Someone needs to create some consequences for theese goons. Too bad I don't have the cajones to do it.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:56:55 AM EDT
Okay, lets see what happens when they are going against some real pros such as OBL. What happened to the rule of positively identifying your target? The common, ordinary citizen who sit on those grand juries don't know the difference between a broomstick & a buttstock. I did a shooting game at a local gun club, and if you hit a friendly, you were penalized quite heavily.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:07:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:23:15 AM EDT
....figures........
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:26:29 AM EDT
Surprise, surprise, surprise. [:(] And they wonder why the public has lost it's respect for them. Where's the ACCOUNTABILITY? It's loooong overdue. He's a real hero. Barny Fife with an M4.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:36:41 AM EDT
So, let me get this straight - in the great (highly debatable) state of California, you can't buy an AR-15, which is legal in most other states, but if you are a member of law enforcement, you can shoot an unarmed, law-abiding citizen in the face without consequences... What the hell is wrong with that state?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:49:27 AM EDT
Not surprised at all. You see, as long as the officer/agent/scumbag says they were in fear of their life then they are justified in shooting unarmed innocent citizens. I just wished it worked the other way. "You see your honor, I shot that FBI agent cuz I was fearing for my life, after hearing about them shooting innocent people all the time, I expected him to shoot me, so I shot him first."
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 8:55:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SAB: So, let me get this straight - in the great (highly debatable) state of California, you can't buy an AR-15, which is legal in most other states, but if you are a member of law enforcement, you can shoot an unarmed, law-abiding citizen in the face without consequences... What the hell is wrong with that state?
View Quote
I think you got the wrong area. Its not Pasadena, CAlif; but if you look at the article, it is in the Baltimore, MarylanD area. BUT we do have a few instances in So. Calif. where some innocents were accidently killed in a mistaken identity drug raid. I'm not anti-law enforcement, just they got to be really sure before they smash down the door of a house....
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 9:14:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hellraiser: Not surprised at all. You see, as long as the officer/agent/scumbag says they were in fear of their life then they are justified in shooting unarmed innocent citizens. I just wished it worked the other way. "You see your honor, I shot that FBI agent cuz I was fearing for my life, after hearing about them shooting innocent people all the time, I expected him to shoot me, so I shot him first."
View Quote
You're discussing killing federal agents. Shame on you. No illegal activities.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 9:23:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak: Maybe they'll give him the "Lon Horiuchi Award for Shooting Unarmed Victims in the Head." God, while this doesn't surprise me in the least, it still pisses me off to hell and gone. The only thing I want to say will get me banned from this board, so I won't say it. But I'll still think it. [sniper]
View Quote
Yep !
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 9:26:27 AM EDT
If I was Joseph Schultz this would turn into a very expensive civil trial for the shooter.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 9:59:01 AM EDT
This case is not over. Not by a long shot. The Grand Jury action means that the elected states attorney for Anne Arundel county didn’t have the stomach to criminally try a FBI agent. Why? Who knows? But he is a politician, and I suspect that he weighs every issue with a eye towards being re-elected. It’s a rare grand jury that goes against the wishes of the states attorney. Someone mentioned that the FBI had cleared the agent, but this story indicates that the issue is still pending. The story below also seems to indicate that the victim has his own idea of how to achieve justice. From the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16723-2002Jul2.html]WasPost[/url] Agent Not Indicted in Shooting “An Anne Arundel County Circuit Court grand jury decided yesterday not to indict an FBI agent in the March 1 shooting of an unarmed Pasadena man whom the agent mistook for a bank robber, State's Attorney Frank R. Weathersbee announced. Weathersbee said the grand jury investigation answered "several important questions" about the case, including why Special Agent Christopher Braga, 35, shot and wounded Joseph Charles Schultz, 20. But Weathersbee refused to disclose what prompted the shooting, saying only, "There clearly were mistakes." The FBI agents "seemed pretty sure this was the armed bank robber they were seeking," Weathersbee said. Schultz had nothing to do with the bank robbery. [b]Schultz's attorney, Arnold M. Weiner, said he was pleased that the investigation is over. "That allows us to move forward with filing a civil case against Mr. Braga," Weiner said.[/b] Rosemary Vicini, spokeswoman for the FBI's Baltimore bureau, said the FBI and Justice Department are still investigating the incident as an administrative matter. Vicini said that Braga, who previously was involved in the fatal shooting of a fugitive murder suspect in February 2000, remains on duty.” Mike
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 10:04:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By flashman: Vicini said that Braga, who previously was involved in the fatal shooting of a fugitive murder suspect in February 2000, remains on duty.”
View Quote
According to what I've read, that guy wasn't armed either.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 12:58:54 PM EDT
[pissed] [50]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:18:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2002 1:19:35 PM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:20:59 PM EDT
Stop all this cop bashing! The FBI spokeswoman apologized, and I'm sure after being shot with an M4 his face will heal fine. [img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/paulbritton/pics/FBI%20victim.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:38:19 PM EDT
Looks like Mr. Special Agent has a history of at least one fatal shooting as recently as 2000. Maybe he has acquired a taste...[x]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:31:21 PM EDT
Jarhead_22, Not only was he not armed, he had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. They were looking for a bankrobber, which he certainly wasn't. The only similarity was the red pontiac. You'd think if the feds were looking for a armed and highly dangerous bank robber, that when a sole agent pulled over (didn't he find it a little strange how compliant the "suspect" was?) a suspect, they'd try to have some back-up (there were other agents around "tracking" the vehicle). But noooo, the cowboy has to get some action. Makes me sick. Pissed in Bal'mer, R
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:00:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By flashman: Vicini said that Braga, who previously was involved in the fatal shooting of a fugitive murder suspect in February 2000, remains on duty.”
View Quote
According to what I've read, that guy wasn't armed either.
View Quote
The guy was a nobody. Just some kid & his girlfriend driving down the road. Hell, they weren't even in the right make of car.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:10:08 PM EDT
Trumpet and fightforyourrights: I meant that the first guy this FBI agent killed was also unarmed. I know that Joseph Schultz was unarmed, the wrong guy and in the wrong make of car. But guess what? It gets even better! The robber that the FBI says they were after when Braga shot Joseph Schultz? The FBI knew that he only used a [b]pellet gun[/b] to stick up the banks that he robbed. That's right: SA Braga shot the wrong guy in the face with an M4, and the right guy was only armed with a pellet gun. [i][b]"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."[/b][/i]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:50:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: That's right: SA Braga shot the wrong guy in the face with an M4, and the right guy was only armed with a pellet gun.
View Quote
Yep. But hey, didn't you see [b]a Christmas Story[/b]? Like mom sez, "[i]you could put an eye out with that BB gun"[/i]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:53:11 PM EDT
"[b]That's[/b] gonna leave a mark."
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 3:26:00 AM EDT
As despicable as the FBI and its agents' actions have been in this case, remember that it was a JURY, made up of civilian citizens, that ended the charges. Notice, however that the victim's lawyer is happy that the charges were not brought. If there had been a trial and the agent were acquitted, the civil action would have been much tougher for the victim. By not charging the agent, the victim will be able to pursue his civil case against the agent and the FBI much sooner and with a better chance of success. The part I really find disgusting is that the agent has been returned to armed duty after all of this. After two such events on his record, you would think they would realize he's not competent. Then again, I'm beginning to believe most FBI agents are incompetent these days, so maybe it goes up the ladder too.[:(!]
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 5:44:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gus: As despicable as the FBI and its agents' actions have been in this case, remember that it was a JURY, made up of civilian citizens, that ended the charges. Notice, however that the victim's lawyer is happy that the charges were not brought. If there had been a trial and the agent were acquitted, the civil action would have been much tougher for the victim. By not charging the agent, the victim will be able to pursue his civil case against the agent and the FBI much sooner and with a better chance of success. The part I really find disgusting is that the agent has been returned to armed duty after all of this. After two such events on his record, you would think they would realize he's not competent. Then again, I'm beginning to believe most FBI agents are incompetent these days, so maybe it goes up the ladder too.[:(!]
View Quote
#1 - Juries are stacked #2 - Juries are brain washed that they shouldn't disturb "the thin blue line" and prosecute cops, lest all the LEO's quit and anarchy rein #3 - Sure, the lawyer just wants the money. The FBI won't care what they have to pay, [b]since they don't pay it! You and & I will pay for this!!![/b] Hence, things will never change.
Top Top