User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:28:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Previous history is not grounds for shooting someone - especially since the agent had no idea about the historical elements. [:o] Inability to know this couples previous history is exactly why the shooting took place! No, the inability to know what the fuck was going on was what caused this to happen. Obviously he didn't talk to the woman, he didn't talk to any witnesses, he just went with his gut instinct and shot the guy. He had no idea what was going on so he started shooting and for whatever reason you think this is a reasonable reaction on his part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:37:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Would you have shot some guy that you know absolutely nothing about, and was attempting to leave while currently posing a threat to no one? The evidence suggests he was a threat. We dont know where the agent was standing when the guy drove off-he could of thought he was trying to run him over. And as AR15fan pointed out in some states you can use lethal force to stop a felon who you have reason to beleve will strike again. They pulled a scene that caused multiple people to think there was a kidnapping or sexual assault in progress. It turned out there wasn't but from their behavior, and not knowing their individual histories, there was no way for anyone to know that. This makes it the same, as AR15fan again pointed out, as a cop responding to a man with a gun call in the dark and shooting a kid with a toy gun. Their irresponsible behavior in public created this mess, the agent who got sucked in trying to be a good samaritan should not be punished in any way. The next time someone asks me why I have a CHL I'm going to tell them so that I can protect myself from the fucking lunatics that want to shoot me in the neck because I have a fight with my wife at WalMart. With that kind of attitude I think I can guess how you are going to leave this world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:37:31 AM EDT
[#3]
This is BS!!
That FED should have in no way used deadly force based on what had happenened so far. He exercised poor judgement. IMHO the threshold had not been reached to start emptying a clip at the guy. Get the plates, call 911, give chase. Use of deadly force should be last resort. Only if one's life or the life of an innocent is in IMMINENT danger. I know it's easy for us to armchair quarterback & we weren't there for this But I want LEO's to exercise extreme discretion before they go popping off a few rounds at unarmed citizens!!! If a CHL holder had done this he would probably be facing charges & looking at a expensive civil suit & the ANTI's would be freaking out about how evil all these handguns are that everyone has access too. BUT since this guy is a FED (Waco,RubyRidge etc.) he gets all kinds of slack for shooting an unarmed taxpaying citizen for having a nasty fight with his wife that was probably in no way life threatening to anyone. Before choosing to pull the trigger & possibly take someone's life shouldn't you err on the side of caution if there is ANY reasonable doubt??????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:41:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Next time I see someone being slapped by his wife, I will just blow him away. Dude, what kind of fucking shitty attitude is that? Your going to ignore all acts of violence you see and chalk them all down to a lovers spat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:46:34 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Next time I see someone being slapped by his wife, I will just blow him away. Dude, what kind of fucking shitty attitude is that? Your going to ignore all acts of violence you see and chalk them all down to a lovers spat? ROTFLMFAOPIMP If this sounds logical to anyone who has read the whole thread, please for your own and others sake, never EVER carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:50:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Would you have shot some guy that you know absolutely nothing about, and was attempting to leave while currently posing a threat to no one? The evidence suggests he was a threat. We dont know where the agent was standing when the guy drove off-he could of thought he was trying to run him over. And as AR15fan pointed out in some states you can use lethal force to stop a felon who you have reason to beleve will strike again. They pulled a scene that caused multiple people to think there was a kidnapping or sexual assault in progress. It turned out there wasn't but from their behavior, and not knowing their individual histories, there was no way for anyone to know that. This makes it the same, as AR15fan again pointed out, as a cop responding to a man with a gun call in the dark and shooting a kid with a toy gun. Their irresponsible behavior in public created this mess, the agent who got sucked in trying to be a good samaritan should not be punished in any way. You keep talking about how there was no way to know, and that the agent couldn't have known.....that's exactly why he shouldn't have shot. Is that too hard to understand? If you don't know what's going on then you can't go around shooting someone. It's not reasonable to go around killing people because of what you think the situation is. And who gives a shit about a man with a fake gun bullshit that you keep bringing up, that doesn't help your point. Using lethal force to protect yourself is different than using lethal force to protect a 3rd person, especially from a law enforcement perspective. It's fucking stupid to even put that in your arguement. The next time someone asks me why I have a CHL I'm going to tell them so that I can protect myself from the fucking lunatics that want to shoot me in the neck because I have a fight with my wife at WalMart. With that kind of attitude I think I can guess how you are going to leave this world. What's the deal with you and guessing about everything. The agent guessed that he was a fleeing felon...I can guess how you are going to leave...etc.. I'm glad at least to hear that you can think, I was beginning to wonder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:55:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Previous history is not grounds for shooting someone - especially since the agent had no idea about the historical elements. [:o] Inability to know this couples previous history is exactly why the shooting took place! No, the inability to know what the fuck was going on was what caused this to happen. Obviously he didn't talk to the woman, he didn't talk to any witnesses, . Yes that is right, how would he of had the time to do otherwise? All justifiable homocides are that way. he just went with his gut instinct and shot the guy. He had no idea what was going on so he started shooting and for whatever reason you think this is a reasonable reaction on his part I am guessing, but most likely he thought that he was going to be run over. But no one has provided information on where he was standing. Its far more likely that this was the case than someone popping off. Even though AR15fan has pointed out a good justification even if the agent wasn't in direct danger its a option that most LEOs and certainly most permit holders would be disinclined to take-though again everything hapened in seconds, there isn't much time to ponder everything. The real key is, to my thinking, is did agent have reason to beleve that he was going to be run over by the jeep. If there was not such reason then you could have grounds for saying it was a overreaction and the agent is liable. If the women and the man were seperate one in and one out of the vheicle, I would personally not have attempted to halt his escape, but if circumstance happend to have me coming from the front of that vheicle and he took a shot at trying to run me over or otherwise intimidate me or the woman with the vheicle then I would shoot him and under AZ law I would be justified. He would be comitting assault with a deadly weapon-the automobile-and that can be defended with lethal force in this state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:00:33 AM EDT
[#8]
What's the deal with you and guessing about everything Because I am disecting a news story, not actually investigating the case. I know the information can be unreliable and I only have what is posted here to work with. And I know its entirely possible for a LEO to use excessive force. You guys who want to crucify the agent should give him the same courtesy. That he might of been right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:02:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Previous history is not grounds for shooting someone - especially since the agent had no idea about the historical elements. [:o] Inability to know this couples previous history is exactly why the shooting took place! No, the inability to know what the fuck was going on was what caused this to happen. Obviously he didn't talk to the woman, he didn't talk to any witnesses, . Yes that is right, how would he of had the time to do otherwise? All justifiable homocides are that way. If he didn't have the time to figure out what was going on and there was no iminent danger to anyone then he shouldn't have shot. That is my point. he just went with his gut instinct and shot the guy. He had no idea what was going on so he started shooting and for whatever reason you think this is a reasonable reaction on his part I am guessing, but most likely he thought that he was going to be run over. But no one has provided information on where he was standing. Its far more likely that this was the case than someone popping off. Even though AR15fan has pointed out a good justification even if the agent wasn't in direct danger its a option that most LEOs and certainly most permit holders would be disinclined to take-though again everything hapened in seconds, there isn't much time to ponder everything. The real key is, to my thinking, is did agent have reason to beleve that he was going to be run over by the jeep. If there was not such reason then you could have grounds for saying it was a overreaction and the agent is liable. If the women and the man were seperate one in and one out of the vheicle, I would personally not have attempted to halt his escape, but if circumstance happend to have me coming from the front of that vheicle and he took a shot at trying to run me over or otherwise intimidate me or the woman with the vheicle then I would shoot him and under AZ law I would be justified. He would be comitting assault with a deadly weapon-the automobile-and that can be defended with lethal force in this state. Don't go off changing the arguement now, from the fleeing felon/rapist thing you had going to he was trying to hit him with the car. You and I both know that he would have been justified had Brooks tried to run him over, which could be the case, thought I doubt it since it hasn't already been reported. If you've ran out of arguements to hold up your initial viewpoint it's ok to just stop.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:08:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: What's the deal with you and guessing about everything Because I am disecting a news story, not actually investigating the case. I know the information can be unreliable and I only have what is posted here to work with. And I know its entirely possible for a LEO to use excessive force. You guys who want to crucify the agent should give him the same courtesy. That he might of been right. Yes, and I reserve the right to change my mind should other facts arise. However, for the sake of arguement, instead of making stuff up or guessing, I'm using the facts as they have been stated in the news reports. And unless there's a significant change in the story I stand by my reasoning to crucify him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:20:03 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: You guys who want to crucify the agent should give him the same courtesy. That he might of been right. Our legal system has this concept called imminent danger. The only time it's legal for a LEO to shoot a fleeing felon is when the LEO can make a reasonable assumption that the felon presents an imminent danger to society. (Even feds) There are states that have exceptions to this rule. (for property rights) Colorado is not one of them. At the point where the shots were fired, neither the wife nor the agent was in imminent danger from the man who was shot. The situation lacked Ability, Opportunity, Manifest Jeopardy, and Preclusion(AOMJP) The case could be made that he intended to commit vehicular assault, except HE WAS DRIVING AWAY FROM both the agent and the wife. In short - there is no way to twist this to where the agent is legally in the good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:22:49 AM EDT
[#12]
I am not changing the subject. Reread the original articles. Once we knew that the woman was not in the jeep at the time of the shooting it was always the most likely situation that the agent shot him for trying to run him over. Nothing has been posted to suggest where the agent really was other than he shot the guy 5 times through the drivers window, which the agent still could easily done after dodging the moving vheicle.
Prior to being informed that the woman was not in the jeep at the time of the shooting the reports led me to beleve that he was trying to force the woman into the vheicle and drive away. In a case such as [i]that[/i] as long as the woman is calling for help and to be let out he has reason to beleve that she is being abducted and can shoot him. AR15fan then posted that it is legal to shoot a felon who is fleeing when you have a reason to assume he will soon strike again. Its a extream case but it does agree with what I know of the law so I agreed with him. It points out the legal fact that the agent still may be covered for shooting the guy while driving away as long as he had reason to beleve he was a kidnapper or rapist who could strike again soon. Again we are following NEWS REPORTS, none of us were there, everything we comment on theirfore HAS to be guarded. And I got into this cause everyone seemed to be making the assumption that because this guy was a FBI agent he therefore HAD to be at fault. But the situation he was in did not warrant that attitude. He was not acting as a federal agent. What he was trying to stop wasn't even a federal crime! He was simply acting as a armed citizen trying to be a good samaritan. It was therefore a situation every one of us who carries a gun regularly-including those of us who live in open carry states-could be faced with. I also took objection to the "bunker" mentality that many expressed that it "wasn't worth it" to help other people in danger, a concept that I see as patently antisocial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:26:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: not have attempted to halt his escape, but if circumstance happend to have me coming from the front of that vheicle and he took a shot at trying to run me over or otherwise intimidate me or the woman with the vheicle then I would shoot him and under AZ law I would be justified. He would be comitting assault with a deadly weapon-the automobile-and that can be defended with lethal force in this state. I don't think anyone would disagree with you if this was the case but that's the only legitimate reason I think he may have had. How do you shot someone in the back of the neck if they are driving towards you ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:29:31 AM EDT
[#14]
The case could be made that he intended to commit vehicular assault, except HE WAS DRIVING AWAY FROM both the agent and the wife. Really? He was? That wasn't in any of the prior posts. How did he get shot through the drivers side window then? But if the agent was behind him, the woman was out of the car then the agent would be in the wrong-maybe. See AR15fan. And this is where being a federal agent can come in, as long as the agent conformed to federal law. And if the federal law folows the standards AR15fan posted Colorado law is irrelevent, see [i]in re. Nagel[/i] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:37:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: not have attempted to halt his escape, but if circumstance happend to have me coming from the front of that vheicle and he took a shot at trying to run me over or otherwise intimidate me or the woman with the vheicle then I would shoot him and under AZ law I would be justified. He would be comitting assault with a deadly weapon-the automobile-and that can be defended with lethal force in this state. I don't think anyone would disagree with you if this was the case but that's the only legitimate reason I think he may have had. How do you shot someone in the back of the neck if they are driving towards you ?? In this state, if you manage to dodge someone who tries deliberately to hit you with a vheicle you can still fire at them as the vheicle slides passed you. As long as its continuing action. You cannot run down the street, catch up to them in traffic and then shoot them for something that happed back in the parking lot for example. Actually I neglected to mention that if the vheicle is REVERSING to try to run you down it also applies! "Front" is determined by the vheicles direction of travel when in motion, at least according to the traffic school I went to last year. None of the articles say weither the driver was going foreward or in reverse |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:39:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: The case could be made that he intended to commit vehicular assault, except HE WAS DRIVING AWAY FROM both the agent and the wife. Really? He was? That wasn't in any of the prior posts. How did he get shot through the drivers side window then? In all of these accounts - Never did anyone state that the husband attempted to run anyone down. How you get that is quite the mystery to me. *shrug* Like I said, it's on video.. Oh and ar15fan's information is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:40:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Hello all, I was just curious about the whole thing from an actual Jurisdiction point of view.Correct me if i am wrong,and please back the correction up with some law or something besides P.C. opinion.But i was under the impression that the FBI only had jurisdictional authority in Federal locals.Just like a police officer off duty from Denver colorado ,who happens to be in Arizona, does not have the authority to shoot someone, as done in this situation. I get the impression from the way this thread is going, that what the fed did and where he did it is ok,The only question left is was he justified in doing it.My question is ,was he even wiyhin his jurisdiction with any authority in the first place.now this question is due in part to the Supreme Court already ruling that Local law enforcement is not required by law to even respond to you as an individual,and that they are only required to respond to the public at large. can anybody answer this with some sound information.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:49:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Apatriot, I think the reason that the kidnapping charge came up is that it would put the crime within federal jurisprudence.
Otherwise the agent is simply acting as an armed citizen of Colorado. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:51:23 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Hello all, I was just curious about the whole thing from an actual Jurisdiction point of view.Correct me if i am wrong,and please back the correction up with some law or something besides P.C. opinion.But i was under the impression that the FBI only had jurisdictional authority in Federal locals.Just like a police officer off duty from Denver colorado ,who happens to be in Arizona, does not have the authority to shoot someone, as done in this situation. I get the impression from the way this thread is going, that what the fed did and where he did it is ok,The only question left is was he justified in doing it.My question is ,was he even wiyhin his jurisdiction with any authority in the first place.now this question is due in part to the Supreme Court already ruling that Local law enforcement is not required by law to even respond to you as an individual,and that they are only required to respond to the public at large. can anybody answer this with some sound information. No the question is "is what he did justified", did he have cause to shoot this man. His capacity as a federal officer is irrelevant, he simply was acting as a armed citizen who beleved he was helping another citizen who was being attacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 11:57:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: In all of these accounts - Never did anyone state that the husband attempted to run anyone down. How you get that is quite the mystery to me. He's just grasping at straws trying to put the agent in a good light, while it looks like a bad shoot according to the reports. Oh and ar15fan's information is wrong. Not completely, though I don't think it's applicable in this situation. Had this guy shot 5 people in the parking lot and got gunned down, shot in the back, as he tried to flee the scene it would be a good shoot. Simply because it would be reasonable to believe that the guy could be an ongoing threat to society until he was captured. This guy didn't do anything than have a fight with his wife and other than "possibly" slapping her around, he wasn't a threat to anyone else. If the wife was in fact out of the car and out of harms way I don't see how the shooting could be justified with out extenuating circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:01:37 PM EDT
[#21]
In all of these accounts - Never did anyone state that the husband attempted to run anyone down. Yes but they do say the vheicle was moving, it would depend on where it was going and where on the ground the agent and the woman were standing to determine if it the agent had reason to fear he or the woman was going to be hit. If its on video that matter could be settled easily, as this is one thing the survailance camera would show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:09:26 PM EDT
[#22]
He's just grasping at straws trying to put the agent in a good light, while it looks like a bad shoot according to the reports And why would I do that? You should be more sympathetic to the option that the agent may have been right. Oh I forgot you are a anarchist... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:19:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: He's just grasping at straws trying to put the agent in a good light, while it looks like a bad shoot according to the reports You should be more sympathetic to the option that the agent may have been right. WHY ?? He shot & almost killed an unarmed citizen! Maybe the agent should have used better judgement before choosing to use deadly force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:22:47 PM EDT
[#24]
I didn't read or hear any reports of the wife calling for help, so she wasn't in much danger if she wasn't yelling for anyone in a crowded parking lot to help her. Since nothing was reported about the agent in danger of being run over the agent was wrong in his choice to shoot. He should be tried as any normal citizen would be unless the investigation and the surveilance tapes turn up other information. Also if the agent didn't identify himself as such, who's to say the man didn't fear for his life from some guy with a gun and tried to get a way from him? In your logic armdlbrl, the guy(Timothy Brooks) if he carried, could've shot the agent dead in fear for his life if the agent brandished his gun without saying he was FBI because he coulda been some nut with a gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:23:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Oh I forgot you are a anarchist... Just like you conveniently forgot what your initial argument was about when you saw that you were going nowhere. Then suddenly.....He must have been trying to run him over! Don't worry, I remembered you're a liberal and facts are confusing to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:25:26 PM EDT
[#26]
It must have been a Glock...
[B)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:25:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: In your logic armdlbrl, Hahahahahaha! That was a joke right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:31:04 PM EDT
[#28]
From what Ive read and put together the FBI was over reacting to a situation that he thought was going on.Im sure he thought he was helping out. Good intentions.Real life he was in the wrong unless a weapons was pulled by the husband or like was stated, the Officer was being ran over. The report said man was shot in the back of the neck.That alone would put the shot from at least from the side of the vehicle.More likely from further back as the vehicle was leaving.Now just becasue something is LAW and gives someone protection from prosecution of law DON'T make it right.Im all for Law inforcement. I really like the Law more at Local levels.Seems that there is different standards when you got Big Goverment protection.(See Vicky Weaver).I don't think the agent is evil , just stupid. Hopefully someone can come up with a better finding on it. But we all know this is the TRUTH the Feds will try every angle to get the agent out of it .Even if in there own findings they find him wrong we will never hear them say it.Friend of mine father is the elected Sheriff of a county here in Ga.I do enjoy going the the Dept. with him and talking with the guys there.I am pro Law , but a wrong is a wrong. Please dont blow someone away for something that we don't know that is happening,War Dawg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:32:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: In your logic armdlbrl, Hahahahahaha! That was a joke right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:47:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Oh I forgot you are a anarchist... Just like you conveniently forgot what your initial argument was about when you saw that you were going nowhere. Then suddenly.....He must have been trying to run him over! Don't worry, I remembered you're a liberal and facts are confusing to you. I am not changing the subject. Reread the original articles. Once we knew that the woman was not in the jeep at the time of the shooting it was always the most likely situation that the agent shot him for trying to run him over. Nothing has been posted to suggest where the agent really was other than he shot the guy 5 times through the drivers window, which the agent still could easily done after dodging the moving vheicle. Prior to being informed that the woman was not in the jeep at the time of the shooting the reports led me to beleve that he was trying to force the woman into the vheicle and drive away. In a case such as that as long as the woman is calling for help and to be let out he has reason to beleve that she is being abducted and can shoot him. AR15fan then posted that it is legal to shoot a felon who is fleeing when you have a reason to assume he will soon strike again. Its a extream case but it does agree with what I know of the law so I agreed with him. It points out the legal fact that the agent still may be covered for shooting the guy while driving away as long as he had reason to beleve he was a kidnapper or rapist who could strike again soon. Again we are following NEWS REPORTS, none of us were there, everything we comment on theirfore HAS to be guarded. And I got into this cause everyone seemed to be making the assumption that because this guy was a FBI agent he therefore HAD to be at fault. But the situation he was in did not warrant that attitude. He was not acting as a federal agent. What he was trying to stop wasn't even a federal crime! He was simply acting as a armed citizen trying to be a good samaritan. It was therefore a situation every one of us who carries a gun regularly-including those of us who live in open carry states-could be faced with. I also took objection to the "bunker" mentality that many expressed that it "wasn't worth it" to help other people in danger, a concept that I see as patently antisocial |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 12:51:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Hey guys! You're never gonna guess what just happened! I just got out of the shower and I heard some commotion going on outside. I looked out the window and some lady across the street was putting a kicking and screaming 5 year old kid in the car! Naturally I thought this had to be a kidnapping, so I sprang into action.
I grabbed my trusty Glock and shot the lady in the knee before she could make off with the kid. The kid came running right at me after I fired the first shot and he had a gun (which later turned out to be fake)! Naturally, I dropped him with two shots to the COM. Next some crazed maniac came running out of the house screaming something! I thought that he must have been part of the kidnapping conspiracy and was a fleeing felon trying to escape, so I dropped him with two slugs to the chest. Now that all the perps were down I instructed a neighbor to call the police and for everyone else to stay inside or else they could be harmed by the criminals. Suddenly some crazed ambulance driver comes flying down the street! He looked like he was going to hit me at first but weaved just off to my left. I didn't know for sure if he was going to make another pass, so I fired three shots through the driver side window as he passed to insure my safety. Then finally the cops arrived. It turns out that the kid hadn't taken a nap all day and was just cranky and the lady was really his mom just trying to get him in his car seat. The guy that ran out was the father and was freaking out because I had just shot his wife and kid. The ambulance driver was just trying to get to the scene quickly, but I didn't know that. The police were going to arrest me, but I brought them in to read ArmdLbrl's posts. I then explained to them that I actually had no idea what was going on and that I just assumed that the three were hardened criminals, perpetrating heinous crimes. After all, I was just trying to be a good Samaritan by shooting all of those people. We laughed and ate a doughnut and everybody left happy, except for the family across the street who is in stabile condition. Mark one down for the good guys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 1:05:21 PM EDT
[#32]
I didn't read or hear any reports of the wife calling for help, so she wasn't in much danger if she wasn't yelling for anyone in a crowded parking lot to help her. Oh? Then what is this? FBI agent Robert Moen and [red]other witnesses[/red] told police Bessica Brooks jumped out of the vehicle and tried to run away and her husband chased her down. They said it appeared he was kidnapping or sexually assaulting her. Since nothing was reported about the agent in danger of being run over the agent was wrong in his choice to shoot Then what is this? Police said Moen tried to physically stop Brooks from driving away and, when unsuccessful, reportedly fired several bullets, one of which hit Brooks in the back of the neck Also if the agent didn't identify himself as such, who's to say the man didn't fear for his life from some guy with a gun and tried to get a way from him? In your logic armdlbrl, the guy(Timothy Brooks) if he carried, could've shot the agent dead in fear for his life if the agent brandished his gun without saying he was FBI because he coulda been some nut with a gun. Also they do not say that he didn't. But in this case it is irrelevent. Moen could have just as easily been a good sam with a CCW. What if Brooks had a CCW? Well this is part of the danger of CCW, what will happen when a CCW catches another CCW in committing a crime. But given that Brooks and his wife were brawling in public-a crime in and of itself-and that was also the basis for which Moen was interveneng if Brooks shot Moen, while it would be a tragic accident, would still put Brooks in jail. Probably for manslaughter though not murder. Your right to a weapon is invalidated when you comit a crime and you cannot use it to prevent your apprehension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 3:03:56 PM EDT
[#33]
I would have never fired at the guy, The state of Missouri doesn't permit concealed weapons and carrying one in your car is a free ticket for night in the klink while other charges are trumped up but I digress.
If it had been Joe Public shooting does anyone think they would not have been charged and in the "house" by now? Oh well, whats another innocent death by the JBTs? After all, civilians are scumbags and should never question their masters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 3:19:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Good example of why you shouldnt get involved in anything off duty. That said the officer likely believed he was shooting a fleeing felon, specifically a kidnapper & rapist, who if allowed to escape would continue his crimes with other victims. I agree, if the policy isn't to shoot first and find out what's really going on later, how can you have workable law enforcement? This guy probably didn't follow the agent's instructions to halt or whatever and got blasted like the dirtbag wife-beater that he is. The only criticism I have is that the officer missed this guy's head... no excuse for shooting a fleeing felon anywhere but in the head so we can make sure he doesn't get a chance to tell his filthy lies in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 3:52:38 PM EDT
[#35]
FBI agent Robert Moen and other witnesses told police Bessica Brooks jumped out of the vehicle and tried to run away and her husband chased her down. They said it appeared he was kidnapping or sexually assaulting her. >Husband chased her down. On foot or in >vehicle? I am betting on foot Police said Moen tried to physically stop Brooks from driving away and, when unsuccessful, reportedly fired several bullets, one of which hit Brooks in the back of the neck. Brooks was upgraded from critical to fair condition Monday. >Brooks was driving away, sounds like there was >no longer any immediate threat. Leave guessing >the future to Ms. Cleo. Moen has been assigned to Colorado Springs for five years and has a good reputation, FBI spokeswoman Ann Atanasio said. "He has had a variety of assignments in that time and is a very well-respected agent who is well regarded by his peers," she said. >David Berkowitz was respected and well liked too(sp?...Son of Sam) The FBI sent a team of investigators to Colorado Springs from its headquarters in Washington, D.C., Monday to determine whether the shooting was justified. >Same as the Waco and Ruby Ridge team? A bit of advice folk, DO NOT take the ol' lady anywhere near Colorado Springs til this is resolved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 3:56:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Hey guys! You're never gonna guess what just happened! ...Mark one down for the good guys! lmfao |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 4:19:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Here's my take on the situation.
Tim and wife go to grocery store and argue. Wifee hops outta car. Tim stops car and continues arguement. Big Bad FBI rambo hard on Muther Trucker comes strutting up. "FREEZE MUTHER TRUCKER!!! GET ONT HE GROUND NOW!!!" Timothy, not recognizing the FBI Muther Trucker strut, thinks it's just anther idiot and get in his truck to leave, trying to avoid any more unpleasantness. He doesn't want to leave the wifee someplace but this is getting crazy. Meanwhile Big Bad FBI Muther Trucker is geting his panties in a serious wadd. "He's disrespecting MY AUTHORITY!!! GOD DAMN HIM TO HELL!!! I'LL SMITE THEE WITH MY SIDE ARM!!!" Big Bad FBI Muther Trucker tries to empty his magazine into the back of Tim's head, but in his excitement at getting to actually shoot off his gun, MISSES Tim's head andget's his neck. Please people, don't disrespect the AUTHORITY of the FBI!!! Big Bad FBI Muther Trucker thinks to |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 4:34:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Reminds me of Cartman
[url]http://www.wavsource.com/tv/south_park.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 4:55:24 PM EDT
[#39]
There's all sorts of tests required to become, or obtain, lots of things. When the fuck is the IQ test coming? I know it was illegal for voting (even though some counties in FLA could benefit from it), but really. If some one has an extra chromosome that acts up at the wrong time, don't have them be a federal agent. Remember the guy in Georgia(?) that got shot in the jaw with an M4 by a fed because he was in a car that looked like the suspest's car? I beleive this was last year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 5:02:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Remember the guy in Georgia(?) that got shot in the jaw with an M4 by a fed because he was in a car that looked like the suspest's car? I beleive this was last year. Yeah, and the same people were standing up for him too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 6:46:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: This is BS!! That FED should have in no way used deadly force based on what had happenened so far. He exercised poor judgement. IMHO the threshold had not been reached to start emptying a clip at the guy. Get the plates, call 911, give chase. So your advocating initiating a high speed pusruit of a possible felon on public roads, in a non-police vehicle? That won't be dangerous will it? Quoted: No, the inability to know what the fuck was going on was what caused this to happen. Obviously he didn't talk to the woman, he didn't talk to any witnesses, he just went with his gut instinct and shot the guy. He had no idea what was going on so he started shooting and for whatever reason you think this is a reasonable reaction on his part. Well that is a very nice plan. Except this is real life there are no replays, or time outs. Apperently this started after the woman jumped out of a vehicle, and the man tried to get her back in. Seems wierd, what do you suppose they were saying to each other? Stuff like "get away" "leave me alone" "get back in here or else"? ------------------------------------------------------- You guys are great. Someone posts on this site that he SPRAYED 31 rounds from his AR because he think someone was trying to steal his jet ski, you guys all chuckle. Others post that if someone breaks into their house's, they are just gonna call for a clean-up crew and mortician. Others ask questions whether the can use a gun to defend property. Not to mention all the ND stories that start with "hold my beer, watch this". Or the people that say their friend is an idiot for shooting a car rim with a handgun..............right after they gave the friend a gun knowing full well what they were going to do. When the military stafes an Afghanee village, full of non-hostile civilians, you all think that's ok because "stuff happens". But then you jump up and down based an a newspaper article, with few real details, about an incident that took seconds an someone made a decision to act. Was he right? I don't know. But then again there were a lot of you saying one armed citizen could have stopped a kidnap/murder of a small child in Cali. a few months ago. Yet in this incident, that probably looked like something similar, half of you want to ignore it, and a quarter don't care. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 7:10:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: You guys are great. Someone posts on this site that he SPRAYED 31 rounds from his AR because he think someone was trying to steal his jet ski, you guys all chuckle. In Texas he would be within his rights to have shot the fuckers. Completely legal, black and white in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. So I agree with the thought, though personally I don't agree with warning shots. If it comes down to pulling your weapon then use it, otherwise don't pull it. Then again, in that episode no unarmed person got shot in the neck did they? Others post that if someone breaks into their house's, they are just gonna call for a clean-up crew and mortician. In Texas you are completely within your rights to kill anyone breaking into your home. Black and white in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. No ambiguity there either. Others ask questions whether the can use a gun to defend property. In Texas you can. If you try to steal my car and I catch you and you don't cease and desist, there's a good chance that you're going to get shot. It's all in black and white in, you guessed it, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure under several statutes. Not to mention all the ND stories that start with "hold my beer, watch this". Or the people that say their friend is an idiot for shooting a car rim with a handgun..............right after they gave the friend a gun knowing full well what they were going to do. Yep those people are stupid and everybody seemed to agree. However, no unarmed persons got shot in the neck in any of these episodes, so what's your point? When the military stafes an Afghanee village, full of non-hostile civilians, you all think that's ok because "stuff happens". What's the saying, "All's fair in love and war" or "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs". Besides what does a war zone have to do with an unarmed man being shot in the neck other than you, ArmdLbrl and the FBI agent being unable to tell the difference between the two? But then you jump up and down based an a newspaper article, with few real details, about an incident that took seconds an someone made a decision to act. Apparently the wrong decision that got an unarmed man shot in the neck for fighting with his wife, you forgot that part. Was he right? I don't know. But then again there were a lot of you saying one armed citizen could have stopped a kidnap/murder of a small child in Cali. a few months ago. Yet in this incident, that probably looked like something similar, half of you want to ignore it, and a quarter don't care. But thankfully we can count on the FBI to get involved and shoot an unarmed man in the neck. Somehow I knew that you would approve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 7:43:43 PM EDT
[#43]
So willing to argue the minutia, you miss the larger picture.
31 "warning shots", or spray and pray, means that the person posting used deadly force, and sent bullets God knows where. It is also totally disproportinate to the harm that was occurring. In your big "in Texas you can". Just make believe her purse was still in the car and the guy was trying to flee with her property. He was just using Texas style deadly force rules to protect property. Again my point was that burgalry, is not anywhere as dangerous as kidnapping. Burglary is a property crime. About 1/2 the "in progress burglaries" I've gone to are really "drunken person wandered into my house". They have no intention of doing anything harmful, but will use drunken logic if you ask them to leave. But in Texas it's ok to shoot them. But your having problems with a guy interceding in a possible kidnapping, shooting someone. I thought I read elsewhere, that he wasn't shot in the neck. He had glass fragments in his eye, throat, and neck. Are we sure which direction the shots came from if that is true? I didn't forget that he shot a person, and the initial impression of the incident was wrong. My point was he had very little time to observe, analyze, plan, and act. If he decided to do nothing there could be siginifigant consequences. Meanwhile were the other witnesses calling for help or attempting to assist the woman? Or were they just waiting to see if the woman would be injured or killed in front of them ala Kitty Genevese(sp). Yeah I guess I approved when I said "Was he right? I don't know". EDITED because I type like I have hooves. FYI A similar thread is going on at Glocktalk.com, started bt "RTR" who shops at the mall where it occured. He said he saw news footage of the Jeep and it looked like there were bullet holes through the Jeep's windshield. In a news story he linked it also indicated that the police responded to the incident after someone called in to report shots fired. It would seem that all the concerned citizens in the area were just watching, not calling 911 or doing anything to stop the aggression. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 8:08:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Come on, ArmdLbrl, fess up. You're a troll, right? Cause if you're not you sure as hell are full of large quantities of odious, brown matter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2002 9:29:37 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2002 3:36:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: So willing to argue the minutia, you miss the larger picture. 31 "warning shots", or spray and pray, means that the person posting used deadly force, and sent bullets God knows where. It is also totally disproportinate to the harm that was occurring. And what harm occured to anyone? This is the whole fucking point here, somebody almost got killed. Do you understand the difference between someone almost getting killed and someone not almost getting killed? In your big "in Texas you can". Just make believe her purse was still in the car and the guy was trying to flee with her property. He was just using Texas style deadly force rules to protect property. No, you have to believe that there is not a reasonable chance that you will be able to retreive your property. Since this guy was her husband I don't think it applies. Nice try though. Again my point was that burgalry, is not anywhere as dangerous as kidnapping. Burglary is a property crime. About 1/2 the "in progress burglaries" I've gone to are really "drunken person wandered into my house". They have no intention of doing anything harmful, but will use drunken logic if you ask them to leave. But in Texas it's ok to shoot them. But your having problems with a guy interceding in a possible kidnapping, shooting someone. Fuck yes. If someone breaks into my house, they are not there to do something nice to me. I am within the bounds of the law to use lethal force on them. I can't just go around shooting people because I think that they're doing something bad, but I don't know for sure. Especially if someones life is not in immediate danger. Apparently when this guy was shot, nobody was in danger. I thought I read elsewhere, that he wasn't shot in the neck. He had glass fragments in his eye, throat, and neck. Are we sure which direction the shots came from if that is true? Well, do you think maybe you can post a link to the story? With damage to the guys throat so bad that he might not be able to talk again, I doubt it was glass though. I didn't forget that he shot a person, and the initial impression of the incident was wrong. My point was he had very little time to observe, analyze, plan, and act. If he decided to do nothing there could be siginifigant consequences. Like the guy and wife going home and kissing and making up? Naw, that's too terrible to think about, he didn't the right thing by shooting an unarmed guy in the neck. Meanwhile were the other witnesses calling for help or attempting to assist the woman? Or were they just waiting to see if the woman would be injured or killed in front of them ala Kitty Genevese(sp). They sure as hell didn't attempt to shoot an unarmed man in the neck. Yeah I guess I approved when I said "Was he right? I don't know". Nice cop out.... EDITED because I type like I have hooves. FYI A similar thread is going on at Glocktalk.com, started bt "RTR" who shops at the mall where it occured. He said he saw news footage of the Jeep and it looked like there were bullet holes through the Jeep's windshield. So, if the guy shot through the back or side window the bullets would have magically stopped before going through the windshield? Is this what you're trying to say? A bullet hole or holes through the windshield means absolutely nothing. Besides, nobody has said anything about him trying to run the agent over. This is a complete fabrication at this point. Can we stick to the facts as we know them? In a news story he linked it also indicated that the police responded to the incident after someone called in to report shots fired. It would seem that all the concerned citizens in the area were just watching, not calling 911 or doing anything to stop the aggression. Maybe because they knew that it wasn't that big of a deal until the FBI agent went off the hook and shot some unarmed guy in the neck. If everyone had thought that she was being raped and kidnapped, don't you think [b]someone[/b] might have called 911? Hello...McFly.... You still there ArmdLbrl or did you crawl back under your rock when somebody took up your losing battle for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2002 4:08:14 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Well I know that the FBI Internal Affairs boys WILL find out how the shit really went down ! These guys pull no punches and are so incredibly thorough you think they were anal ! Ya, same guys that investigated Lon Horiuchi. They're thoroughly anal alright..... No worries - that agent will burn in hell soon enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2002 10:04:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: This is BS!! That FED should have in no way used deadly force based on what had happenened so far. He exercised poor judgement. IMHO the threshold had not been reached to start emptying a clip at the guy. Get the plates, call 911, give chase. So your advocating initiating a high speed pusruit of a possible felon on public roads, in a non-police vehicle? That won't be dangerous will it? hmm... I don't see anywhere in the quote of my text that I advocated a high speed chase on public roads. One can follow a susupect within legal speeds & break off the chase if imminent danger is presented to innocent bystanders. The key here is getting the plates of the vehicle (which apparrently he could of done by questioning the wife) & calling 911, identify onesself as a federal agent & then allow the locals to make the arrest. They could of easily determined the name & address of the driver with the above resources! Why was that not a viable option ??? Would he have been a threat to anyone other than his wife ???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2002 3:29:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is BS!! That FED should have in no way used deadly force based on what had happenened so far. He exercised poor judgement. IMHO the threshold had not been reached to start emptying a clip at the guy. Get the plates, call 911, give chase. So your advocating initiating a high speed pusruit of a possible felon on public roads, in a non-police vehicle? That won't be dangerous will it? hmm... I don't see anywhere in the quote of my text that I advocated a high speed chase on public roads. One can follow a susupect within legal speeds & break off the chase if imminent danger is presented to innocent bystanders. The key here is getting the plates of the vehicle (which apparrently he could of done by questioning the wife) & calling 911, identify onesself as a federal agent & then allow the locals to make the arrest. They could of easily determined the name & address of the driver with the above resources! Why was that not a viable option ??? Would he have been a threat to anyone other than his wife ???? hey, what good are those cool "tactical" weapons if they can't use them once in a while? sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2002 4:56:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: FYI A similar thread is going on at Glocktalk.com, started bt "RTR" who shops at the mall where it occured. He said he saw news footage of the Jeep and it looked like there were bullet holes through the Jeep's windshield. In a news story he linked it also indicated that the police responded to the incident after someone called in to report shots fired. It would seem that all the concerned citizens in the area were just watching, not calling 911 or doing anything to stop the aggression. When you shoot into a driver's side window from behind and to the side, where do the rounds impact? When was the last time you jumped into the middle of an obvious domestic dispute? Oh and the agent didn't `respond' to a call. He was off duty and buying groceries. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
