Story [url=http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=111941]here[/url]

Timothy Brooks and his wife were celebrating their eighth wedding anniversary the night police say Brooks was shot by an off-duty FBI agent trying to prevent what he thought was a kidnapping. Police say Brooks, 36, and his wife, Bessica, 37, got in an argument Saturday night while sitting in their Jeep Grand Cherokee outside the Grocery Warehouse on Austin Bluffs Parkway about 11 p.m.

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.

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' father, Stewart Frazer, said Monday his son was not kidnapping his wife and the couple had been to dinner at the Outback Steakhouse and then went shopping to buy Timothy Brooks some jeans.
Frazer didn't know why the couple was at the Grocery Warehouse.

"Something went terribly, terribly wrong," Frazer said. "I've been over and over it in my mind and none of it fits." Frazer said his son, a former Marine and computer engineer, and daughter-in-law had fights before but were making amends and "were on the right track." They and their three children, ages 16, 12 and 7, are a happy family, he said.

"They're as beautiful a family as you'd ever see," he said. "Bess has been at his side every minute (since the shooting)." Frazer said his son has bullet fragments in his neck and severe damage to his vocal chords that may prevent him from speaking.

He said he doesn't think he has gotten straight answers from police about what happened.
"We want the truth, the whole truth," he said. "If we get that, then we want justice, whatever that is."
Court documents show a history of trouble between Timothy and Bessica Brooks.

In May 2000, Timothy was arrested on domestic violence charges for allegedly hitting his wife. A temporary restraining order was issued against him, but charges were dropped after he completed a domestic violence assessment and program.

In June 2000, the couple filed mutual restraining orders against one another and filed for divorce. Both alleged abuse. In the following weeks, the couple reconciled, the divorce proceedings were halted and the restraining orders removed.

In June, Timothy Brooks filed another temporary restraining order against his wife, saying she threatened to rip his head off and wanted to bar him from seeing their children. That restraining order also was dismissed.

Police continued their investigation Monday and are expected to file a report with the El Paso County District Attorney's Office by the end of the week. That office will review the case and determine whether to file charges against Moen.

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.

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.

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 !

I will hold judgement until we know more details.  Shooting him in the back of the neck is fairly suspect though.

sniper1AZ-

Yeah, those Internal Affairs guys got right to the bottom of Ruby Ridge and Waco, didn't they?  I will assume you are being sarcastic.

Haven’t heard much about the agent that blasted the kid in boston. Maybe he got reassigned to Colorado Springs.

Where was the women at the moment of the shooting? In the car or with the agent?

If the victim was in the car alone driving away, cause the agent had chased him away from the woman, then he should have not be shot.

But if he had the woman with him, if what the agent saw was a woman screaming and fighting a man forcing her into a vheicle and trying to drive away when he approached-and the vheicle had not reached enough speed to risk that the woman would be injured in a crash after the driver was shot-then the shooting was justified.

If it was justified then what we have is another case of codependant spouse. Beat cops know all about this-get called to "rescue" a woman from her abuser and when they have to use force on him the "victim" turns on them for hurting her "beloved".[rolleyes] And if this is the case then the agent was also really acting as a federal agent-he was just doing what any citizen-and especally any armed citizen- should do and that is foil a crime.

Actually, there is video of this one. (parking lot cameras)

From what I’ve read locally, they were both in the car having a slap fight. No weapons, No clear danger. I honestly think it was another ‘AD’ by a fed.

Oh, I don't know. There's a kid in Maryland the FBI shot in the face because they thought he might look something like a bank robber they were looking for. He was cooperative and everything. Damn weapon just went off in his face (as the story went). The agents involved were returned to regular duty after the internal affairs investigation. The worst part is after the kid had been shot they hung around bragging and talking crap to him and his girl friend, still believing they had the right guy. The kids were completely innocent and were upstanding, law abiding folks. They didn't even break any traffic laws.

I've lost most, if not all of my respect for the FBI. This latest story is no surprise to me. The agents will not be reprimanded in any way.

Now again, the question is, did he try to go help the women get out of the car first? Or did he just see the man and woman fighting and simply shoot? Was their audio? What was being said? What were the couple, and especally the woman, shouting?

As long as he tried to run to the car and get to the woman and pull her away. If the driver then pulled away before he could reach the vheicle then it is still justified, at least morally. If he just saw two people fighting and then drew his gun and fired he would not be justified. A weapon is not needed, because a man does not need a weapon to abduct a woman or to kill her.

I dont see what his being a FBI agent has to do with it. He wasn't working a case that involved these people. He was a guy with a gun going through a parking lot on his own business and saw a man and a woman fighting in a car. If the woman was screaming for help he would, as I hope anyone would, try to intervene for what he had every reason to beleve was a attempted kidnapping.

How could you live with herself if you witnessed all that, being armed, and let the guy drive off and then the cops find her dead? Even if you whipped out your cell phone and called the cops and gave them the descripion and liscence perfectly there is more than enough time for him to kill that woman before the cops arrive.

What would you want anyone, and especally anyone carrying a firearm, to do if they witnessed this and it was really a woman being abudcuted? A woman YOU cared about, wife, mother, daughter, girlfriend, whatever. And someone let them roll out of the lot because they thought they were 'just another couple fighting' and then you never saw your loved one again, even though the police were summoned?

I dont think it will happen but it would be better for everyones safety to give the agent a pass on this one. Its better that people have to think twice about having their domestic squabbles in public than to have them hesitate to intervene in a abduction or assault.

Ahhhh...I bet the Jeep had an NRA sticker on the back window.

I agree, much better to kill the guy, just to be safe.  Heck, it occurs to me that maybe it was the guy trying to escape the woman, so the proper thing for the agent to have done would have been to shoot both of them.  That way, the perp (if there was one) would definitely be taken out. [rolleyes]

Then he would be throwing her out of the vheicle, not pulling her in marvel, big difference... see also the line "What were the people saying?" above.

or are you one of the "I will never help anyone but myself because I will just get sued or the DA is just waiting to take my guns from me" crowd?

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.

And I repeat that I hope you never have to bury your wife or daughter after someone let them go cause "they were just to lovers fighting".

People should not BRAWL in public, it is already is a crime, even if a minor one. If they didn't they would not be mistaken for a real attacker and shot.

Maybe you and your woman smack each other around in public but that is not the way people do or should behave.

Shit like this is why so often you hear of people being attacked, and even killed, in public while people go by and "never saw nothn'".

Those FBI agents sure make me feel safe!

I am begining to detect a pattern.

People see the letters FBI-and they turn their brains off.

Listen. If that article represents anything approaching the truth this had nothing to do with the FBI. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANY ONE OF US WHO CARRYS ON A DAILY BASIS IN THIS POSITION!!

This seems to be a obvious point, but people here are having trouble with it.

I know there are a lot of LEO's here and a lot of non-LEOs who can carry.

Think about what YOU would do in that position. Its a common scenereo that could happen any time any place any where.

Or do you think men smacking women around is normal behavior that should pass unquestioned?

I was involved in a similar situation years ago.  Coming home from work, saw a guy on the side of the road trying to shove a woman into his car and she was struggling.  I pulled over, got my Glock, held it to my side so it couldn't be seen in the darkness.

I approached and in a stern voice asked what was going on.  The guy said he was trying to keep his drunk girlfriend from jumping out of his moving car.  I checked on the girl and sure as shit she was drunk as a skunk.  I double checked to make sure everything was ok, and asked her repeatedly if she wanted to go with this guy and if he really was her boyfriend.  Everything turned out cool, but I must say I was ready just in case.  It was only after it was all over and I was driving away that the post-adrenaline shakes hit me bad.

Ya, same guys that investigated Lon Horiuchi. They're thoroughly anal alright.....

From the article...

Did the agent witness the whole thing?? He had physical contact with the perp/victim, did he identify himself, (holler FBI!)?? I'm betting he did.

Too many unknowns here, but judging just from the info in the article, I gotta go with the ArmdLbrl here, until more info comes out.
I am no fan of the Feds.........

I don't think we have enough information yet to determine either way. The question is, did the agent have enough information to reasonably think that death or serious bodily injury were going to be inflicted upon the woman if he did not shoot. Regardless of your stature in law enforcement, you can't just go around shooting people because they are arguing/fighting regardless if it's a man/woman, man/man, whatever, unless you are absolutely sure that one of the combatants is in serious danger.

Personally, from the story, it doesn't sound like a good shoot to me. But there really isn't enough information from both sides yet, so I'll reserve my final judgement until we get some more facts.

I can't imagine shooting at a fellow driving away from at what best could be called a confusing factual situation!

But then, I'm not a highly trained Federal BI guy! [:D]

Of course, looking at the marital history of this couple, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

You are an ex-Marine and you're slapping your wife? And you've done it before?

What a prick!

As [b]Momma Hun[/b] always taught her boys, 'You never ever hit a woman!'

[b]Never. Ever.[/b]

Imagine some bag of shit smacking [u]your[/u] daughter around.

Eric The(Unsympathetic)Hun[>]:)]

So why not disable the vehicle?

Scott

Why? Who was the vehicle hurting?

Seriously, vehicles don't neccesarily take hand gun round serious.

[url=http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=319]story here[/url]


Second hand account-
Wife and husband leave grocery store having a heated argument. (It was bad enough that several people followed them out of the store) The husband, attempting to avoid a scene, grabbed her by the hand and drags her to the car. He then gets in the car and starts to drive off.

There's a stop sign and a self-service gas station at the edge of the parking lot. He stops, wife jumps from vehicle, guy jumps out, screaming match begins anew. (With the Jeep between them)

FBI guy intervenes at this point. (unknown if he identified himself) He does yell things like "Show me your hands." and "Get on the ground." Husband says something like "You've gotta be kidding me" and gets back in Jeep.

[b]minus wife[/b]

Husband begins to drive away. FBI guy puts five rounds into the drivers side window.

Husband is now in intensive care with fragments in face neck and eyes.

Did the guy deserve this for what amounts to a domestic dispute? If this had been local law enforcement, the LEO would be under charges at this point.

If it's true that Brooks was leaving without his wife and the FBI agent shot him as he drove away, then that agent should be strung up. What else is there to investigate?

Yeah, but what if the girl was drunk and beligerant and the guy was already pissed and told you to fuck off? Then what do you do?

That's a pretty sticky situation. Do you brandish your gun and get charged with assault with a deadly weapon? Keep him there until the cops show up and get another charge of unlawful detention?

Unless he made some serious threats you'd probably just have to let him leave.

Mark this day in the history books, men.

ArmdLbrl, Liberty86, and myself - all in agreement on an issue!!

Also, we even have a sorta sympathetic nod from the master debator himself, Eric the (argumentative) Hun!


Adam

You can't go fast with flat tires... and if he was close enough to determine shots were required he could have taken out the tires.

BTW - There was also a risk of hitting the woman, yet shot were fired.

Its getting dangerous here - just up the street at Barns & Austin Bluffs my friend got mugged at the stop light... He works at the Grocery Warehouse and has a CCW, but Grocery Warehouse has a [u]No Weapons[/u] policy, so he became a victim on his way home from work.

The backyard ain't as safe as it used to be.

I think the guy prevented what was obviously going to be another beating for the wife. She is at his side because she see's dollar signs, or because she likes getting her ass kicked. Some women just sit their and tolerate the beatings in the name of love. Why I could never tell you.

Was the vehicle stationary when he was shot or was it moving? Did the FBI agent walk up to the drivers door from the begining-or did he fire through the drivers window after sidestepping being run over?

Regardless the lady should be in jail. What she did was the equivilant of yelling fire in crowded theater. There is no way people outside their little soap opera could know that this wasn't a woman escaping from a abductor. And it seems from the new version that more than one other eye witness agreed in that they thought this was a assault.

If these new variations on the story represent anything close to the truth than the question of weither or not the agent was at fault hangs entirely on if the guy tried to run the agent over with the jeep or not.

Read carefully, you may learn something. You may shoot a violent fleeing felon if it's reasonable to believe the felon will continue his violent crimes. The FBI agent witnessed what he reasonably believed was a kidnapping & sexual assualt. When the suspect tried to flee, the officer shot him., believing if the suspect were allowed to escape he would continue his crimes with a new victim.

You're reading too far into it. Where's the felony? How can you be a fleeing felon without comitting a felony?

Would you say the same thing had the agent saw two guys fighting in the parking lot and one tried to run off when he came a calling? The fact that he was fighting with a woman, who happened to be his wife, is irrelevant. Duking it out in public isn't a felony. In Texas, if the fight is mutual, it's not even a crime short of disorderly conduct if you're in public.

Several witnessess said they believed they were witnessing a kidnapping or sexual assult, both felonies.

Remember, and this is important, What matters in a court of law following a shooting is would a reasonable person, having the same training and experiance as the shooter, came to the same conclusions as the shooter.

That's why you can shoot someone whaen you believe your life is in danger, even if it later turns out you were in no danger. Like shooting someone who points a realistic looking replica firearm at you.

I'm with AR15fan and ArmdLbrl and co. on this one. I can see how this situation could lead anyone of us to reasonably belive that that woman's life was in danger when the agent first intervened, and how it could have escalated to a situation where the use of deadly force was justified. With the info provided the chips are still in the air, but it could be a clean shooting.

Kyle

Depends on if both are on their feet or not. If the "fight" is actually a bigger guy whaleing on a smaller guy trying unsuccessfuly to defend himself its reasonable to assume its a assault and not a duel. And if it turns out that the guy doing the beating WAS a victim that was just extreamly successful in defending himself, he isn't going to run away.

And two guys fighting in a parking lot can be a felony in AZ depending on circumstances. Its always at least a misdomeanor just so police can round them up and they are not confused with a real assault.

So Pony, If I see you getting beat into a bloody pulp in a parking lot I should just assume its a domestic disturbance between you and your boyfriend and walk away? Or should I try to do something to keep you from being the next Reginald Denny?

So now you're advocating shooting someone because it appears that they might possibly be a fleeing felon?

Using deadly force in response to deadly force or perceived deadly force has nothing to do with this arguement.

Regardless of what everyone "thought" they saw, there was no legal standing to use deadly force on the guy as he was driving away.

I'm glad not every LEO jumps to conclusions like you and apparently the FBI agent. There would be a lot more dead people running around.

LMAO!!

That's almost verbatim law in Oregon.....

"Think about what YOU would do in that position. Its a common scenereo that could happen any time any place any where."

yeah. i'ld empty a 30 rounder into the perp! that'll learn him sumpin'!

i've witnessed many public fights between a man a woman. not once have i seen anyone shot over it.

and what's this crap about a "sexual assault"? where did that come from? rapist? huh?

"Or do you think men smacking women around is normal behavior that should pass unquestioned?"

oh...i believe they should all be shot...repeatedly...untill dead. what's up with this 'wounding' stuff? poor shooting?

felony??? i would think this would have been tossed out of court. strike that...this "case" would have been resolved prior to going to court.

shooting the tires out, getting a plate number, furnishing a description, following the vehicle...plenty of options here other than going 'waco' on the perp.

oh well. the lawyers stupid people.

He isn't advocating anything to you. He is explaining the LAW as it stands and has stood for many years in most states. Yes the rabidly anti-gun states will try to crucify you for anything they can. But in the other 40 odd states of the Union this is how it always has worked. When I researched the California State Code some years back, even there that is what the law stated, its just ignored.

scary, sad too that this is a valid viewpoint..

Thank you for the excellent demonstration of the attitude that allows so many people to be raped, murdered, robbed, and assaulted in public in this country.

There were 20 people in the parking lot that actually witnessed this.(big shopping center, busy day, three exits). The husband never struck his wife, never used anything that amounts to the physical force necessary to legitimately constitute violent assault (sexual or otherwise) Even the agents own accounts(yes plural) are a bit fuzzy on this point. Our local law enforcement is actually pretty good, comparatively speaking. I'm sure that they (if no one else) will prevent it from being covered up.


But hey!![:D] It is kind of fun to note what the members of this board think constitutes a situation where lethal force is justified.

Really?

Then why are you posting articles that say just the opposite?

He is advocating. He is comming to the conclusion that a reasonable person would have done the same thing and shot this guy while he was driving off. He is advocating that this guy made the correct decision by trying to kill a person for having a fight in a parking lot with his wife. There were a million other things that he could have done besides pulling the trigger. However, you guys think that this was [b]reasonable[/b] as stated in the law.

Are yall fucking insane? What is reasonable about the whole thing? Just because you can find a reason for him shooting the guy it doesn't make it reasonable. 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 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.

Show me where either of the articles say he struck her? Show me where either of them say there weren't a bunch of people who saw it. Show me where both articles states anything other than they were having an argument and the wife jumped out of the jeep.

Previous history is not grounds for shooting someone - especially since the agent had no idea about the historical elements.

Really?

They why do all the accounts you choose to post say exactly the opposite?
Like this:

And this:

And here:



Care to explain?

"Thank you for the excellent demonstration of the attitude that allows so many people to be raped, murdered, robbed, and assaulted in public in this country."

you're welcome.

next time you see someone step out of line, be sure and kill them to make america a "safer place for the children". maybe the lawyers will like you, too.

[:o]

Inability to know this couples previous history is exactly why the shooting took place!

I have no idea how this could have escaped your attention. People had no idea the couple get their rocks off doing this, normal people do not behave this way, so they thought it was a assault.

Yuo = teh win!!!1!

Next time I see someone being slapped by his wife, I will just blow him away.



Do you have a carry permit lbrl?