If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   In the past 20 years FBI agents have shot 150 suspects, and, amazingly every single shooting was absolutely and completely justified according to rigorous post shooting investigations conducted by the FBI   (theweek.com) divider line 74
    More: Unlikely, Charlie Savage, Americans  
•       •       •

2408 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 1:56 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 12:51:09 PM
Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment.
 
2013-06-19 01:20:24 PM
Regular cops take care of their own and get away with everything, what do you think government agencies are like?
 
2013-06-19 01:21:57 PM
Ibragim Todashev unavailable for comment.
 
2013-06-19 01:41:19 PM
Several thousand foul balls were caught by bystanders last year, and amazingly enough, all of the bystanders were attending baseball games at the time.

I'm not saying the FBI is right or wrong, I'm just saying that high correlation of shootings to justifiable shootings is not, in and of itself, evidence that the FBI investigators are doing anything wrong.
 
2013-06-19 01:43:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Ibragim Todashev unavailable for comment.


He got run over.

/150, that's it? LAPD does that in a month.
 
2013-06-19 01:49:08 PM
Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.
 
2013-06-19 01:52:20 PM

dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment.


Well technically that's 1 year too early to be incuded in this review, but the DOJ is notorious for protecting their.  they've repeatedly tried to tell courts that its attorneys are immune from the Rules of Professional Conduct of the state from which they are licensed and are subject instead exclusively to DOJ's internal the Offfice of Professional Responsibility, which was so bad at doing its job Holder just shut ti down and replaced it when he took officer
 
2013-06-19 01:58:57 PM
They're good at their job, what's the point?
 
2013-06-19 02:00:01 PM
That's why you need independent evaluation.
 
2013-06-19 02:01:05 PM

whistleridge: Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.


I agree the low number of shootings points to a high level of professionalism and restraint.

I also agree that the 100% justified stat is somewhat unlikely but maybe they really are that good at vetting field agents.  Another explanation for both stats is that they are really really poor shots.
 
2013-06-19 02:03:33 PM

whither_apophis: Marcus Aurelius: Ibragim Todashev unavailable for comment.

He got run over.

/150, that's it? LAPD does that in a month.


You're thinking of the bomber's brother. This was his friend in FL where they were interviewing him in the living room and he reached for an agent's gun.
 
zez
2013-06-19 02:03:52 PM
In every single intentional shooting by FBI agents since 1993, the bureau's internal investigations have ruled the shooting as justified

img.fark.net


Not FBI but understands
 
2013-06-19 02:04:02 PM
Crystal Martinez, 3, AmericanStartle Summers, 1, AmericanMelissa Morrison, 6, BritishAudrey Martinez, 13, AmericanAbigail Martinez, 11, AmericanLisa Martin, 13, AmericanHollywood Sylvia, 1, American
Mayanah Schneider, 2, American
Cyrus Koresh, 8, American
Chanel Andrade, 1, American all unavailable for comment.

Big brave heroes, those suited knights.
 
2013-06-19 02:04:17 PM
That's not many shootings for 20 years. Plenty of time to review and examine the shootings.
 
2013-06-19 02:06:06 PM
150 in 20 years? that's 7.5 per year. Pretty low for an agency that covers the entire country.

And I'm willing to bet that most if not all were indeed justified, and the few that weren't, well lets just say if anyone could fake a crime scene to look like something different happened than actually did it's a Feeb. So no, I'm not surprised at this.
 
2013-06-19 02:10:16 PM

nmrsnr: Several thousand foul balls were caught by bystanders last year, and amazingly enough, all of the bystanders were attending baseball games at the time.

I'm not saying the FBI is right or wrong, I'm just saying that high correlation of shootings to justifiable shootings is not, in and of itself, evidence that the FBI investigators are doing anything wrong.


A singularly poor analogy.

I have a hard time believing anyone who asserts that the error rate of a diverse population of people is significantly below 1%.

That's just not credible, given their past performance and simple human nature.
 
2013-06-19 02:10:34 PM
FBI defenders say that several factors explain the impressive record, including that FBI agents "tend to be older, more experienced, and better trained than city police officers."

Now I was bouncing through the club
She loved the way I did it but
I see her boyfriend hatin' like a city cop
 
2013-06-19 02:11:26 PM

vudukungfu: Crystal Martinez, 3, AmericanStartle Summers, 1, AmericanMelissa Morrison, 6, BritishAudrey Martinez, 13, AmericanAbigail Martinez, 11, AmericanLisa Martin, 13, AmericanHollywood Sylvia, 1, American
Mayanah Schneider, 2, American
Cyrus Koresh, 8, American
Chanel Andrade, 1, American all unavailable for comment.

Big brave heroes, those suited knights.


They were shot?
 
2013-06-19 02:11:36 PM

Egoy3k: whistleridge: Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.

I agree the low number of shootings points to a high level of professionalism and restraint.

I also agree that the 100% justified stat is somewhat unlikely but maybe they really are that good at vetting field agents.  Another explanation for both stats is that they are really really poor shots.


According to the article, during that time period Agents deliberately discharged thier weapons 289 times, of those discharges 70 killed the person they were shooting at and 80 suspects were wounded.   In 58 of those cases the suspect shot back or there as an "exchange of gunfire"

So, while that doesn;t say how many rounds were fired each time, hitting the target slightly more than 50% of the time, is actually not half bad marksmanship-wise  especially when the bad guy was shooting back about 20% of the time.

I too have to say I'm shocked these numbers are this low.  I'm pretty sure the PG county police have shot about 10x that number over the same time period (they are the highest in the nation, edging out the LAPD)
 
2013-06-19 02:14:19 PM

vudukungfu: Crystal Martinez, 3, AmericanStartle Summers, 1, AmericanMelissa Morrison, 6, BritishAudrey Martinez, 13, AmericanAbigail Martinez, 11, AmericanLisa Martin, 13, AmericanHollywood Sylvia, 1, American
Mayanah Schneider, 2, American
Cyrus Koresh, 8, American
Chanel Andrade, 1, American all unavailable for comment.

Big brave heroes, those suited knights.


your Free Republic panties are showing
 
2013-06-19 02:15:03 PM
I do believe that should read "150 in 20 years that were/could be REPORTED to the public"
 
2013-06-19 02:15:06 PM

nmrsnr: I'm not saying the FBI is right or wrong, I'm just saying that high correlation of shootings to justifiable shootings is not, in and of itself, evidence that the FBI investigators are doing anything wrong.


It's not a "high" correlation, it's 100%.  That's what I find hard to believe.  I don't care if it was 150 shootings over 100 years.  With that number of shootings, I just find it hard to believe (at face value) that 100% of them were justified.
 
2013-06-19 02:15:18 PM

whither_apophis: 150, that's it? LAPD does that in a month.


And that's not including the brown people that no one talks about.
 
2013-06-19 02:15:56 PM

whistleridge: Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.


This AND this. Good for the FBI for being slow to draw their weapons. >10 shootings per year is pretty remarkable, for what amounts to a police force of 15,000+ agents, and if they're counting from 1993 that would still include things like Waco and a number of other high-profile firefights. Very good for them.

And yeah, bad for them if they're making these claims without a freakishly transparent and multi-party review system to back them up. Absent a ton of impartial and independent evaluators, the statistics tip in favor of someone getting away with something stinky.

Probably this guy.
 img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 02:17:24 PM

Digitalstrange: 150 in 20 years? that's 7.5 per year. Pretty low for an agency that covers the entire country.


The FBI should throw in people that weren't shot at, but should have been, as part of the "unjustified" column. That would bring down the 100%, and make a more believable number.
 
2013-06-19 02:17:31 PM

Egoy3k: whistleridge: Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.

I agree the low number of shootings points to a high level of professionalism and restraint.

I also agree that the 100% justified stat is somewhat unlikely but maybe they really are that good at vetting field agents.  Another explanation for both stats is that they are really really poor shots.


Upon review, the empire has verified that 100% of storm trooper shootings were justifiable.
 
2013-06-19 02:17:59 PM

Magorn: According to the article, during that time period Agents deliberately discharged thier weapons 289 times, of those discharges 70 killed the person they were shooting at and 80 suspects were wounded.   In 58 of those cases the suspect shot back or there as an "exchange of gunfire"

So, while that doesn;t say how many rounds were fired each time, hitting the target slightly more than 50% of the time, is actually not half bad marksmanship-wise  especially when the bad guy was shooting back about 20% of the time.

I too have to say I'm shocked these numbers are this low.  I'm pretty sure the PG county police have shot about 10x that number over the same time period (they are the highest in the nation, edging out the LAPD)


Compare that to the Watertown shootout, in which police fired nearly 300 rounds at 2 guys who had one 6 shooter and no reloads between them. Yes, they hit both brothers and a transit cop, but I think a total of maybe 5 of those rounds connected.

Apparently, the FBI are absolute models of professionalism, restraint, and good aim.
 
2013-06-19 02:21:59 PM

Magorn: According to the article, during that time period Agents deliberately discharged thier weapons 289 times, of those discharges 70 killed the person they were shooting at and 80 suspects were wounded.   In 58 of those cases the suspect shot back or there as an "exchange of gunfire"

So, while that doesn;t say how many rounds were fired each time, hitting the target slightly more than 50% of the time, is actually not half bad marksmanship-wise  especially when the bad guy was shooting back about 20% of the time.

I too have to say I'm shocked these numbers are this low.  I'm pretty sure the PG county police have shot about 10x that number over the same time period (they are the highest in the nation, edging out the LAPD)


Yeah, if they've got that tight of control, I'm willing to accept 100% good shoots.  Especially if the suspect is shooting back.
 
2013-06-19 02:22:39 PM

Magorn: So, while that doesn;t say how many rounds were fired each time, hitting the target slightly more than 50% of the time [at the minimum], is actually not half bad marksmanship-wise


Some suspects could have been hit more than once.
 
2013-06-19 02:24:21 PM

whistleridge: Compare that to the Watertown shootout, in which police fired nearly 300 rounds at 2 guys who had one 6 shooter and no reloads between them. Yes, they hit both brothers and a transit cop, but I think a total of maybe 5 of those rounds connected.


I actually chuckled at the comical ineptness described there.
 
2013-06-19 02:27:08 PM

dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment.


I just got a disturbing image of Lon Horiuchi's head on Uncle Jimbo's body, shouting "It's comin' right for us!"
 
2013-06-19 02:28:17 PM
Hmmm...

youdon'tsay.gif
 
2013-06-19 02:29:40 PM

thurstonxhowell: They were shot?


Oh sorry.
They were burned alive.
 
2013-06-19 02:31:45 PM

dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment.


Had to do a Googles for her.  Interesting read.  The picture they include is really eerie though.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 02:32:39 PM
Well, considering the FBI isnt in the sort of situations for a bad shooting that local law enforcement are very often, thats not surprising. If youre busting down the door of a federal fugitive that youve been investigating for weeks/months its going to be more likely anyone you shoot probably deserved it vs the local cop mistaking someones safety orange wallet for a gun.
 
2013-06-19 02:37:44 PM
What about all of the people they poisoned, blew up, strangled, drowned, handed over to the Russians or otherwise "disappeared"?
 
2013-06-19 02:37:49 PM

dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment had it coming.


FTFY.

Well, maybe not her directly, but Randy Weaver, not the FBI, put his family in that position.

When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.
 
2013-06-19 02:39:39 PM

dittybopper: A singularly poor analogy.


Not my best, but I think it got the point across.

dittybopper: I have a hard time believing anyone who asserts that the error rate of a diverse population of people is significantly below 1%.That's just not credible, given their past performance and simple human nature.


Honest Bender: It's not a "high" correlation, it's 100%.  That's what I find hard to believe.  I don't care if it was 150 shootings over 100 years.  With that number of shootings, I just find it hard to believe (at face value) that 100% of them were justified.


Because I haven't seen one of these in a while:

img.fark.net

Incredulity is also not evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the FBI investigators.
 
2013-06-19 02:40:19 PM

DirkNiggla: I do believe that should read "150 in 20 years that were/could be REPORTED to the public"


Yes, this.
 
2013-06-19 02:42:39 PM

whistleridge: Magorn: According to the article, during that time period Agents deliberately discharged thier weapons 289 times, of those discharges 70 killed the person they were shooting at and 80 suspects were wounded.   In 58 of those cases the suspect shot back or there as an "exchange of gunfire"

So, while that doesn;t say how many rounds were fired each time, hitting the target slightly more than 50% of the time, is actually not half bad marksmanship-wise  especially when the bad guy was shooting back about 20% of the time.

I too have to say I'm shocked these numbers are this low.  I'm pretty sure the PG county police have shot about 10x that number over the same time period (they are the highest in the nation, edging out the LAPD)

Compare that to the Watertown shootout, in which police fired nearly 300 rounds at 2 guys who had one 6 shooter and no reloads between them. Yes, they hit both brothers and a transit cop, but I think a total of maybe 5 of those rounds connected.

Apparently, the FBI are absolute models of professionalism, restraint, and good aim.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-19 02:42:40 PM
So why do they need billions of rounds of bullets? More then the military?
 
2013-06-19 02:45:45 PM
Licensed to kill.
 
2013-06-19 02:46:42 PM

nmrsnr: Incredulity is also not evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the FBI investigators.


If you'll notice, I never even said they were lying. Just that the statement is hard to believe.
 
2013-06-19 02:47:06 PM

garandman1a: So why do they need billions of rounds of bullets? More then the military?


Oh look.  Another "old-new" account.
 
2013-06-19 02:50:37 PM

impaler: whistleridge: Compare that to the Watertown shootout, in which police fired nearly 300 rounds at 2 guys who had one 6 shooter and no reloads between them. Yes, they hit both brothers and a transit cop, but I think a total of maybe 5 of those rounds connected.

I actually chuckled at the comical ineptness described there.


It's almost depressingly hilarious, isn't it?
 
2013-06-19 02:51:21 PM
www.troll.me
 
2013-06-19 02:52:05 PM

garandman1a: So why do they need billions of rounds of bullets? More then the military?


In case the chemtrails from Jets don't work and they have to use force to get us into the secret UN camps being built in Yellowstone.
 
2013-06-19 02:52:48 PM
So in real world situations half of the time the FBI opens fire they hit their target. Half of the time they hit their target, the target is dead and that's assuming they were aiming to kill. Based on these statistics FBI agents are very very good shots.
 
2013-06-19 02:55:11 PM

Honest Bender: It's not a "high" correlation, it's 100%. That's what I find hard to believe. I don't care if it was 150 shootings over 100 years. With that number of shootings, I just find it hard to believe (at face value) that 100% of them were justified.


Well, it depends on how you work the math.  We have 3 categories of discharge that is investigated by the FBI:
A.  Suspect shot and killed: 70
B.  Suspect shot and wounded: 80
C.  Suspect shot AT and not wounded: 139, for a total of 289.

A+B = 150, and is 0%.
A+B+C = 289, but has 5 incidents were shooting was NOT the correct answer, but perhaps improbably, none of them hit.  This gives us an overall 98% 'good shoot' rating.

One thing to realize is that outside of making pot busts in areas where it's legal at a state level, the FBI generally doesn't operate alone.  IE if they're making a large drug smuggling bust, they'll have the local SWAT team there assisting.  FBI agents themselves generally don't go into situations where there's NOT a heavy indication of some crime, unlike local police officers, and they're usually supported.

In those 289 incidents?  47 LEOs were shot, 58 there was an exchange of gunfire.  That's a pretty hefty percentage in my mind, though I'd like to see a similar study for non-federal officers. In my mind that means that normally when a FBI agent has to pull/fire their weapon it means a suspect somehow got past the supporting locals, IE something went FUBAR.

Heck, I'd like to see what sort of percentage of non-federal LEO shootings are ruled justified.
 
2013-06-19 02:55:24 PM

vudukungfu: thurstonxhowell: They were shot?

Oh sorry.
They were burned alive.


Maybe their lunatic parents shouldn't have set the ranch on fire.
 
2013-06-19 02:57:16 PM

Highroller48: dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment had it coming.

FTFY.

Well, maybe not her directly, but Randy Weaver, not the FBI, put his family in that position.

When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.


The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to go to war with the feds.  He just wanted to be left alone.  The ATF set him up in order to make him an informant, and he refused to go along.  When the government bungled it's case against him, he (understandably) felt persecuted.

In the end, the government was forced to pay him and his children a total of 3.1 million dollars.

In an extreme rarity, both Weaver and Harris successfully argued that they killed the federal agents in self-defense.

Think about that for a minute.  Men who killed federal law enforcement agents on purpose successfully argued it was self-defense, and actually got the government to pay them substantial sums of money.

The Ruby Ridge incident is actually one of the big reasons that the FBI hates the ATF.  It's part of a familiar pattern:  ATF farks up something, FBI comes in to save their ass, and gets a black eye for it.
 
2013-06-19 03:05:19 PM
Apparently Michael Bluth is now working for Time Magazine.
 
2013-06-19 03:28:01 PM

dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment.


There's a very good chance that the outrage over this is what sparked the reforms that kept FBI shootings, if not 100% per outside judgement, at least much improved over normal departments.

They farked up so bad on that one that it changed the culture.
 
2013-06-19 03:31:26 PM
$1.3 million
FBI payout to the victim of a 2002 FBI shooting, an innocent 20-year-old the FBI mistook for a bank robber. Even after settling with the victim, the FBI investigators classified the shooting as justifiable.


That sums up the credibility of the claim.
 
2013-06-19 03:42:01 PM

thurstonxhowell: Maybe their lunatic parents shouldn't have set the ranch on fire.


Maybe some brave first responders could have saved them.
But they were too busy pumping lead, and incendiaries into the structure.
 
2013-06-19 03:44:18 PM
The numbers are low because, by and large, the FBI is an analytical and investigatory agency.  Most of the year, an agent will sit in his office, or be interviewing people in controlled environments where people are searched prior to being questioned.  It's not at all uncommon for an FBI agent to spent a year or two without ever putting on their soft body armor.

A majority of their regional SWAT teams will go a year or more without ever assisting on an incident or serving a high-risk warrant.

There are exceptions, of course, the Hostage Rescue Team, which acts as the counter-terrorism unit inside the United States is exceptionally good, and are funded at a Tier 1 Special Operations level.  They, by the nature of their work, are going to have more trigger time than anyone else.  Likewise, there are agents who are in more dangerous postings who are more likely to be involved in shootings.

For the most part though, they're not what movies and TV would have you believe.  They're investigative, not so much on the street level enforcement.  Any road cop in a relatively good sized city in America is going to experience more "shoot/no shoot" situations in a year than the average FBI agent will in a career.
 
2013-06-19 03:53:30 PM

nickerj1: whither_apophis: Marcus Aurelius: Ibragim Todashev unavailable for comment.

He got run over.

/150, that's it? LAPD does that in a month.

You're thinking of the bomber's brother. This was his friend in FL where they were interviewing him in the living room and he reached for an agent's gun.


You're right, all their names look alike, ya know?
 
2013-06-19 03:53:31 PM

Highroller48: When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences


The guy's wife deserved to be shot in the head while holding her baby?

Really?

Really really?
 
2013-06-19 03:54:11 PM
They're only counting intentional shootings, so this leaves some wiggle room for calling cases where they shot the wrong person an "unintentional shooting".
 
2013-06-19 03:55:06 PM

generallyso: FBI payout to the victim of a 2002 FBI shooting, an innocent 20-year-old the FBI mistook for a bank robber. Even after settling with the victim, the FBI investigators classified the shooting as justifiable.

That sums up the credibility of the claim.


Actually it doesn't, at least for me.  You see, you're measuring two different things.  The payout was for the FBI mistaking the 20 year old for a bank robber and getting him shot.

The 'justifiable shooting' is done from the knowledge and circumstances of the agent at the time.  Was he justified, from his knowledge of the time, in pulling the trigger?

If he had been told that that the suspect was 'known armed and dangerous, already shot 3 agents', that's going to color his views-while the FBI has screwed up in general, the agent himself is acting reasonably for the knowledge he has.
 
2013-06-19 03:55:09 PM

Highroller48: dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment had it coming.

FTFY.

Well, maybe not her directly, but Randy Weaver, not the FBI, put his family in that position.

When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.


The FBI sharpshooter missed the target.
 
2013-06-19 03:55:20 PM

thurstonxhowell: vudukungfu: thurstonxhowell: They were shot?

Oh sorry.
They were burned alive.

Maybe their lunatic parents shouldn't have set the ranch on fire.


Maybe the lunatic cops should have just served him the warrant when he was out shopping.
 
2013-06-19 03:57:01 PM

mcreadyblue: Highroller48: dittybopper: Vicki Weaver unavailable for comment had it coming.

FTFY.

Well, maybe not her directly, but Randy Weaver, not the FBI, put his family in that position.

When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.

The FBI sharpshooter missed the target.


Actually he hit his target, but he also managed to kill Vicki with the same shot.

Here's hoping the farker still has nightmares about it.
 
2013-06-19 04:01:11 PM

vudukungfu: thurstonxhowell: Maybe their lunatic parents shouldn't have set the ranch on fire.

Maybe some brave first responders could have saved them.
But they were too busy pumping lead, and incendiaries into the structure.


If there weren't lead flying out of the structure, they probably wouldn't have been pumping lead into the structure.
 
2013-06-19 04:02:24 PM
It could be 100 per cent if the margin of error was large enough. However, given how unlikely that is, a reported statistic of 100 suggests that closer examination is required. Come on, people. This is elementary reasoning.
 
2013-06-19 04:03:04 PM

generallyso: $1.3 million
FBI payout to the victim of a 2002 FBI shooting, an innocent 20-year-old the FBI mistook for a bank robber. Even after settling with the victim, the FBI investigators classified the shooting as justifiable.

That sums up the credibility of the claim.


and the creditability is zero. sorry to beat your horse here but i thought i saw it twitch.
 
2013-06-19 04:14:58 PM
When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.

  he wasn't trying to put his family in that position
his accounts were farked with and frozen by the feds
after the undercover continuously asked him to modify some guns (including making a 'sawed-off')
and at some point, the money they were offering got too good to pass up
then they swarmed and managed to do some serious family killin'
completely by accident
 
2013-06-19 04:48:31 PM

natas6.0: When cabin-dwelling hick survialist "sovereign citizen" Freeman types decide to go to war against the Feds, they deserve the consequences.

  he wasn't trying to put his family in that position
his accounts were farked with and frozen by the feds
after the undercover continuously asked him to modify some guns (including making a 'sawed-off')
and at some point, the money they were offering got too good to pass up
then they swarmed and managed to do some serious family killin'
completely by accident


The SBS the ATF were trying to bust him on was 17.5" IIRC and Weaver denied he ever trimmed it for the informant.
 
2013-06-19 04:52:12 PM

flondrix: They're only counting intentional shootings, so this leaves some wiggle room for calling cases where they shot the wrong person an "unintentional shooting".


If they're actually doing that, then it really should be close to 100%.
 
2013-06-19 06:31:55 PM
Unless you have evidence of some wrong-doing then go fark yourself.
 
2013-06-19 07:17:40 PM

garandman1a: So why do they need billions of rounds of bullets? More then the military?


Well lets see

To keep a good standard of marksmanship each agent would need to fire at least 30 rounds a month.

So 30 round per month over twelve months times 13,913 sworn memebers is around 5 million rounds a year. Thats before you count training of new agents and the amount of rounds fired by the HRT in training (hostage resuce training eats hundreds of rounds a day per person).

So 5 million rounds per year before any operational use over the life of the budget adds up to some realy big numbers. But that tin foil hat isn't going to fold itself.
 
2013-06-19 10:47:23 PM

Egoy3k: whistleridge: Given how many FBI agents there are, getting into God knows how many tight situations on a daily or weekly basis (no, not all, or even most, of them...but I bet there's at LEAST one armed confrontation per week, and probably more like 5), that's actually an amazingly low number of shootings.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an overwhelming percentage of them are justified. 99%, even.

But 100%? That's...improbable.

I agree the low number of shootings points to a high level of professionalism and restraint.

I also agree that the 100% justified stat is somewhat unlikely but maybe they really are that good at vetting field agents.  Another explanation for both stats is that they are really really poor shots.


Let's not forget the crooked FBI crime lab and the firehouse of fake evidence it produced for use in hosing down tricky defendants...

In the case of this shoot review board, I bet its public verdicts are always 'good shoot' even when the private verdicts are 'OMG take the gun away from this agent!1!1!'.
 
2013-06-19 11:31:52 PM

semiotix: This AND this. Good for the FBI for being slow to draw their weapons. >10 shootings per year is pretty remarkable, for what amounts to a police force of 15,000+ agents, and if they're counting from 1993 that would still include things like Waco and a number of other high-profile firefights. Very good for them.


Does this show restraint, or are they just lying about the numbers?

For comparison, there are fewer than 700 Oakland Police Officers, and they've shot at least 117 people since 2000:  http://www.contracostatimes.com/data/ci_23105312/opd-shootings

Of course, those were 100% justified as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:48:04 AM

fnordfocus: semiotix: This AND this. Good for the FBI for being slow to draw their weapons. >10 shootings per year is pretty remarkable, for what amounts to a police force of 15,000+ agents, and if they're counting from 1993 that would still include things like Waco and a number of other high-profile firefights. Very good for them.

Does this show restraint, or are they just lying about the numbers?

For comparison, there are fewer than 700 Oakland Police Officers, and they've shot at least 117 people since 2000:  http://www.contracostatimes.com/data/ci_23105312/opd-shootings

Of course, those were 100% justified as well.


You cannot compare.  You can't compare road police officers, who are first responders to life and death incidents, to FBI agents who are investigatory, and may never in their career show up on an active scene.

That's like saying "our detectives show more restraint, because they haven't shot anyone for 20 years" and ignoring the fact that detectives are typically NOT in a position to have to make the shoot/no-shoot decision.

If you took 600 FBI agents, and required them to do the job of road officers in Oakland, the number of shootings would likely not change all that much.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report