More FBI Shenanigans

[chipbennett]

The only description I've heard is from the linked article "Eyewitnesses reported that the FBI team approached the victim’s home and attempted entry. Initially, they tried to gain access through the door using a battering ram. Unsuccessful in that attempt, they subsequently utilized a vehicle-mounted ram to enter via the front window." So while it doesn't say whether or not they first tried to knock on the door and see if he would come out peacefully, it does sound like they took some time trying to get into the house, so it doesn't seem likely that he was startled out of bed right as they were entering.

Again, not all the facts are out, and when the full facts do come out, yes, the FBI could definitely turn out to be partly to blame in this one.

All I'm saying is that if I had to guess right now, given this guy's social media history, is it really too surprising to think that he might have know full well that the FBI were the ones trying to get in his house, and in response decided to lock his door and wait for them with a rifle aimed and ready?

This situation in no way warranted a SWAT response. There was no imminent threat.

I stand by what I said about no-knock raids. They should be deemed unconstitutional. LEO creating a situation of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm using such tactics are the ones who unreasonably and (IMHO) unlawfully escalate a situation to a use-of-deadly-force situation. People subjected to such tactics should have all constitutional protections, such as Castle doctrine, to defend themselves in their home.

A guy bloviating on Facebook, absent more, does not constitute a credible, imminent threat to anyone. Creating a situation in which use of force, and especially use of deadly force, is introduced was absolutely unnecessary.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Even if the guy should have been in custody, pending investigation of the intent, means, and opportunity to carry out threats against POTUS, that means that he should be taken into custody, not subjected to FBI-as-judge/jury/executioner.

And they're going to take him into custody, how? Seems to me that serving a warrant at his house is the most effective way to do that.

This guy literally threatened not only to assassinate politicians, but to shoot FBI officers. Trying to arrest him while he's out and about sure seems like inviting a situation involving a vehicle pursuit or a shootout in public, endangering innocent bystanders.

That's a lot of speculation.

If someone starts trying to break down your door in the early hours what is your response.

Now add in the fact that it's an old man with real mobility issues. Does him leaping into some sort of counter attack seem plausible? Not really to me, I would guess he was startled and then very confused.

I'm not trying to say he wasn't crazy, I'm saying that if kicking in crazy people's doors in the early morning hours is going to be a thing id like to know.

The only threat that was in motion was from the FBI.

Of course it's all pure speculation on our part, without more info to go on. I'll say again, I'm perfectly willing to admit that when the full facts come out, criticism of the FBI's conduct may be justified, I just don't think we have enough info to make that determination absolutely at this point. For heaven's sake, they're dealing with a guy who's literally threatened to shoot them on sight; would you roll up to someone's house who's threatened to kill you and just nicely knock on their door and ask them to step out for a chat?

 

[blain]

Randy Weaver this guy wasn't.

Nope, it really doesn't sound that way.

I had to comment, just because it's been a while since I've seen his name mentioned.
R.I.P. Randy, Vicki & Sam

 

[chipbennett]

And they're going to take him into custody, how? Seems to me that serving a warrant at his house is the most effective way to do that.

Apparently, the guy went out of the house to do things such as go to church, IIRC. Some of his social media posts alluded to being watched/followed while at church.

It probably wouldn't have been very difficult to grab the guy off the street.

This guy literally threatened not only to assassinate politicians, but to shoot FBI officers. Trying to arrest him while he's out and about sure seems like inviting a situation involving a vehicle pursuit or a shootout in public, endangering innocent bystanders.

Again: it is dubious at best that such threats were credible. They should absolutely been investigated. What took place was not an investigation.

 

[BugI02]

So do we get to start handing out dirt naps to crazy people or is that only a FBI thing?

What was the reason to kick the door in at 6am of an old man that doesn't have the capability to carry out any of the threats?

There happens to be a crazy old man that threatens a large portion of the country, they made him president.

They will say he went for a gun. Yeah well you kicked in his door while he was more than likely sleeping, a lot of people will be going for a gun at that point.

Sure he was crazy, they took advantage of that.

Added bonus - no awkward court appearance and testimony to give the lie to the Feeb's 'Dangerous white-supremacist insurrectionist' narrative

Just the AIC's testimony as opposed to the testimony of some dead guy

 

[chipbennett]

Of course it's all pure speculation on our part, without more info to go on. I'll say again, I'm perfectly willing to admit that when the full facts come out, criticism of the FBI's conduct may be justified, I just don't think we have enough info to make that determination absolutely at this point. For heaven's sake, they're dealing with a guy who's literally threatened to shoot them on sight; would you roll up to someone's house who's threatened to kill you and just nicely knock on their door and ask them to step out for a chat?

In a word? Yes. That's their job. That's what they signed up to do. Don't like it? Tough. That guy has constitutionally protected rights, too - or, at least, he used to.

 

[ghuns]

If this were an ANTIFA nut job in 2020 threatening Trump, I can't help but thing there'd be just a little less outrage around here.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

When they are literally telling the world that they're going to do something bad, and "something bad" means shooting innocent people or assassinating politicians, yes.

What about all the mall/school shooters that post crazy **** on the internet before they actually go do the deed? Why didn't the FBI go after the Nashville tranny shooter? Instead, they're running interference for her/him/it by not releasing their manifesto.

 

[bobzilla]

No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Use of deadly force requires an imminent threat - even for law enforcement.


Turned out what other way? This guy actually being able to carry out any kind of credible threat strains credulity. Regardless, you knock on the guy's door and talk to him - and take him into custody, if need be.


Easy to say, now that any investigation into the credibility of his threats is moot, since he was killed while posing no threat to anyone.

You make a lot of assumptions. I'm not a fibby fan, they're an overused political arm of the DOJ. BUT... the man that was shot has posted multiple times that he would make sure he has a loaded gun for them if they come. It's not hard to guess that he likely, like most of us, had a loaded firearm nearby. Grabbing that and pointing after making threats like that a shoot would be justified in any legal sense.

Now, the issue is why the no-knock if they had a chance to nab him in transit? Waco anyone? The no-knock, IMO, should need signed off by a judge after being proven it's the only safe way to proceed.

 

[Ingomike]

If this were an ANTIFA nut job in 2020 threatening Trump, I can't help but thing there'd be just a little less outrage around here.

I doubt it would every come to this…

 

[bobzilla]

If this were an ANTIFA nut job in 2020 threatening Trump, I can't help but thing there'd be just a little less outrage around here.

yeah because there likely wouldnt be any fbi involvement either. hard to get outraged over their tactics when nothing happens.

 

[chipbennett]

If this were an ANTIFA nut job in 2020 threatening Trump, I can't help but thing there'd be just a little less outrage around here.

[Kathy Griffin has entered the chat]

 

[Jaybird1980]

And they're going to take him into custody, how? Seems to me that serving a warrant at his house is the most effective way to do that.

This guy literally threatened not only to assassinate politicians, but to shoot FBI officers. Trying to arrest him while he's out and about sure seems like inviting a situation involving a vehicle pursuit or a shootout in public, endangering innocent bystanders.


Of course it's all pure speculation on our part, without more info to go on. I'll say again, I'm perfectly willing to admit that when the full facts come out, criticism of the FBI's conduct may be justified, I just don't think we have enough info to make that determination absolutely at this point. For heaven's sake, they're dealing with a guy who's literally threatened to shoot them on sight; would you roll up to someone's house who's threatened to kill you and just nicely knock on their door and ask them to step out for a chat?

You're trying to limit their actions to just nicely knocking on the door. Did this guy never leave his home? He was already being monitored, they could have rolled up on him when he was outside of his home.

I see this the same as Waco. They had other options, they chose violence.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

the man that was shot has posted multiple times that he would make sure he has a loaded gun for them if they come.

How many here on INGO have said that would be what they would do if the .gov came to confiscate their guns? Should they be hunted down and killed for that?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This situation in no way warranted a SWAT response. There was no imminent threat.

I stand by what I said about no-knock raids. They should be deemed unconstitutional. LEO creating a situation of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm using such tactics are the ones who unreasonably and (IMHO) unlawfully escalate a situation to a use-of-deadly-force situation. People subjected to such tactics should have all constitutional protections, such as Castle doctrine, to defend themselves in their home.

A guy bloviating on Facebook, absent more, does not constitute a credible, imminent threat to anyone. Creating a situation in which use of force, and especially use of deadly force, is introduced was absolutely unnecessary.

Okay, upon further reflection maybe I am thinking about this one wrong.

I just can't help but shake the feeling that if the FBI had done this to one of the many nutjobs threatening to kill Donald Trump during his presidency, the general conservative consensus would be to cheer for the FBI and say the nutjob got what he deserved. And maybe it was that thought that made me have a knee-jerk reaction to thinking the way I did.

I do see your point about no-knock raids, though.

On the other hand, I also find myself often disagreeing with the way many people seem to poo-poo death threats and the like because they're "just words." I tend to hold the unpopular opinion that when someone threatens to kill another person, they should be taken at their word, and no one should be required to risk their life finding out if the threat was made in earnest, or was just "bloviating."

That notwithstanding, I do think I agree with you in general about no-knock raids. I guess I'm finding myself with with contradicting principles regarding this whole situation, and I'm not quite sure now what I think the correct answer is.

 

[chipbennett]

You make a lot of assumptions. I'm not a fibby fan, they're an overused political arm of the DOJ. BUT... the man that was shot has posted multiple times that he would make sure he has a loaded gun for them if they come. It's not hard to guess that he likely, like most of us, had a loaded firearm nearby. Grabbing that and pointing after making threats like that a shoot would be justified in any legal sense.

Now, the issue is why the no-knock if they had a chance to nab him in transit? Waco anyone? The no-knock, IMO, should need signed off by a judge after being proven it's the only safe way to proceed.

The guy had a right to be armed in his own home, and to defend himself against unknown people ostensibly breaking into his home.

The entire situation, and its escalation, was caused by the actions of the FBI. I repeat: the guy posed no imminent threat to anyone at 6:15AM, likely lying in bed. Yes, that's an assumption; the calculus doesn't change if he was sitting at his kitchen table, holding his rifle.

A thought experiment: if the guy never comes out of his house, how credible are his social media-posted threats against POTUS and/or FBI agents?

Another thought experiment: what crime, specifically, is committed merely by posting to social media that you have a rifle waiting for unspecified FBI agents, if they show up at your house?

 

[ghuns]

[Kathy Griffin has entered the chat]

Right. Now there was a credible threat.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

What about all the mall/school shooters that post crazy **** on the internet before they actually go do the deed? Why didn't the FBI go after the Nashville tranny shooter? Instead, they're running interference for her/him/it by not releasing their manifesto.

I mean, that's exactly my point, though. The FBI should be more proactive about handling those sorts of threats. So yes, I definitely think there's fair criticism for the double-standard in their response to threats against liberal politicians, vs there response to threats against conservative politicians, or against the general public.

 

[manifest destiny]

The nature of no-knock entry is almost certainly going to lead to someone (or dog) being shot, perhaps fatally. My door goes Thud! Men screaming! and my initial reaction would be to respond with force. Well, it's my response that validates the cops actions of shooting and killing me. But it was their action that generated my response. It's a vicious circle. One action begets another. For that reason, no-knock entry should be extremely rare.

 

[BugI02]

The only description I've heard is from the linked article "Eyewitnesses reported that the FBI team approached the victim’s home and attempted entry. Initially, they tried to gain access through the door using a battering ram. Unsuccessful in that attempt, they subsequently utilized a vehicle-mounted ram to enter via the front window." So while it doesn't say whether or not they first tried to knock on the door and see if he would come out peacefully, it does sound like they took some time trying to get into the house, so it doesn't seem likely that he was startled out of bed right as they were entering.

Again, not all the facts are out, and when the full facts do come out, yes, the FBI could definitely turn out to be partly to blame in this one.

All I'm saying is that if I had to guess right now, given this guy's social media history, is it really too surprising to think that he might have know full well that the FBI were the ones trying to get in his house, and in response decided to lock his door and wait for them with a rifle aimed and ready?

What gives you any confidence that all (or any) of the facts will come out if they prove inconvenient. Have you read the Covenant Christian School shooter's manifesto yet? Neither have I

The FBI no longer is entitled to ANY benefit of the doubt based on it's record of questionable, unethical and arguably illegal behavior at all levels in service to the Democratic party

The supposition that the FBI wanted a dramatic event to fluff the 'white supremacists are the supreme threat to America' narrative as well as generate some sympathy for Biden would in no way violate Occam's Razor