ND by FBI agent - with a rifle.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:49 pm

srothstein wrote: Just so you know, that is an old myth and is not how the law actually reads (at least in Texas, I don't know about New Jersey).

It is not just if someone dies, but the person committing the felony must do something to directly cause the death.

Here's what the TX code says.

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the
commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission
or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

"Immediate flight" is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the statute as a qualifier for felony murder. I would say having a gun while doing it might be another.

My banana peel example might have been exagerated, but ALL THREE of those pukes in NJ are going to burn for felony murder, as they well deserve.

I don't know exactly what NJ law calls for, but I'll bet it's not much different, though since the FBI was involved, there is probably a federal statute that takes precedence.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:19 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
srothstein wrote: Just so you know, that is an old myth and is not how the law actually reads (at least in Texas, I don't know about New Jersey).

It is not just if someone dies, but the person committing the felony must do something to directly cause the death.
Here's what the TX code says.

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the
commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission
or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

"Immediate flight" is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the statute as a qualifier for felony murder. I would say having a gun while doing it might be another.

My banana peel example might have been exagerated, but ALL THREE of those pukes in NJ are going to burn for felony murder, as they well deserve.

I don't know exactly what NJ law calls for, but I'll bet it's not much different, though since the FBI was involved, there is probably a federal statute that takes precedence.

Immediate flight is not enough. The actor must then commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:51 pm

txinvestigator wrote: Immediate flight is not enough. The actor must then commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

When you're being ordered to get on the ground by a bunch of armed FBI agents, and you do anything other than that, and one of the agents ends up getting killed, by friendly fire or not, believe me when I tell you that your actions will be seen as being clearly dangerous to human life.

Even Marcia Clark could win that case.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:14 am

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
txinvestigator wrote: Immediate flight is not enough. The actor must then commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
When you're being ordered to get on the ground by a bunch of armed FBI agents, and you do anything other than that, and one of the agents ends up getting killed, by friendly fire or not, believe me when I tell you that your actions will be seen as being clearly dangerous to human life.

Even Marcia Clark could win that case.

That is not consistent with Texas Law. Sorry if you don't get that.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:37 am

txinvestigator wrote: That is not consistent with Texas Law. Sorry if you don't get that.

Tell you what. Let's see what happens to these guys, and whether or not any laws get "twisted" in the process. I know it's a NJ/Federal rap, and not TX, but the outcome should prove informative regardless.

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:02 am

txinvestigator wrote:Amazing. An agent is dead, tragically, at the hands of another agent, the body us not even cold and you are accusing the Bureau of future crooked acts regarding this.

The death of the agent is truly tragic, but I suggest you look up the difference between "hypothesis" and "accusation." But at least you seem to agree that trying to pin the shooting on the bad guys in this particular instance would be - in your word - "crooked." (Just to be clear: the bank robbers should be charged, and if convicted, sentenced to stiff terms for bank robbery. But according to the report, there was no firefight, the bad guys didn't fire a single round, only the Feds did . . . and they only managed to hit one of their own.)

txinvestigator wrote:Your insinuation is offensive.

Sorry you think that, but as the case progresses, we'll see what, if any, charges are filed with respect to the actual shooting.

And if they include the guy who pulled the trigger.

phddan · Post by **phddan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:43 pm

You know, when I found out how the agent got shot, I thought the same thing, that they will add murder to the bank robbery, firearms, and evasion charges. And that just didnt set right with me.

My thoughts are definately with the slain agents family on this, but we need to put the blame for his death where it belongs, and that is with the agent that was doggpiling out of the van with his weapon off of safe AND his finger on the trigger.

Dan

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:34 pm

phddan wrote:You know, when I found out how the agent got shot, I thought the same thing, that they will add murder to the bank robbery, firearms, and evasion charges. And that just didnt set right with me.

My thoughts are definately with the slain agents family on this, but we need to put the blame for his death where it belongs, and that is with the agent that was doggpiling out of the van with his weapon off of safe AND his finger on the trigger.

Dan

You bet. The agent who had the AD that killed his fellow agent should be blamed. He should be canned. He needs to be in another line of work, preferrably one where he does not need to handle a gun.

And the robbers should be blamed too. In their case, they should burn for robbery AND felony murder, because if they didn't rob the bank in the first place, and didn't try to escape afterward, the shooting would not have happened.

I don't have any shred of sympathy for them. Nobody made them rob banks, and put God knows how many innocent people in danger. I don't know any bank robbers, and I never will. No bank robbers are friends of mine. As far as I'm concerned, if they just wasted them (upon conviction of course), I'd say, "Good deal."

JMHO. We'll see how it turns out.

AV8R · Post by **AV8R** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm

Regrettably, this shooting has a lot in common with a shooting in Lubbock some years back. A man's wife, who was in the process of leaving him, reported to the local police that the man was deranged and had a firearm. The swat team responded, along with most of the patrolmen, and a sniper was placed on a roof across the street. The man had not made threats, nor had he broken any laws, keeping to himself in his own home. The sniper, meanwhile, targeted another team member's helmet, safety off and finger on the trigger. As a "joke", a third swat member "goosed" the sniper on his leg, whereupon the .223 round landed on target, killing the officer across the street. At that time, everyone opened up on the house, with estimates of around 5000 rounds being fired. Leaves were falling from trees several blocks away, landing on playing children. Fortunately, the "suspect" only suffered a scratch on his leg. The city was sorry and paid the "suspect", who was not charged with any crime, a lot of money.

Incidents of this sort highlight, once again, how unforgiving firearms are. They to not tolerate inattention, neglect, or lack of capacity on the part of the operator.

phddan · Post by **phddan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:04 pm

OK, lets follow that line of thinking.
Since the only reason there is leo's is because there are crimanals, so every criminal should be liable for every leo that is hurt or killed from accademy to retirement. Is that what you are saying?

So lets say you and your vehicle match the description of an armed and dangerous felon. You get pulled over and surrounded by leo. While ordering out and prone one cop trips on something and shoots another cop. Who gets the blame on that one? You, the punk they were looking for, or the cop?

Dan

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:30 pm

phddan wrote: OK, lets follow that line of thinking.
Since the only reason there is leo's is because there are crimanals, so every criminal should be liable for every leo that is hurt or killed from accademy to retirement. Is that what you are saying?

No.

phddan wrote: So lets say you and your vehicle match the description of an armed and dangerous felon. You get pulled over and surrounded by leo. While ordering out and prone one cop trips on something and shoots another cop. Who gets the blame on that one? You, the punk they were looking for, or the cop?

Dan

The cop.

See? Easy wasn't it?

phddan · Post by **phddan** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:53 pm

Well I guess you can twist it any way you want to.

If a perp is with a group in an armed robbery, and one of his thug buds
kills someone, then heck yea, they should all get the muder rap.

If a leo has a ND, then that rest sqarely on the head of the negligent leo.

Seems pretty black and white to me.

Dan

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:44 pm

Dan,

That is the way i see it too. All parties to the offense are equally guilty, so if you are part of the group and one of them kills the officer, then the whole group is guilty.

If the cops have an ND as they get out of the car to set up, the cops are the ones to blame.

And, in the report I read, that is exactly what happened in this case. The robbers were spotted and the team reacted. There is no report of the robbers resisting or running at first from the FBI. The agent getting out of the vehicle with the rifle bumped something or somehow managed to have an ND, killing the other agent.

At that point, I can't really blame the robbers for running. If the cops opened fire first (and I would guess that they did if I heard a shot), I would be running too.

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:30 pm

srothstein wrote:Dan,

And, in the report I read, that is exactly what happened in this case. The robbers were spotted and the team reacted. There is no report of the robbers resisting or running at first from the FBI. The agent getting out of the vehicle with the rifle bumped something or somehow managed to have an ND, killing the other agent.

At that point, I can't really blame the robbers for running. If the cops opened fire first (and I would guess that they did if I heard a shot), I would be running too.

If it went down the way you are describing it, then I agree with you.

The reports I read were much more sketchy than that. I was reading all day that an FBI agent was killed, but that it "was unclear" who fired the fatal shot - one of the bad guys or one of the other cops.

Since this report kept circulating for the better part of a day, I was envisioning some kind of wild melee that made it difficult to determine what had happened.

The way you are describing it, the agents present would have known EXACTLY what had happened right from the get go. Certainly the guy that actually fired knew who had done it.

In that case, what they were telling the media for hours on end was INEXCUSABLE.

The FBI is not supposed to lie.

Post by **carlson1** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:32 pm

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The FBI is not supposed to lie.