FBI CI Complicit in Border Agent's Murder

[The Meach]

Thanks alot Kirk. Halfway through that article I had to go pour 3 fingers of whiskey to make it the rest of the way.

 

[88GT]

Uh huh, I see what you did there.



It wasn't a rip crew, it was a crew devised to kill Border Patrol agents.

From the article: "Last week, the Washington Times offered a new version of the encounter: they reported that the rip crew was not hunting illegals, but Border Patrol teams — with the intention of engaging them in combat."

EVEN IF it was a rip crew which was interested in robbing mules of drugs and money, then it would still be Murder.

E.g., if I agree with another individual, I'll pick a name at random, Jay E. Hoover, to rob a bank and something "goes wrong" and Jay E. Hoover shoots a bank employee, I'm still in for Murder.

And the very next part of the same article says this:

Sources now tell PJ Media that neither version of events is accurate: the rip crew was not waiting for a chance encounter with other illegals, nor did the members intend to engage American law enforcement agents.

The rip crew was in Peck Canyon that evening with the intention of stealing money and drugs from a specific shipment of which they had prior knowledge.

I'm not arguing. I'm genuinely confused about this.

I absolutely believe that it was murder, but I think the FBI can be implicated only if they knew the BP were targeted, if indeed they were, which I don't think has been settled yet. At least not to my satisfaction.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, it's only murder if federal agents were the targets of the Murder plot?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The tinfoil is with you, young Freeman, but you are not a Jedi yet

Do I have to go to some swampy planet in the Dagobah System?

Man, I hated Lousiana.

If I have to go, can I take rhino with me? I need someone to sit in the back of the X-Wing and beep.

 

[88GT]

So, it's only murder if federal agents were the targets of the Murder plot?

I'm not arguing whether or not his death was murder. I said so in my previous post. I'm trying to figure out if the FBI can be held complicit if they didn't know he was going to be there.

If the rip crew was targeting the drugs, I don't see how the FBI can be held accountable unless they knew that the BP unit Terry was in was going to be at the same place at the same time.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the rip crew was targeting the drugs, I don't see how the FBI can be held accountable unless they knew that the BP unit Terry was in was going to be at the same place at the same time.

If the article is accurate, by law it does not matter if it was Robbery or a Premeditated Murder.

You know how the Felony Murder Rule works, right?

 

[jgreiner]

Oh, yeah, before I forget, remember that thread where people were freaking out that the CCS on the criminal prosecution was sealed by the federal judge and I poo-poo'd the hysteria?

I'm sorry to be so blase. This is much, much worse than I had reckoned.

This is nuclear.

I think it's far worse than even this, if the REAL facts ever all get out. I believe this was all intentional to create anti-gun hysteria to give this admin the green light to start grabbing guns.

 

[jgreiner]

It may be a bit naive attributing this to a particular administration.

Not at all. Sure the fed agencies have been running a bit wild, but this particular program and it's utter stupidity ALL emanate from this admin. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY "plausible" explanation for doing a program like this in the manner they did, is to CREATE gun violence. Anyone with a 1st grade education would know that if you are going to give guns to the bad guys to try to find out how they are trafficked, you have to TRACK THEM. Seems this admin had NO INTENTION of tracking them. They "forgot" that piece of the operation. That doesn't HAPPEN accidentally, unless they actually have the IQ of Forest Gump.

This operation, IMO, was designed to get weapons into the hands of those that would use them to wreak havoc upon the population. This would create a LARGE backlash against guns, and give them the POLITICAL ammo they need to go after our guns. Plain and simple. No OTHER explanation of what went on makes any sense whatsoever. Unless of course you believe that all these folks in charge have IQ's that are equal to room temperature.

No...this was planned. And it fits PERFECTLY with the philosophy of never letting a crisis go to waste. But they needed a crisis, so they decided to CREATE it.

 

[88GT]

If the article is accurate, by law it does not matter if it was Robbery or a Premeditated Murder.

You know how the Felony Murder Rule works, right?

First, you keep addressing points incidental to my main issue. This isn't about what the rip crew did. It's about the FBI's role in.

Second, I am quite certain I don't understand the full scope of nuances associated with the felony murder rule, but I think I understand it enough to know that in order to be applied to those beyond the actual "trigger puller," those individuals have to be involved in the felony itself.

And this may be where the nuances come in. Under the law, the FBI may be legally complicit in the guilt through the dubious extension of the felony murder rule and their foreknowledge of the planned event and subsequent failure to inform potentially relevant parties. But the mere law misses a lot of nuances that don't support guilt in the moral sense. Consider felony sex crimes between consenting individuals just because one was below a certain age. Voila! Instant criminal.

But was he guilty of a sex crime? Legally. But morally? Was it an unwanted use of force against the underage partner?

If you want to characterize the FBI's involvement as complicit in a strictly legal sense, I think you have made your case. But I don't believe, given the latest information, that they were willfully complicit with intent. I don't think the evidence shows (yet) they knew the BP unit was going to be engaged with the rip crew. And I definitely don't think the evidence supports any claim that the BP was targeted AND that the FBI knew about it.

Here's a question for you: narcotics knows of a drug deal scheduled to take place between two parties that have historically had a rocky relationship. They plan to monitor and act accordingly. They do not inform all uniformed LE when or where this deal is taking place. Denny happens to be rolling by in his patrol car when the deal goes south and they start shooting at each other. He engages, is shot, and later dies from his wounds.

Is narcotics complicit in his death?

I think this is a case of wrong place, wrong time for Agent Terry. And the FBI's prior knowledge of the potential crap he got involved with is not sufficient to lay the blame at their feet. Their actions (or inactions as the case may be) may have contributed indirectly to the final outcome, but I don't see anything in the evidence that we have now that shows they had any inclination it was going to be anything more than a rip crew targeting a drug convoy. Unless and until that happens, I don't think they're guilty of anything more than myopic, arrogant LE.

 

[BBill]

I think it's far worse than even this, if the REAL facts ever all get out. I believe this was all intentional to create anti-gun hysteria to give this admin the green light to start grabbing guns.

Anything Holder says or does is treasonous and Anti-American!! Head of the Justice Dept?? What a joke!! Contempt? Oh YEAH!!! For him and ANYONE who takes orders from him!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But I don't believe, given the latest information, that they were willfully complicit with intent.

1. You don't need the intent to commit Murder only the intent to commit Robbery for Felony Murder. If a Murder happens in the course of the Robbery=Murder.

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. A prosecution would need knowingly, a high probability of something occuring. You could easily argue that there was a high probability of somone getting hurt while the FBI's agent was out plotting robberies (with guns supplied by .gov no less) while Border Patrol is rattling around the border.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's a question for you: narcotics knows of a drug deal scheduled to take place between two parties that have historically had a rocky relationship. They plan to monitor and act accordingly. They do not inform all uniformed LE when or where this deal is taking place. Denny happens to be rolling by in his patrol car when the deal goes south and they start shooting at each other. He engages, is shot, and later dies from his wounds.

Is narcotics complicit in his death?

Let's use a generic "police officer" and no INGOers.

If narcotics has armed the CI with both weapons and intelligence, then yes it would be foreseeable that a drug transaction of that nature could become violent and Conspiracy to Commit Murder would be possible.

If narcotics has no CI is just recording, if narcotics arranged the transaction then could be liable under Depraved Heart, Reckless Homicide.

If just recording and no pre-action taken, then I do not believe there would be any criminal liability.

 

[T.Lex]

I think I've hit upon the part of the (new) narrative that breaks down for me, and perhaps others were quicker to pick up on it.

CI and his crew (according to the article) were setting up an ambush of convoy belonging to another courier system. So, the CI had some pretty good intel: the route, the product being delivered, and the time. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to do the ambush.

Ostensibly, the FBI, through the wire taps, knew of all this - the drug delivery, and the ambush.

Now, the BP patrol was either in that location by: 1) pure coincidence (and I tend not to believe in coincidence), or 2) they had their own intel OF THE DRUG COURIER, but no knowledge of the ambush.

Moving on, the article states, "Neither [the FBI or DEA] bothered to warn Border Patrol to keep their BORTAC teams out of Peck Canyon that evening."

To me, that begs a different question. Why didn't the FBI/DEA pick up the red courtesy phone and say to the Border Patrol and local authorities (and probably the National Guard), "We have an opportunity for a HUGE bust!"

I mean, why not ambush the ambush?

Otherwise, the situation is that the Federales knowingly allowed not only drug distribution (I get that some investigations require allowing criminal activity to build a solid case), but violent murder (or at least strong-arm robbery) of the drug couriers.

How much criminality does the modern FBI/DEA allow before making a bust? It seems like some things used to be off limits. Back in the old days, there were lines that, when crossed, demanded action.

This sure seems like one of those lines.

At least do something to disrupt either the delivery or the ambush, but don't just let something like that happen.

As usual, it just seems like there is yet more to the story. I'm afraid it will get more whacked as it goes.

 

[CarmelHP]

Remember Boys, your tax dollars at work.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, I'm ok with spending tax dollars to:
- infiltrate criminal enterprises with CIs;
- tap bad guys' phones;
- patrol the desert.

But, I'd also like to see some payoff from it in the form of ACTUAL ARRESTS! (Or at least disrupt the bad stuff that these groups do.)

 

[Expat]

Not killing any good guys is always a plus as well.

 

[88GT]

1. You don't need the intent to commit Murder only the intent to commit Robbery for Felony Murder. If a Murder happens in the course of the Robbery=Murder.

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. A prosecution would need knowingly, a high probability of something occuring. You could easily argue that there was a high probability of somone getting hurt while the FBI's agent was out plotting robberies (with guns supplied by .gov no less) while Border Patrol is rattling around the border.

Let's use a generic "police officer" and no INGOers.

If narcotics has armed the CI with both weapons and intelligence, then yes it would be foreseeable that a drug transaction of that nature could become violent and Conspiracy to Commit Murder would be possible.

If narcotics has no CI is just recording, if narcotics arranged the transaction then could be liable under Depraved Heart, Reckless Homicide.

If just recording and no pre-action taken, then I do not believe there would be any criminal liability.

So you see no difference between a legal definition and a practical real-world definition that considers more of the facts than the limited legal parameters under scrutiny?

Two men rob a bank and in the process, one of them shoots and kills someone. HE is the murderer, not the guy who didn't pull the trigger. The law may justify charging and convicting both for the same crime based on convolutions and manipulations of definitions, but only one man actually committed murder that day.

Or what about a pregnant woman. Let's assume she is shot and killed and her unborn dies as well. The perp is charged with two murders. And yet if that woman were to walk into an abortion clinic on that very same day instead of going where the bad guy shot her, the death of her unborn isn't murder. Not legally, but who would argue that it didn't meet the standard of murder? Was not a human life taken by force? Isn't that what murder is?

I get that you can make a legal case for calling the FBI actions murder. But outside of that connect-the-dots argument, and I am not absolving them of their contributive role, I don't believe they are the responsible party.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So you see no difference between a legal definition and a practical real-world definition that considers more of the facts than the limited legal parameters under scrutiny?

I acknowledge that just because something is prosecuted under Felony Murder does NOT mean a jury will agree.

Sort of like Death Penalty or Life without Parole. In my (limited with DP) experience it is tough for the prosecution to get 12 people to agree to Felony Murder, DP or LWOP.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Here's a question for you: narcotics knows of a drug deal scheduled to take place between two parties that have historically had a rocky relationship. They plan to monitor and act accordingly. They do not inform all uniformed LE when or where this deal is taking place. Denny happens to be rolling by in his patrol car when the deal goes south and they start shooting at each other. He engages, is shot, and later dies from his wounds.

Is narcotics complicit in his death?

If they supply the drug dealers with guns before the drug deal, and those guns are used to kill an officer - then they are involved. That is one of the things in my mind that sticks out here... They did not just monitor them and watch... they helped the crew commit the crime by supplying them with weapons.

If the police or FBI know that an officer will be on patrol in an area, and they know something big is planned - it is their responsibility to share that information. I am not sold that lack of communication alone is criminal - but when we are talking about situations of grave consequence, it is their responsibility, and the FBI should understand this. The FBI knew border patrol agents patrol that area... after giving the cartel group loads of firearms, they find out about plans for attacks in the area, and they did not even warn the boots on the ground....

They contributed to the death of the border patrol agent. If it was murder or manslaughter is debatable, but they have blood on their hands either way, and will likely all walk.

 

[ultraspec]

I'm not arguing whether or not his death was murder. I said so in my previous post. I'm trying to figure out if the FBI can be held complicit if they didn't know he was going to be there.

If the rip crew was targeting the drugs, I don't see how the FBI can be held accountable unless they knew that the BP unit Terry was in was going to be at the same place at the same time.

If the article is accurate, by law it does not matter if it was Robbery or a Premeditated Murder.

You know how the Felony Murder Rule works, right?

He has a good point on that. And as far as knowing if the BP was invovled common LE practice is usually to consult with other outside agencies to see if anyone else is going to be in the A/O. Someone screwed this up and we may never know if it was on purpose or not since the damn fed govn wont let it be known the FBI screwed up on purpose or not.