FBI Agent Loses Gun During Back Flip...
- Thread starter Double Naught Spy
- Start date
- Status
seeker_two
New member
The laws that apply to gun owners don't apply to the Feds. I doubt he'll even get a reprimand from his supervisor, much less face any criminal charges.
....and I doubt the victim will receive any compensation for his injuries, either.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
I am betting the victim has already hired a lawyer and will settle for no less than six figures. If it were a local or State Cop... seven. It is tougher to sue the Federals. It will never make it to a jury. A jury would make it rain money like they were getting paid themselves.
The agent may or may not face charges. Accidental shootings are tricky. Most often the shooter is not charged or no-billed by the Grand Jury, especially in a gun friendly state; if shown to be an accident. The video may actually help his case under Colorado Law. He can make a solid argument that it was an "accident" especially since it is unlikely he knew the victim.
According to Colorado Code:
Doing back flips in the club while sauced might fit the bill; if that can be shown as the proximate cause of the injury.
I'd been interested in reading a decision several years from now if there ever is one.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
He was released because Denver PD is investigating it. Citizens, including criminals, often receive similar treatment. The fact that he is released doesn’t mean he is free and clear. He just hasn’t been charged yet. Saw an incident where a citizen fired at a vehicle during a road rage incident. He was released on the spot and not jailed until he was actually charged some eight months later.
Even if FBI does not pursue any serious disciplinary charges, I imagine his FBI career is over because that guy just made a whole lot of Brady lists. And I wouldn’t agree he is likely to skate on discipline either.
As for compensation, a federal law enforcemeny agency whose officer just did something really stupid that was directly responsible for an injury is a very attractive litigation target, despite the resources available to the Feds.
I’d be interested to see how it goes but I doubt it gets much news coverage followup.
Even if FBI does not pursue any serious disciplinary charges, I imagine his FBI career is over because that guy just made a whole lot of Brady lists. And I wouldn’t agree he is likely to skate on discipline either.
As for compensation, a federal law enforcemeny agency whose officer just did something really stupid that was directly responsible for an injury is a very attractive litigation target, despite the resources available to the Feds.
I’d be interested to see how it goes but I doubt it gets much news coverage followup.
I think you're wrong about that. I think they will flay him alive, hang him out to dry, and nail his flayed skin on the briefing room door as a warning to others.
Not because he accidently shot someone. Not because he was doing dance moves in a bar and lost control of his weapon. But because of the unpardonable sin of embarrassing the FBI. And doing it VERY publicly.
In an earlier age, he might have gotten off with just a reprimand, in an age when such an incident would have been forgotten and gone away fairly quickly. Maybe a letter in his file, or something like that, and of course, his career advancement would be over.
But, today? can't let this one fade, or sweep it under the rug, IT'S ON FREAKIN' UTUBE!!!!!
Tens of thousands, if not already millions will see the videos, OVER AND OVER.
THAT, the FBI cannot, and will not forgive.
I am curious what the gun, and holster were. Mostly I am curious if the gun was a "safe action" type with no manual safety, or if it had a safety, which was not engaged.
I'm pretty sure I know WHY the guy lunged for the gun, losing control of your weapon is a serious sin for an agent, exceeded only by loss of one's badge/FBI credentials. As long as no one gets shot. In this case, I'm certain his intent was to get the gun back, as fast as possible, in the hopes no one would notice. Had he not had the gun go off, it might have happened just that way.
But it didn't happen that way. Not only did the gun go off, someone was shot. This one isn't going away, but the agent's career already has, though we will have to wait until after the official investigation to hear a public announcement.
I note the news is very carefully NOT saying he was drinking. Nor are they saying he wasn't. They are, for once, not speculating on that, saying only "the incident is under investigation".
and yes, until the official findings are out, I doubt there will be much media coverage, they simply don't need to beat this one over and over, its on UTUBE, and that will do the job, quite well.
Is this a case of "rock out, with your Glock out!!" ????
There are no accidental shootings. The Term is ND
Negligent Discharge.
Personal rights preclude releasing his name. Wow.
This occurred with someone who obviously should be extremely well trained.
Certainly clears up why we have the issues we do with anyone who can buy a gun. Criminally ND and injured and killed people are all to common.
Negligent Discharge.
Personal rights preclude releasing his name. Wow.
This occurred with someone who obviously should be extremely well trained.
Certainly clears up why we have the issues we do with anyone who can buy a gun. Criminally ND and injured and killed people are all to common.
The notion that everyone who is law enforcement is well trained is frankly false. In my experience unless the officer is part of a response team such as SWAT or similar his weapons handling is often worse than what I can see at a shooting club. This is based off of 100+ hours of observing various officers in training events.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
"Personal rights preclude releasing his name." That's a new one on me.
A few years ago here in NJ there was a major spill at one of the refineries. The workers hadn't followed the proper procedures, they were fired IMMEDIATELY. And their names made public. But of course it's a different set of rules for government.
A few years ago here in NJ there was a major spill at one of the refineries. The workers hadn't followed the proper procedures, they were fired IMMEDIATELY. And their names made public. But of course it's a different set of rules for government.
That is simply NOT true. I have twice witnessed guns fire without ANY negligence on the part of the person holding the gun
Here is how it happened to me...
I was working as a contractor, had arrived in Baghdad and been issued a cpl of nonstandard guns. A CZ75 and an AK. I loaded both and traveled from the airport to the greenzone, where our team-house was. No issues.
That evening i stripped both guns down for cleaning. When i was done i inserted the mag in the pistol and ran the slide....BANG. I looked ofer at a teammate that was standing close by. He said, “i saw your finger OFF the trigger when that went off”. I know with 100% certainty my finger was along the frame when it went off.
Further investigations showed that gun would drop the hammer about 1 time in 5. We took it to the range the next time and played with it. Even got it to double and triple a few times. Just a worn out POS.
SO, where was the negligence in that discharge? Finger straight, insert mag, run the slide. How many times have we all done that? It still resulted in the gun going off.
So, there are ACCIDENTAL discharges
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are accidental shootings as there have been faulty firearms that fired when they supposedly shouldn't have. That isn't an ND. True they may have been dropped by normal accidental processes (not dancing) but that's clearly accidental.
ice monkey
New member
Exactly! And please, tell me he wasn’t waisted!? Rather, tell me he was - how can a man “dance” like that sober?
What an idiot!
I have a personal observation. The guy was an FBI agent, the agency is an investigative organization. They have a great deal of responsibility for dangerous criminals and spend a lot of time rolling around in the mud with killers.
OTOH, the agents are also interpreters, investigators, evidence handlers, and some go armed anyway. So this guy may have been a forensic accountant. he was a special agent, according to some stories that I have read, being a special agent doesn't mean that he's swat, he may not be anything more than a special investigator. So, it's possible that he was just a nerd with minimal weapons training. Getting a nerd with little training into a bar and letting him party with a gun in his underwear is kinda risky.
maybe that is what happened, maybe not.
OTOH, the agents are also interpreters, investigators, evidence handlers, and some go armed anyway. So this guy may have been a forensic accountant. he was a special agent, according to some stories that I have read, being a special agent doesn't mean that he's swat, he may not be anything more than a special investigator. So, it's possible that he was just a nerd with minimal weapons training. Getting a nerd with little training into a bar and letting him party with a gun in his underwear is kinda risky.
maybe that is what happened, maybe not.
They DON"T is what I meant to say. they aren't beat cops, they are more informational, but that doesn't mean that there are no agents in the field who are involved with actual danger. If there is a bank robbery that they are involved in, dozens of men will be involved in the offices, but there won't be a large number of field agents. There was a bank robbery and murder here and for the most part, they had one man here in the field for well over a year, working with locals.
- Status