PDA

View Full Version : Shot at for stealing BEER!


hardrivr
01-05-2010, 5:37 PM
It must have been dang good home brew or something... wonder how bad the scuffle was to use deadly force for attempted beer theft, good thing the shooter was FBI... doubt Joe Blow could shoot someone for stealing their beer!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/beer-theft.html

Maltese Falcon
01-05-2010, 5:48 PM
...Heck if it had been a regular citizen, they would have been arrested for discharging a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and civilly sued for emotional distress.

.

SJgunguy24
01-05-2010, 5:49 PM
Amazing, if that was any non LEO that dude would be in jail right next to those morons. I'd bet there never would've been a report filed if that wasn't an FBI agents place.

Amacias805
01-05-2010, 7:29 PM
wow! the cop wasn't in fear for his life, yet he gets to use his gun?

g21owner
01-05-2010, 7:31 PM
Excellent shot. Now if only we had the same type of immunity as a LEO


Edit:Nevermind, He didnt hit either one. I think someone needs some range time.

yelohamr
01-05-2010, 7:32 PM
OMG!! Please tell me that no beer was injured.

K5Cruiser
01-05-2010, 7:43 PM
"The agent briefly struggled with one of the men before both fled in a car. James M. [homeowner/FBI agent] shot at the car as it drove away but neither man was injured."

Unbelieveable! I have to agree that any other non-LEO community member would have been charged, and would have had to deal with a criminal lawsuit at the very least.

Seesm
01-05-2010, 8:09 PM
Do not get in between a man in black and his beer ok?

tyrist
01-05-2010, 8:45 PM
Probably more to the story...also the men were sentenced already and their attorney was the one who mentioned beer theft nobody else.

yellowfin
01-05-2010, 8:48 PM
I've seen some expensive beer lately. A friend of mine who's a labor lawyer was buying some bottles of some highly specialized Italian brew (kinda reminded me of the Belgian Lambics and Trappist ales) that were $22.99 each for what looked to be a Red Stripe sized bottle. Depending on how much beer the guy was stealing that could have been some decent change, about like a nice laptop or two.

hardrivr
01-05-2010, 9:38 PM
either way it was a story that caught my eye about how someone (LEO) could discharge his weapon without any issues... and from what's reported over beer

ELBong
01-05-2010, 9:57 PM
This should set precedent and allow the act to be an enumerated right when California finally has a defined Castle doctrine: "A resident of the state of California is justified in the use of deadly force in the defense of self, family, property and beer."

truthseeker
01-05-2010, 10:20 PM
So let me get this straight, if someone breaks into my house and then gets away, I am allowed to fire at them as they speed away and I won't get into ANY trouble from LE or the DA?

Snaps
01-06-2010, 7:14 AM
It must feel nice to be above the law.

Asmodai
01-06-2010, 7:41 AM
I thought we couldn't shoot at people running away? :online2long:

doc1buc
01-06-2010, 7:44 AM
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Vinz
01-06-2010, 7:47 AM
I thought the consenses here was it was ok to shoot thievs?



I guess just not law enforcment.
vinz

Mulay El Raisuli
01-06-2010, 8:11 AM
This should set precedent and allow the act to be an enumerated right when California finally has a defined Castle doctrine: "A resident of the state of California is justified in the use of deadly force in the defense of self, family, property and beer."


Why bring family & property into it? :)


The Raisuli

thomasanelson
01-06-2010, 8:39 AM
"Police State"......enough said.

D53
01-06-2010, 8:49 AM
Come on guys, you know its one of the perks of the job. :rolleyes:

Shane916
01-06-2010, 9:12 AM
An article based upon the information from a defense attorney defending his poor innocent clients...ha...:rolleyes:

SteveH
01-06-2010, 7:49 PM
"The agent briefly struggled with one of the men before both fled in a car. James M. [homeowner/FBI agent] shot at the car as it drove away but neither man was injured."

Unbelieveable! I have to agree that any other non-LEO community member would have been charged, and would have had to deal with a criminal lawsuit at the very least.

All depends on what the agent believed at the time. What he knew was two or three men unlawfully entered his home. That alone allows deadly force in California as the homeowner is presumed to have a reasonable fear of GBI. He fought with the home invaders and they fled. He had to make a split second decision/dertermination of was this just a B&E gone bad or was this an organized assault on his home due to his status as an FBI agent? Would allowing the suspects to escape only enable them to make a later assult with larger numbers? If he thought he was attacked due to his occupation and that the suspect were leaving only to gather reinforcements and return, he's justified in shooting.

Dark Paladin
01-06-2010, 8:25 PM
I've seen some expensive beer lately. A friend of mine who's a labor lawyer was buying some bottles of some highly specialized Italian brew (kinda reminded me of the Belgian Lambics and Trappist ales) that were $22.99 each for what looked to be a Red Stripe sized bottle. Depending on how much beer the guy was stealing that could have been some decent change, about like a nice laptop or two.

So its now Grand Theft Beer? :D

hardrivr
01-06-2010, 9:13 PM
All depends on what the agent believed at the time. What he knew was two or three men unlawfully entered his home. That alone allows deadly force in California as the homeowner is presumed to have a reasonable fear of GBI. He fought with the home invaders and they fled. He had to make a split second decision/dertermination of was this just a B&E gone bad or was this an organized assault on his home due to his status as an FBI agent? Would allowing the suspects to escape only enable them to make a later assult with larger numbers? If he thought he was attacked due to his occupation and that the suspect were leaving only to gather reinforcements and return, he's justified in shooting.

I don't know about your statement... I mean they were in their car and LEAVING... I mean if he's a GOOD FBI agent then he should have been able to tell the difference from an assault on his life or family, and a couple of losers trying to steal something even it's more than beer. Not to mention they had already gotten into their car, meaning he must have ran in grabbed his gun and then decide to blow off some rounds at them! I agree there must be more to the story, but the way it's been reported it really makes this FBI agent look bad!

Sinixstar
01-07-2010, 1:56 AM
I don't know about your statement... I mean they were in their car and LEAVING... I mean if he's a GOOD FBI agent then he should have been able to tell the difference from an assault on his life or family, and a couple of losers trying to steal something even it's more than beer. Not to mention they had already gotten into their car, meaning he must have ran in grabbed his gun and then decide to blow off some rounds at them! I agree there must be more to the story, but the way it's been reported it really makes this FBI agent look bad!

I have some family that are FBI agents, and I can say with about 99.99999% certainty that he didn't have to go anywhere to get a gun.
I'm not going to go on and on about it - but given the situation - if he didn't have time (which I doubt he did) to look around and see if anything was missing or broken into I can perfectly well see why he would have started shooting. Who knows what they *could* have run off with. Some of those guys are issued a whole hell of a lot more then the standard Glock .45 and 2 mags...

cbn620
01-07-2010, 2:02 AM
I won't shoot for beer...but I will put speed holes in anyone trying to steal my whiskey.

IrishPirate
01-07-2010, 2:10 AM
I'd fill any motherf*cker full of lead before i let them steal my beer!!

oh wait....they were driving away?........lucky FBI bastard! that's worse than CHP driving 80 in a 55 and local smokies talking on cell phones, never using turn signals, running reds, and never coming to complete stops!

bigcalidave
01-07-2010, 2:15 AM
Where do we raise the outrage? Who will actually listen! This FBI agent should be facing charges. Can't someone down there call their PD, politicians, etc? Try to make it a big deal? It should be outrageous to anyone who reads that story that he got away with shooting at fleeing suspects. Even the police don't get away with that! (shouldn't, at the least, although we see from steveh how the report can be fabricated in their favor)

SteveH
01-07-2010, 7:29 AM
Actually in California it is still legal to shoot a fleeing felon. As long as the shooter has a reasonable belief that the Felon(s) present a continuing and immediate risk to others. I think home invasion suspects present an immediate risk to the safety of others if allowed to escape. Rather than calling for the prosecution of the FBI agent we should be calling for new legislation to protect those who defend themselves by simular means.

rrr70
01-07-2010, 7:35 AM
Double standards. What a surprise.

hardrivr
01-07-2010, 10:00 AM
Actually in California it is still legal to shoot a fleeing felon. As long as the shooter has a reasonable belief that the Felon(s) present a continuing and immediate risk to others. I think home invasion suspects present an immediate risk to the safety of others if allowed to escape. Rather than calling for the prosecution of the FBI agent we should be calling for new legislation to protect those who defend themselves by simular means.

Agreed about the focus should be new legistation to protect our selfs regardless... now are you saying that civilians have the right to shot at a fleeing felon or just LEO's in general, and is thief of beer (at least per the defense Atty) a felony?

I thought this post would get a few added posts to it, I found the story to be crazy and a very neg. one against the FBI agent... but heard of a better one yesterday... I guess someone got stabbed around my office yesterday and the stabber (both the stab victim and stabber were panhandlers for a recovery drug center out of Santa Ana, but working the streets of Murrieta...) took all morning looking for a place to find a cheap enough knife he could afford to stab his annoying friend... 30 times!!! Good thing he was close to Big Lot's and they carried a 8" kitchen knife cheap!

SanSacto
01-07-2010, 10:05 AM
http://thumbnails.hulu.com/9/688/30940_512x288_generated__Tzwe36sJJk6UrCa+4FcUyw.jp g

:rofl:

SteveH
01-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Agreed about the focus should be new legistation to protect our selfs regardless... now are you saying that civilians have the right to shot at a fleeing felon or just LEO's in general, and is thief of beer (at least per the defense Atty) a felony?

The crime was not theft of beer. It was home invasion robbery or burglary of an occupied dwelling. The defense lawyer made up the beer story as one possible motive his client may have had.

professionalcoyotehunter
01-07-2010, 11:12 AM
I would shoot someone for stealing anything of value. Thieves can all rot in hell where they belong.

GuyW
01-07-2010, 12:46 PM
If he thought .... that the suspect were leaving only to gather reinforcements and return, he's justified in shooting.

Now that's some tortured "reasoning"....

.

bigcalidave
01-07-2010, 3:42 PM
Actually in California it is still legal to shoot a fleeing felon. As long as the shooter has a reasonable belief that the Felon(s) present a continuing and immediate risk to others. I think home invasion suspects present an immediate risk to the safety of others if allowed to escape. Rather than calling for the prosecution of the FBI agent we should be calling for new legislation to protect those who defend themselves by simular means.

It's good having you here, you continue to show us the way that truth can be twisted to establish an excuse for an obvious abuse of powers.

MasterYong
01-07-2010, 3:53 PM
They didn't even get any beer LOL. And what a lame alleged reason to break into this guy's garage. They fled in a car but they had to steal beer?

Sounds like they were shot at for trespassing and attempted burglary- not theft. Seems like the FBI agent should be disciplined. The way I read the article it sounds like he shot at them as they were driving away on a public street, which is a serious danger to the public. If he had shot at them while they were in his garage, at least the bullets would have had a much better chance of slowing down before potentially hitting an innocent bystander.

SteveH
01-07-2010, 6:24 PM
Now that's some tortured "reasoning"....

.

If I were an FBI agent and attacked in my home by multiple suspects i would assume they were there to kill me and it was work related. I would not assume they just wanted a beer.

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 6:43 PM
I thought the consenses here was it was ok to shoot thievs? I guess just not law enforcment.
vinz

You misinterpreted. The concensus is that its OK to shoot an intruder when you fear loss of life or great bodily harm. We've all known for a long time you cannot legally fire at a fleeing felon, unless of course, you are in law enforcement.

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 6:56 PM
Oh so many years ago (too many!) I was living in Visalia and a Stop'n Rob store I visited frequently was robbed. The clerk followed the perp out of the store and shot at the getaway car. His bullet hit the rear window at an angle and richoche'd down the street about 500 yards and punched thru a bathroom window of an apartment, then dropped into the wash basin right in front of some guy who was in the middle of a shave! It could've been a lot worse. That's why it's against the law to shoot a fleeing felon. Personally, I can do without the lawsuit.

jumbopanda
01-07-2010, 7:39 PM
Do NOT **** with a man's beer! :D

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-07-2010, 11:54 PM
Blue Moon is good, but not worth getting shot over.

hardrivr
01-08-2010, 9:55 AM
If I were an FBI agent and attacked in my home by multiple suspects i would assume they were there to kill me and it was work related. I would not assume they just wanted a beer.

That's why we're glad you're not an FBI officer! What if this was a simple break-in, and the report only said they broke into the garage, so you're saying if they were just punk kids (20's I think the report said again) to steal your beer or craftmans tools, and got caught, fought to get away, and got to their car, you say well they shouldn't get away so shoot at them... I have several LEO friends who are different fields, but the undercover ones won't shoot at fleeing suspects... well at least they arn't suppose too! Last story involving them shooting, suspect ran from car shooting bllindly behind him, he got away, but put a 9mm into a 9 year old girl that he didn't see playing on the street... she survived, and they ended up catching the suspect by running plates... if this guy was a GOOD FBI agent, he should have been able to identify the suspects, their vehicle and license as they drove away... and NOT IDENTIFY the car by the dings and dents his service piece left in the car!

Steveh, I like your posts, and sorry I also like playing the Devils Advocate

packnrat
01-08-2010, 3:59 PM
amazing simply amazing.:43:

a leo can shoot at someone who is stealing his beer.:eek:

NO threat to his or any other life.:rolleyes:

if had been just someone doing the shooting. they would be in jail.:chris:


.

gunn
01-08-2010, 4:19 PM
I've seen some expensive beer lately. A friend of mine who's a labor lawyer was buying some bottles of some highly specialized Italian brew (kinda reminded me of the Belgian Lambics and Trappist ales) that were $22.99 each for what looked to be a Red Stripe sized bottle. Depending on how much beer the guy was stealing that could have been some decent change, about like a nice laptop or two.

I agree with everyone else who feels that this is a joke. I have to imagine that he was disciplined for negligent discharge. That being said, if more criminals were shot at (safely to the public), perhaps they would rethink their occupation. There are cheaper ways to earn a bud light (like working, for example).

Sure, expensive beers do exist but do you really think he's got that socked away in his garage on a g-man's salary? I doubt it. After all, it's not like he's a DEA agent with some "extra-curricular activities".

-g

SteveH
01-08-2010, 5:00 PM
amazing simply amazing.:43:

a leo can shoot at someone who is stealing his beer.:eek:

NO threat to his or any other life.:rolleyes:

if had been just someone doing the shooting. they would be in jail.:chris:


.

I'll assume you are not trolling and are just misinformed.

First off all anyone can shoot someone who unlawfully enters their home in California. That is the law. You are presumed to have a reasonable fear of death or GBI by the person unlawfully entering your home. He was justified in shooting them as soon as they realized they were inside his attached garage.

However once he found them they didnt steal beer, or run, they attacked the FBI agenct in his own home.

The "stealing beer" defense was never brought up at trial. Its a story the lawyer came up with in an attempt to garner sympathy for his client after conviction.

SimpleCountryActuary
01-08-2010, 9:47 PM
I won't shoot for beer...but I will put speed holes in anyone trying to steal my whiskey.

It takes a steady hand to hit the thief just right so when he falls the whisky bottle doesn't break.

hardrivr
01-08-2010, 10:37 PM
Again, without reading the court papers or being there, and as far as the reporter shows this is and any LEO you ask will tell you the same... A BAD SHOOTING! I just had dinner with and officer and went over this story with him in some detail, and he said it would be his badge if he did this... there must be more to the story and if anyone has access or can find out more, more power to you, and second you have too much time on your hands! But frankly the way this is written it was a bad shoot, no one including LEO have the right to shoot at fleeing suspects... now if they were in his home or even in his garage and he shot them, well then it's his story against... well it's his story and theres no one who can say differently... this is basically the thought behind if someone breaks in then shoot and ask questions later, but if they are running away... put the gun away

five.five-six
01-08-2010, 10:39 PM
don't steal beer

[/problem]

Merle
01-08-2010, 11:39 PM
Just missing the cigar and we'd hit a trifecta: ATF.

SkatinJJ
01-09-2010, 9:22 AM
He a law enforcement officer. It needs to be shown clearly to the public the he did not violate Title 18, section242:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

What if superman missed and hit a bystander, a regular person, you know, "little people." I'm really upset with the idea that law enforcement is somehow considered to be above the law until it's so screamingly blatant that people have to sit up and take note.

So many things can go wrong when you start to fire at people outside of your home. Perhaps I get it if there's an attack and you're in the "alamo" of SHTF situation.

People in this scenario were fleeing the scene. I feel that a detailed justification should be well publicized or I may feel that it is a precedent for doing it myself in a similar situation.

hardrivr
01-09-2010, 9:45 AM
He a law enforcement officer. It needs to be shown clearly to the public the he did not violate Title 18, section242:



What if superman missed and hit a bystander, a regular person, you know, "little people." I'm really upset with the idea that law enforcement is somehow considered to be above the law until it's so screamingly blatant that people have to sit up and take note.

So many things can go wrong when you start to fire at people outside of your home. Perhaps I get it if there's an attack and you're in the "alamo" of SHTF situation.

People in this scenario were fleeing the scene. I feel that a detailed justification should be well publicized or I may feel that it is a precedent for doing it myself in a similar situation.

I do agree with you completely, but I do put part of the blame on the reporter of this story, as you stated the people who read it may think that okay, someone just tried to steal my lawn decorations, and now they are driving away, I still have time to stop them by shooting out their tail lights... that way it'll be easier for the police to find them... WRONG IDEA and bad reporting... again the report stated these guys had already been sentenced for TWO YEARS, so this wasn't a simple break in looking for a six pack... it was proven in court that either these guys were SERIOUS prior offenders or they had more plans than stealing beer, but again it was very poorly reported by LA Times... but it has made a lot of us think and that's what I guess the Times wanted to do, but at least MOST of us think it's wrong to shoot at someone as they are leaving the scene of a crime unless I guess you can drag their dead butts back into your home :D

SkatinJJ
01-09-2010, 11:08 AM
I do agree with you completely, but I do put part of the blame on the reporter of this story, as you stated the people who read it may think that okay, someone just tried to steal my lawn decorations, and now they are driving away, I still have time to stop them by shooting out their tail lights... that way it'll be easier for the police to find them... WRONG IDEA and bad reporting... again the report stated these guys had already been sentenced for TWO YEARS, so this wasn't a simple break in looking for a six pack... it was proven in court that either these guys were SERIOUS prior offenders or they had more plans than stealing beer, but again it was very poorly reported by LA Times... but it has made a lot of us think and that's what I guess the Times wanted to do, but at least MOST of us think it's wrong to shoot at someone as they are leaving the scene of a crime unless I guess you can drag their dead butts back into your home :D

I agree, poor reporting. Poor of the DA to not get out there and with a written press release, overcome the poor communications. The DA, the FBI, or whomever looks over this NEEDS to get the correct word out there with regard to this or any LEO shooting.

I feel it is incumbent on the government to explain itself when it uses force.

JDay
01-09-2010, 8:36 PM
This should set precedent and allow the act to be an enumerated right when California finally has a defined Castle doctrine: "A resident of the state of California is justified in the use of deadly force in the defense of self, family, property and beer."

We do have a castle doctrine. Its defined in CA PC 198.5.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

CaliTheKid
01-09-2010, 8:57 PM
Actually in California it is still legal to shoot a fleeing felon. As long as the shooter has a reasonable belief that the Felon(s) present a continuing and immediate risk to others. I think home invasion suspects present an immediate risk to the safety of others if allowed to escape. Rather than calling for the prosecution of the FBI agent we should be calling for new legislation to protect those who defend themselves by simular means.

This is well stated Steve.

SVT-40
01-09-2010, 11:15 PM
I agree, poor reporting. Poor of the DA to not get out there and with a written press release, overcome the poor communications. The DA, the FBI, or whomever looks over this NEEDS to get the correct word out there with regard to this or any LEO shooting.

I feel it is incumbent on the government to explain itself when it uses force.

This is just silliness. Many here all up in arms basing their disgust on an article in the L.A. Times. Don't you all know the L.A. Times is an anti firearms rag.

Seriously, instead of ranting and raving without any ACTUAL FACTS, maybe you could look a little deeper befor you decide the sky is falling.

Skatin, don't you know just because the LAPD, FBI or any other LEA issues a "press release" it doesn't mean a newspaper will actually print it. Or a TV station will comment on it?? Come on get real.

As far as you deciding that you need to be informed when "the government uses force".

Just how do you think this needs to be done? Does the "government need to print it's own news paper? Or have it's own TV station and explain EVERY use of force by every: Cop, Deputy, Probation Officer, Parole Officer, CHP Officer, Prison Guard, FBI agent, ICE agent, CIA Agent, BATFE Agent Ect. ECT.

Get real


I would think the bad guys being convicted and sent to prison would be a clue to even the dimmest here that the FBI agent was well within his rights not only as a LEO, but as any other citizen to use the force he used.

Maybe instead of always believing LEO's are automatically wrong, maybe you could wait for FACTS before you jump to invalid conclusions and silly assumptions.

SkatinJJ
01-10-2010, 6:38 AM
This is just silliness. Many here all up in arms basing their disgust on an article in the L.A. Times. Don't you all know the L.A. Times is an anti firearms rag.

Seriously, instead of ranting and raving without any ACTUAL FACTS, maybe you could look a little deeper befor you decide the sky is falling.

Skatin, don't you know just because the LAPD, FBI or any other LEA issues a "press release" it doesn't mean a newspaper will actually print it. Or a TV station will comment on it?? Come on get real.

As far as you deciding that you need to be informed when "the government uses force".

Just how do you think this needs to be done? Does the "government need to print it's own news paper? Or have it's own TV station and explain EVERY use of force by every: Cop, Deputy, Probation Officer, Parole Officer, CHP Officer, Prison Guard, FBI agent, ICE agent, CIA Agent, BATFE Agent Ect. ECT.

Get real


I would think the bad guys being convicted and sent to prison would be a clue to even the dimmest here that the FBI agent was well within his rights not only as a LEO, but as any other citizen to use the force he used.

Maybe instead of always believing LEO's are automatically wrong, maybe you could wait for FACTS before you jump to invalid conclusions and silly assumptions.

Yes, the LA times is not worthy to be used to train a puppy. It would eventualy turn it into another lapdog for Villaraigosa and his criminal cohorts.

We live in amazing times. Every one of those agencies noted have a website. They do actually publish their own newspaper. Look to the Los Angeles FBI website and they have a section called "Press Releases" I apologize for not mentioning this in previous posts. The FBI tells of their arrests and convictions. There's nothing there talking about an agent involved shooting - I think this is poor of the FBI to not look into one of theirs discharging a firearm, ostensibly leaving it to local law enforcement. They can at least issue a press release and control the facts, or allow the LA times ( or others ) to control the story.

The Orange county District Attorney's web site has a weak press release that looks familiar, http://orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=1633&returnurl=index.asp%3Fpage%3D8

http://orangecountyda.com/images/ocdaseal.jpgOrange County District Attorney
Press Release


Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney
401 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701


For Immediate Release
Case # 09NF3342







January 4, 2010
Contacts:


Susan Kang Schroeder
Public Affairs Counsel
Office: 714-347-8408
Cell: 714-292-2718
Farrah Emami
Spokesperson
Office: 714-347-8405
Cell: 714-323-4486

TWO MEN SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS STATE PRISON FOR BREAKING INTO HOME OF FBI AGENT THROUGH PARTIALLY-OPEN GARAGE DOOR


FULLERTON Two men were convicted today of breaking into the home of an off-duty Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent through a partially-open garage door. Jeffrey Michael Drach, 20, Yorba Linda, and Justin Wesley Case, 21, Placentia, pleaded guilty to one felony count each of first degree residential burglary with a sentencing enhancement for a non-accomplice present during a residential burglary. Drach and Case were each sentenced to two years in state prison.

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on Nov. 18, 2009, Drach and Case entered the residence of James M. through a partially-open garage door. The victim, an FBI agent, was awake and had temporarily exited his home through the garage door to get his canine from the back yard prior to an early morning briefing.

When James M. returned to his garage, Drach and Case were standing inside. The victim identified himself as a law enforcement officer and ordered the defendants to stop. One of the defendants physically struggled with James M. before both Drach and Case fled the scene in a nearby car. The victim approached the car and attempted to stop the defendants, firing at the vehicle as they fled the scene. Drach and Case were not injured.

The victim immediately called 9-1-1 and the Brea Police Department and FBI responded to the scene. Later that morning, a citizen called 9-1-1 to report a suspicious car parked outside of their home, which was approximately two miles from James M.s home. The car was identified as the vehicle used during the burglary of James M.s home and Drach and Case and arrested that morning.

Deputy District Attorney Keith Bogardus of the Special Prosecutions Unit prosecuted this case.As far as me personally being called by the FBI or any government agency and personally being notified of a shooting, please put the keyboard down and back slowly away. Breathe deep and count to ten.

I look to the free press to watch the government. I look to citizens, by reasonable means to also watch the government, our paid servants. We need to know what they're doing so that ANY excesses will be noted immediately and stopped.

There are two main points: 1. poor reporting. 2. we have a right to know what the law enforcement agencies are doing, once they're done with their investigation.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

socal2310
01-10-2010, 7:20 AM
It doesn't look like a good shoot, but I'm inclined to give the agent the benefit of the doubt given the lack of information.

If the "struggle" was an aggravated assault (the burglar was actually trying to maim or kill the agent) then the shooting was fully justified - the agent would be able to clearly articulate his belief that his assailant was an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety. For all we know they pleaded out of the more serious charge, we just can't tell from either the Times article or the press release.

Ryan

SkatinJJ
01-10-2010, 7:49 AM
It doesn't look like a good shoot, but I'm inclined to give the agent the benefit of the doubt given the lack of information.

If the "struggle" was an aggravated assault (the burglar was actually trying to maim or kill the agent) then the shooting was fully justified - the agent would be able to clearly articulate his belief that his assailant was an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety. For all we know they pleaded out of the more serious charge, we just can't tell from either the Times article or the press release.

Ryan

This really, is the part that irks me. The DA should have a better detailed account of what occurred. It is a matter of public record. I don't want to know the name of the agent, "James" is even too much. I want to know the sequence of events, how the DA saw the application of the law in the case. Any pleas made and so forth.

We shouldn't be sitting here questioning this situation as much as this.

Semper FI!!

JJ

tyrist
01-10-2010, 10:59 AM
First; California State law allows for the use of deadly force on fleeing felons. A normal citizen would lack the training to properly explain or understand everything that goes into the decision. This lack of training, experience, and articulation will get them into major legal trouble.

Second; Federal Law Enforcement have by far fewer restrictions on the use of force than local agencies within the state. Most of the larger agencies have more restrictions than smaller agencies. Something can be out of policy with the dept but completely within state law. This is why you often see an Officer suspended and a "victim" given a settlement yet no jail is given because there was no violation of state law.

bigcalidave
01-10-2010, 6:00 PM
Here's a good article about the use of deadly force on a fleeing felon. I'm not sure if that IS acceptable in CA, can you prove it?

http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm

The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

If that is the minimum standard for use of deadly force according to the supreme court, how the hell did this FBI agent get away with it.

JDay
01-10-2010, 8:20 PM
http://thumbnails.hulu.com/9/688/30940_512x288_generated__Tzwe36sJJk6UrCa+4FcUyw.jp g

:rofl:

Pickford: Don, give the beer back, man!
Don: I paid for the beer, man.

SVT-40
01-10-2010, 10:46 PM
I too believe in transparency. But some internal personal issues including shootings are confidential. Not all the info just some of it. The main story can come out, but not any info which could cause the agent harm.

Just for your info in Cailf internal investigations by police agencies are by law not public information. So the agencies are prohibited from releasing much if any info.


In regards to the L.A. times. I'm really surprised anyone here still subscribes to it. If you pay the L.A. times you might as well make a check out to Sara Brady and the other antis.

I dumped my subscription years ago. When ever I get one of their subscription offers in the mail I pack their pre paid return mailer with over three ounces of scrap magazines ( usually old American Rifleman :) so they have to pay excess postage on the return.

Call it my one man protest to their bias reporting.

My whole point is stop automatically judging the police before all the info is out.