It makes you wonder what the real objective is with raids like this. This guy probably would have surrendered at a time and place arranged through his attorney and still be alive today.

The objective is pretty obvious in my opinion. It’s to send a message. Don’t be on the radar of the ATF or the DOJ.

Seems they never learn. Hell, David Koresh told them way back at Waco that all they had to do was wait for him to go to town rather than raiding the homestead, creating the situation.

quote:

For instance, of course there is no BWC footage. The only two field divisions that are in the pilot program are Phoenix and Detroit. There is no footage because DOJ hasn’t issued body cameras or drafted policy or figured out storage of the footage.

Are you seriously telling me that in 2024, with all the pressure the feds have been putting on state and local agencies for the past 4+ years to be transparent and accountable, their own federal officers aren't all wearing bodycams? That's some hypocritical bullshit if I've ever heard it. I can't even take a piss at work without it being on camera .

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Are you seriously telling me that in 2024, with all the pressure the feds have been putting on state and local agencies for the past 4+ years to be transparent and accountable, their own federal officers aren't all wearing bodycams? That's some hypocritical bullshit if I've ever heard it. I can't even take a piss at work without it being on camera .

Remember that the FBI doesn’t video or tape record interviews. Why? I would suggest so that there is no record but what the agents write down on paper, if those records can even be found.

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
It makes you wonder what the real objective is with raids like this. This guy probably would have surrendered at a time and place arranged through his attorney and still be alive today.

I don’t wonder at all.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

Are you seriously telling me that in 2024, with all the pressure the feds have been putting on state and local agencies for the past 4+ years to be transparent and accountable, their own federal officers aren't all wearing bodycams? That's some hypocritical bullshit if I've ever heard it. I can't even take a piss at work without it being on camera .

Initial costs are high for cameras. Then there is storage fees. Departments are run by money, new expenditures are constantly turned down. My old department only got cameras thru a federal grant. The town north of us used their grant to get “shot caller”. They thought that was a better spend.

And don’t get me started about the feds not recording their interviews. There is only one reason not to record them-to lie. Installed cameras are even cheaper than body cams.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

Initial costs are high for cameras. Then there is storage fees. Departments are run by money, new expenditures are constantly turned down. My old department only got cameras thru a federal grant. The town north of us used their grant to get “shot caller”. They thought that was a better spend.

I'm well aware of the costs, both for the initial purchase and the ongoing storage, as well as the administrative PITA that managing the system becomes. My agency had to figure it out, as did every other agency in our county. We've had them since 2017 or 18, IIRC.

I don't have a problem with the cameras. What I have a problem with is the justice department accusing local agencies of discrimination and civil rights violations for the past 4-6 years, demanding that we provide better visibility and transparency into our operations, and yet their guys still aren't even wearing cameras on warrant services.

Yes there are hurdles. They're the federal government, with basically an unlimited budget. They've had plenty of time to figure those out.

I was a uniformed fed; our agency was pushed hard into body worn cameras and finally got them back in 2020. We had funds allocated for both cameras and a secure storage service. With the unlimited money available to agencies like ATF and FBI, there is NO excuse for not having them. None. No excuse, but plenty of reasons… like having the power to write the story after the fact.

Question for you LEO types. Is it true that the FBI doesn't record interviews they just report the facts on a form xxxx? Ie, it is a crime to lie to Federal LE but it is their word against yours? Or is that urban legend?

Well, looks like they found a real bad ass! I sure hope there’s more to the story.

How many three letter agencies do we really need? Two???

This is old news but definitely cause for concern.
While this guy was most likely into some shady territory, a raid of this nature was unnecessary, IMO.
They really murdered him because of their actions.
Of course they will not be held liable.
Could have been handled peacefully 1000 per cent.
License to kill seems appropriate here.

Has an ATF JBT ever been held accountable for anything? I can't recall ever reading about it.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Question for you LEO types. Is it true that the FBI doesn't record interviews they just report the facts on a form xxxx? Ie, it is a crime to lie to Federal LE but it is their word against yours? Or is that urban legend?

Interview summaries are entered into Sentinel on a form FD-302. Special agents typically don't record face to face interviews. It isn't a myth that cases for violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001 get pitched to DOJ for prosecution based solely on the Special Agent's notes in the 302 and memory of specific statements recorded therein. Typically, process crime prosecutions are included as an additional charge to a larger (more robust) investigation. But we live in a completely new world now, and DOJ has a lot of activists running the show in different places.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Question for you LEO types. Is it true that the FBI doesn't record interviews they just report the facts on a form xxxx? Ie, it is a crime to lie to Federal LE but it is their word against yours? Or is that urban legend?

I can't speak for the feds, but I know that in our state, court evidentiary rules require us to have audio AND video of any custodial interview in a felony case for it to be admissible in court, absent a few very specific exigent circumstances. Non-custodial is a little different, but if you have the means to record it you darn well better if you want the prosecutor to enter it into evidence. Our courts have also been really stretching the definition of "custodial" lately to include things that it didn't use to, so it's best just to record everything.

https://www.in.gov/ilea/files/Evidence_Rule_617.pdf

I couldn't tell you what the FBI does, or what the rules are in the federal system...but that definitely wouldn't fly here.

They should all hang for murder.

quote:

Originally posted by onegeek:
Remember that the FBI doesn’t video or tape record interviews. Why? I would suggest so that there is no record but what the agents write down on paper, if those records can even be found.

Which is why I will never speak to the FBI about any topic.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

There is no evidence because the officers put something over the camera before making entry.

I don’t know why they chose to do that. SOP in most places is to rip them down and toss them out in the yard.

Weird behavior for a bunch of cowboys that set out for mayhem, 10 cars and all.

How in the heck does covering the camera or ripping it down do anything to enhance the safety/success of the operation. If you are close enough to do those things, you've already triggered the Ring, etc. so you aren't surprising anyone. At that point, wouldn't it be better for the homeowner to be able to see you are real cops? I see no reason to do it unless you are hiding sketchy behavior.

I wouldn't consider ATF or FBI to be real cops and I expect them to do sketchy stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
How in the heck does covering the camera or ripping it down do anything to enhance the safety/success of the operation. If you are close enough to do those things, you've already triggered the Ring, etc. so you aren't surprising anyone. At that point, wouldn't it be better for the homeowner to be able to see you are real cops? I see no reason to do it unless you are hiding sketchy behavior.

Because they feel justified in harassing and endangering innocent people who have not yet had their day in court, vandalizing private property, indeed covering up sketchy and blatantly wrong behavior, murdering the occupant when he dared defend himself against a UNKNOWN assailant, and then claim their safety as an excuse for their criminal activities.
Organized crime.