On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 04:03 PM, Dr. Evil wrote:
I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption
Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially impossible for it to ever happen. If it were to happen, it is almost certain that either the breaking-and-entering team or the suspect/homeowner or both would be injured or killed in the ensuing firefight. The FBI knows this. Having agents injured is absolutely unacceptable to them, and having suspects injured or killed is also a highly undesirable outcome for them. You can be sure that during the break-in, they would have a team watching every approach to the house. If somehow or other someone showed up to enter the house during this time, and the FBI couldn't get him distracted in some way, they would just flash their badges and arrest him before he went in.
And now that I think about it some more as well, I wonder if some of the more controversial black bag jobs are subcontracted out to NGOs. The stuff of many a bad B-movie on late night cable, there are still a lot of reasons why gangs would be hired to hit the homes of political dissidents. (Lon Horiuchi still has a bounty on his head by some Aryan groups, and has dropped off the face of the "official" earth, so the Fedz are probably upping their use of Beltway Bandits. I know I would if I were them. I'd hire some Original Gangstas to do my dirty work...through cut-outs, of course, so that if they didn't get zapped by the target, or by the clean-up crew, they couldn't narc out their employers. Like I said, a bad B-movie on Cinemax, probably starring either Lorenzo Lamas or Don "The Dragon.") --Tim May
Sure, their investigation would be compromised (blown) and they would be very unhappy about that, but the alternative is guaranteed to be infinitely worse, so they would do it to cut their losses. So no, you will never walk in and surprise some FBI agents messing with your computer. Don't worry about it.
that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just shoot first and ask questions later.
Having said that, that is a rebutable presumption. If it can be shown that you believed or had reason to believe the intruder was, in fact, some flavor of cop, you cannot rely on the fear-of-death-or-great-bodily-harm presumption. For example, if he raised his hands and you heard him say, "Don't shoot, I'm an FBI agent," you might lose the benefit of the presumption. (You DID hear him say it, right?)
If a reasonable person found some intruders in his home, and they yelled at him, "I'm an FBI agent!", and started drawing weapons (which is what they would do), would it be reasonable for him to believe them, and comply, or to disbelieve them, and shoot back? He has less than a second (less than the time it takes to say "FBI") to make this decision, btw. I guess that's the question, and we all have our opinions about what the answer is, but ultimately the jury would have to decide what is reasonable, and a lot of their decision would be based on their judgement of the character of the shooter, and their perception of how the FBI handled themselves. Is the suspect a sleaze with a history of violence, or is he a sober, reasonable, cool-headed person with a clean record and documented training about what to do in a self-defence situation? Did the FBI make a plan that took every possible precaution to prevent this from happening, and did they have the right knowledge and equipment to complete the job quickly, or did they go in without proper preparation? The answer to those questions might be the answer to the bigger question. Looking at the bright side of this, the FBI would take extreme precautions to make sure that this situation never comes up, so don't worry about it.