Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Wed Aug 8 16:48:47 PDT 2001


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.





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list