| Pete F. |
02-28-2020 10:37 AM |
Perhaps you think the FBI should take more chances with their lives?
Here is the view of a guy who has been in that situation.
Was the FBI’s show of force too heavy-handed, as has been alleged? Absolutely not.
Lest you believe Mueller's office or the Justice Department decides how many agents are deployed for an arrest, and what type of hardware they’re armed with, you’re mistaken. The FBI makes that call. Prosecutors draft indictments and litigate in court on behalf of The People. They leave the sweet science of apprehension tactics and techniques to other professionals.
Having been involved in the planning and execution of hundreds of early morning arrests like this one, nothing appeared to be “irregular.” This was a “knock and announce” warrant service, not to be confused with a “no knock” (exigent circumstances) arrest warrant. FBI special agents were prepared to employ mechanical breaching tools to enter Stone's home if the occupant delayed their passage.
Stone was not afforded an opportunity for a self-surrender, negotiated through his attorney, because there were concerns he may have been a flight risk (Stone insists he doesn’t own a passport) or that he may have destroyed evidence had there been warning of the coming indictment. Therefore, the FBI would have been directed to take Stone into custody. The means and methods are then left to the FBI.
Some have speculated it was overkill treatment of an elderly man, eradicating the proverbial gnat with a hammer. But some of the most dangerous encounters I experienced in my 25-year FBI career didn’t necessarily come when apprehending career street criminals or violent gang members. It was often the unassuming, benign in appearance, white-collar fraudster, corrupt politician, or senior church member infected by pedophilia. These lawbreakers and miscreants weren’t adorned with tattoos or menacing glowers. But they had a lot to lose, and in their moment of reckoning, sufficiently panicked, they often acted irrationally — choosing to hurt themselves or attack the (blessedly) armed instruments of the state sent to apprehend them.
To those pearl-clutchers raising alarms about “armed FBI agents,” you must be made aware that FBI agents were granted arrest powers and authority to carry firearms back when Congress passed a series of anti-crime legislation back in the summer of 1934, precipitated by an agent’s murder during the Kansas City Massacre of 1933.
That’s why “armed FBI agent” is such a foolish redundancy. As far as Stone’s inaccurate, hyperbolic characterization of agents armed with “grenades,” it deserves no response.
So spare me the “they didn’t need that many people for one arrest” proselytizing. You don’t know that of which you speak. In the FBI, we tend to defuse situations by removing the fight-or-flight inclination, via our overwhelming presence. To arrest one, we bring 10. For 10, we’ll bring 100. And yet, we still have a wall loaded with photos of our service martyrs. None of them expected to lose their life on that particular day.
|
