Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first? Point being, there wouldn’t need to be someone to “start it” if they just claimed there was.
Even if we could later prove they lied it would be too late at that point.
You realize we're in the land of fantasy now. We are imagining some super violent event. About something that already happened with not only no violence, but without even the hint of violence.
If we are going deep into the world of imagination, what's to prevent the Secret Service from opening fire on Trump or soldiers or any other government employee who is given a gun?
Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first?
Like if you think this was a real possible, thing, how would the standard FBI policy prevent this? You're describing straight up criminal activity. What you are describing is absolutely NOT ALLOWED under the standard FBI policy.
What you're describing violates multiple parts of the FBI policy on deadly force which IS ALL ABOUT THE LIMITS on the FBI.
Specifically it would violate the duty of an FBI agent to intervene if another FBI agent did as you said
1-16.400 - AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO INTERVENE
Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to intervene to prevent or stop, as appropriate, any officer from engaging in excessive force or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or Department policies on the reasonable use of force.
It would also violate this section
This policy is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officer or employees, or any other person.
Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first? Point being, there wouldn’t need to be someone to “start it” if they just claimed there was.
Even if we could later prove they lied it would be too late at that point.
You realize we're in the land of fantasy now. We are imagining some super violent event. About something that already happened with not only no violence, but without even the hint of violence.
If we are going deep into the world of imagination, what's to prevent the Secret Service from opening fire on Trump or soldiers or any other government employee who is given a gun?
Like if you think this was a real possible, thing, how would the standard FBI policy prevent this? You're describing straight up criminal activity. What you are describing is absolutely NOT ALLOWED under the standard FBI policy.
Have you read it? https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force
What you're describing violates multiple parts of the FBI policy on deadly force which IS ALL ABOUT THE LIMITS on the FBI.
Specifically it would violate the duty of an FBI agent to intervene if another FBI agent did as you said
It would also violate this section
We live under a government that doesn’t follow the rules though.
This event already happened. There was no violence. There was no threat of violence. No one has complained of violence.
What are we doing here?