The FBI And Craig Robertson:  Time For A Deep Breath And Demand For Accountability. “Truth never damages a cause that is just.” (Mahatma Gandhi) Been reading a lot about the FBI shooting and killing Craig Robertson, and thought I’d weigh in with my two cents.  Alas, to do so I’m violating my 48-hour rule, which is I don’t comment on things of importance for 48 hours because information available prior to that time is more-often-than not incomplete, often inaccurate, and at times just false.  However, in this case I think it’s warranted to suspend that rule. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything the government has released about Robertson is correct.  Let’s also assume that everything the press implies about Robertson is accurate: He made credible threats against the President and federal law enforcement officers; He was capable of carrying out the threats he made; He was mentally unstable; He owned a large number of firearms; He owned a “sniper rifle;” He owned a “ghillie suit;” and He was a “MAGA” Trump supporter; If all of this is correct, and let’s assume it is for the sake of argument, then at least Robertson earned himself a visit from the FBI and could under the law be arrested and charged with several felonies.  Those are givens.  What is not a given, is should the FBI have used deadly force, which resulted in Robertson’s death. Social Media (SM) has exploded over the issue, with some screaming that Robertson got what he deserved and others screaming that the FBI murdered him.  Additionally, the press is implying that killing Robertson was justified because he was a nut who posted multiple threats and had several firearms.  At this point, all that can be said is that both sides of SM debate are jumping to conclusions firmly grounded in the shifting sand of high tide and the Press is being irresponsible at best. FBI agents may use deadly force only “when the agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person. If feasible, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent is given prior to the use of deadly force.”  In other words, the FBI can only use deadly force if there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury to an agent or bystander.  This policy is the same as that used by all police agencies throughout the country, both federal and state.[i] The government has not released much information.  At the time of this writing what we know is Robertson was 75 and reportedly in “frail health.”  We also know he owned several firearms; his neighbors estimate he owned more than twenty.  A photo of him sitting in front of his loading bench shows 39 boxes of reloading dies, at least 14 different types of powder for reloading ammunition, several bags of spent brass, a reloading press, and assorted other reloading tools. This is more equipment than I have, but substantially less equipment than some people I know.  Further, it is all legal and does not show there was an imminent threat to the arresting agents or others…at best it shows he had the means to be dangerous if he so decided. However, once again taking everything the government and press has stated to date as true – attempting to arrest a mentally unstable, self-proclaimed “MAGA” Trump supporter, who owns a large number of firearms, a ghillie suit, and who made credible threats that he’s capable of carrying out does not mean he posed an imminent threat.  It means he was capable of posing an imminent threat.  It means he may have been dangerous.  It means the agents certainly should have used caution in arresting him.  But that is all irrelevant as to whether the FBI should have shot and killed him.  The only thing that is relevant is, if at the time of the shooting did Robertson pose an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to the agents or another.  Did he?  I don’t know and at this point no one knows, except those involved in the shooting. In my view three things should happen.  First, those on SM should take a deep breath and stop yelling that Robertson deserved to die or the FBI murdered him.  Second the Press should refrain from implicitly painting Robertson as a crazed madman hell bent on shooting every politician, prosecutor, and law enforcement officer he disagrees with.  Third, the FBI’s investigation of the shooting, which they have begun, must be transparent, thorough, and honest. With trust in the government at all-time lows, it’s imperative the FBI be completely aboveboard in its investigation.  The full report must be released with the only redactions being personal information such as social security numbers, address, phone numbers etc.  However, the names of the agents involved in the shooting should be released, just like state and local police departments release the names of officers involved in shootings.  If any agents committed a criminal act they must be prosecuted.  If any agents were negligent, they must be disciplined accordingly.  On the opposite side of the coin, if Robertson did pose an imminent threat that should be clearly stated, and the agents praised for their actions. I cannot over emphasize the importance of an aboveboard and transparent investigation.  Any perception that the FBI is not being transparent and honest will only lead to a further erosion of trust in those two institutions – which is already dangerously low.[ii] Don’t get me wrong, making threats against anyone is stupid, making threats against the president – regardless of political party – is stupid squared.  However, there are laws on the books that address both of these issues, and none of them call for the death penalty.  So, once again the question that must be answered before any others is simply did Robertson pose an imminent threat of … Continue reading The FBI And Craig Robertson