After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
he...shot
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
Personally I don't think the government can just say "I'm allowed to be here!" and its suddenly not trespassing and grants them full domain. Because otherwise no, you can't just invade someone else's property then shoot their dog when he reacts. But that's just splitting hairs at this point.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there.
Well this wasn't a cop, who have much lower standards for training and expectations for their ability to respond. This is a top level federal agent in one of the highest trained and expectations positions for shooting. And if the ATF wants to act like they are a military force (which history has shown they clearly feel like that are an above reproach military unit), then their situations are held to the much higher standards of that.
Especially when firing on American soil. While I'd like cops to be held accountable when they fuck up and kill someone, I get why it happens at times (like in your example). But when you bring a military force at your own citizens, you are absolutely at the highest accountability and every single action must be made with the utmost perfection.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
They can be responsible as all possible for creating the situation, but no one but him pulled the trigger. He had the choice to take no action at all, which given all the listed excuses he was in every right to do so, but he didn't. Which means he still bares all the responsibility for what they action did.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
Personally I don't think the government can just say "I'm allowed to be here!" and its suddenly not trespassing and grants them full domain. Because otherwise no, you can't just invade someone else's property then shoot their dog when he reacts. But that's just splitting hairs at this point.
Well this wasn't a cop, who have much lower standards for training and expectations for their ability to respond. This is a top level federal agent in one of the highest trained and expectations positions for shooting. And if the ATF wants to act like they are a military force (which history has shown they clearly feel like that are an above reproach military unit), then their situations are held to the much higher standards of that.
Especially when firing on American soil. While I'd like cops to be held accountable when they fuck up and kill someone, I get why it happens at times (like in your example). But when you bring a military force at your own citizens, you are absolutely at the highest accountability and every single action must be made with the utmost perfection.
They can be responsible as all possible for creating the situation, but no one but him pulled the trigger. He had the choice to take no action at all, which given all the listed excuses he was in every right to do so, but he didn't. Which means he still bares all the responsibility for what they action did.