Malinowski murder by ATF

#277
#277
McDad said:
Do you recall the illegal stuff this guy was doing (or accused of doing)? if so, can you repost?
Click to expand...
from my first post:

www.ualrpublicradio.org

Congressional hearing held over Malinowski raid

Republicans on the subcommittee say the incident is a further attack on gun owners, while Democrats point out that Malinowski shot at ATF agents before he was killed.
www.ualrpublicradio.org

"An affidavit written by the ATF detailed at least six instances where a gun was found with someone in commission of a crime and three other instances where Malinowski sold guns to undercover ATF agents.

During Wednesday's hearing, Bud Cummins, an attorney for Malinowski's family, said his client crossed “a very murky line” with the gun sales, but said the events of that morning “made him angry.” Later in the hearing, he admitted that his client shot at ATF agents before he was killed."

what I missed is it sounds like this guy had had an interaction with the cops already that day, which upset him. kinda opens the door on this not being a complete natural reaction to self defense to unknown intruders.

also the raid was at 6am. thats hardly a 1am raid in the dead of night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#278
#278
Rasputin_Vol said:
A question I have that still hasn't quit be cleared up for me.

But was there a recent change in the law that made the ATF modify their enforcement of FFLs or was this something that they decided to reinterpret? If it is the former, then this a clear overreach and violation of Article I and II. The Legislative branch can't be overruled/usurped by the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

The ATF changed the regulations outside of congress passing a law, since the Chevron vs Natural Resources Defense Council ruling in 1984 all federal agencies were given carte blanche to write rules, and laws on their own unless the legislation passed is clear and unambiguous. SCOTUS is due to rule on a case challenging this precedent pretty soon and it's imperative they reverse this ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#279
#279
LSU-SIU said:
Its premeditated as they setup the guy to be killed. Its no different than putting a swinging axe above the door and waiting for family member to come walking through. Sure its possible the family member doesn't get killed, or goes into another door.... its still premeditation to kill someone or attempt to.

They clearly setup the situation for the guy to possibly be killed. If successful murder, if unsuccessful attempted murder.

This was attempted murder even if no shots were fired and the guy never died. They were trying to kill him.
Click to expand...
That's a stretch for me.

Understand your point. Simply disagree.
 
#281
#281
McDad said:
You sending me on a Snipe hunt?

Post 113 is by Louder.
Click to expand...

Sorry #133

hog88 said:
I can speculate on how this went down because about 15 or so years ago the ATF nailed a guy I know. At the time he was 60something, retired Navy corpsman, retired from something else (can't remember what) and his hobby was buying, refurbishing and selling/trading guns. He bought, sold/traded 30-40 guns a year and the ATF pulled a sting on him. Agent got to know him, then vouched for some guys that couldn't legally own guns just to get "Doc" to sell to them. That went on for awhile, the agent even sold "Doc" some stolen guns and of course he turned around and sold some. Doc ended up a convicted felon although his plea deal kept him from going to prison and on pretty restrictive probation until the day he died.

Now since the ATF changed the rules as to who needs to have their FLL I suspect they knew this guy was doing some buying and selling so they decided to set him up in order to make him an example then it dawned on them he had the means and backing to fight it in court so they offed him.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#282
#282
McDad said:
That's a stretch for me.

Understand your point. Simply disagree.
Click to expand...

Realistically, to get a murder conviction on these people would be very tough, an attempted murder charge almost impossible. The reason I say that is, nobody would have done the digging if someone wasn't shot or killed.

A ton of people should be in jail though.
 
#283
#283
LouderVol said:
from my first post:

www.ualrpublicradio.org

Congressional hearing held over Malinowski raid

Republicans on the subcommittee say the incident is a further attack on gun owners, while Democrats point out that Malinowski shot at ATF agents before he was killed.
www.ualrpublicradio.org

"An affidavit written by the ATF detailed at least six instances where a gun was found with someone in commission of a crime and three other instances where Malinowski sold guns to undercover ATF agents.

During Wednesday's hearing, Bud Cummins, an attorney for Malinowski's family, said his client crossed “a very murky line” with the gun sales, but said the events of that morning “made him angry.” Later in the hearing, he admitted that his client shot at ATF agents before he was killed."

what I missed is it sounds like this guy had had an interaction with the cops already that day, which upset him. kinda opens the door on this not being a complete natural reaction to self defense to unknown intruders.

also the raid was at 6am. thats hardly a 1am raid in the dead of night.
Click to expand...
@hog88 @82_VOL_83 @LSU-SIU
Yall sticking to your guns (pun intended) or does Louder's post not sway you at all?
 
#287
#287
hog88 said:
They coaxed him into breaking the law.
Click to expand...
They were bad actors in that approach.

But he made the decisions.

I don't know the rules on "entrapment". Maybe what they did meets that standard.
 
#289
#289
Rasputin_Vol said:
A question I have that still hasn't quit be cleared up for me.

But was there a recent change in the law that made the ATF modify their enforcement of FFLs or was this something that they decided to reinterpret? If it is the former, then this a clear overreach and violation of Article I and II. The Legislative branch can't be overruled/usurped by the Executive branch.
Click to expand...
Without me digging deep I "think" this is what might be in question.

reason.com

Second Amendment Roundup: ATF redefines “engaged in the business”

ATF's Final Rule Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in Firearms amounts to 466 pages of responses…
reason.com reason.com
 
#290
#290
LouderVol said:
from my first post:

www.ualrpublicradio.org

Congressional hearing held over Malinowski raid

Republicans on the subcommittee say the incident is a further attack on gun owners, while Democrats point out that Malinowski shot at ATF agents before he was killed.
www.ualrpublicradio.org

"An affidavit written by the ATF detailed at least six instances where a gun was found with someone in commission of a crime and three other instances where Malinowski sold guns to undercover ATF agents.

During Wednesday's hearing, Bud Cummins, an attorney for Malinowski's family, said his client crossed “a very murky line” with the gun sales, but said the events of that morning “made him angry.” Later in the hearing, he admitted that his client shot at ATF agents before he was killed."

what I missed is it sounds like this guy had had an interaction with the cops already that day, which upset him. kinda opens the door on this not being a complete natural reaction to self defense to unknown intruders.

also the raid was at 6am. thats hardly a 1am raid in the dead of night.
Click to expand...
I read that as the attorney was angered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and EasternVol
#292
#292
McDad said:
@hog88 @82_VOL_83 @LSU-SIU
Yall sticking to your guns (pun intended) or does Louder's post not sway you at all?
Click to expand...
Not at all. He was within his rights to shoot the armed intruders especially when the power was cut and the doorbell camera was blocked. You come through a door by kicking it down, you are armed, I am shooting you. I don't want to shoot you but I am not going to be nice and ask if you are armed, who you are and would you like to have some coffee while we discuss it. My training says do your best to determine the threat and then end it. The ATF were CLEARLY a threat. 6am here is it daylight. The recording that I saw was dark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#293
#293
McDad said:
@hog88 @82_VOL_83 @LSU-SIU
Yall sticking to your guns (pun intended) or does Louder's post not sway you at all?
Click to expand...

No. Not just based on that. If he was indicted maybe things would change slightly but they shouldn't be what they were doing, they were trying to cover their tracks on a crime.

I think a jury would convict these guys solely on this stuff, of course, there could be other things that could impact my own opinion.

In regular English, these guys murdered him based solely on the information in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#294
#294
McDad said:
They were bad actors in that approach.

But he made the decisions.

I don't know the rules on "entrapment". Maybe what they did meets that standard.
Click to expand...

True he made the decision but as I said earlier he was entirely too trusting. The whole thing just crushed him, he was the epitome of the baby boomer "USA" "USA" guy and I'm convinced the case contributed to his death. It just robbed him of his spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#295
#295
McDad said:
I disagree with the lawyere's approach that Louder referenced. But that viewpoint it is a fair ask...if you cannot ID a gun, you shouldn't shoot. If you can, why could you not ID marking and badges?

I also agree with others here who take the position, if someone breaks into my home at night the ASSUMPTION is this is a bad person here to do bad things and ultimate defense is viable.
Click to expand...
Silhouettes maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#297
#297
82_VOL_83 said:
Not at all. He was within his rights to shoot the armed intruders especially when the power was cut and the doorbell camera was blocked. You come through a door by kicking it down, you are armed, I am shooting you. I don't want to shoot you but I am not going to be nice and ask if you are armed, who you are and would you like to have some coffee while we discuss it. My training says do your best to determine the threat and then end it. The ATF were CLEARLY a threat. 6am here is it daylight. The recording that I saw was dark.
Click to expand...
He acted in a way many of us can relate to. But the LEOs were there legally (also stupidly) and him acting in a way that is relatable resulted in his death.
If this were brought before a jury of which i was on, I would judge the LEOs guilty of manslaughter.
IF the guy lived, and I were on a jury, I would find him innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and 82_VOL_83
#298
#298
LSU-SIU said:
No. Not just based on that. If he was indicted maybe things would change slightly but they shouldn't be what they were doing, they were trying to cover their tracks on a crime.

I think a jury would convict these guys solely on this stuff, of course, there could be other things that could impact my own opinion.

In regular English, these guys murdered him based solely on the information in this thread.
Click to expand...
What crime are they covering in your opinion..the murder of the man or something else?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top