Originally posted by Maxmars
There seems to be some confusion regarding the facts. And some interesting inferences being drawn by those who note them.
While Federal law stipulates that the FBI need not execute specific warrants to arrest suspects, being sought and detained by them does not mean you
are guilty.
They sought to forcefully restrain a suspect - the firefight was caused by that action. That crime (resisting arrest) is separate from the cause they
had for 'requesting' his surrender.
And yes, I find it ironic that some would justify the label "Islamist" and the presumption of guilt as telling of purposeful implication.
I don't doubt the story - only the tellers. I confess that I start with a bias to believe that the intent is to offer news for consumption. Which
is why I don't like it when the headline reads like a caricature of law enforcement heroism versus backward or wrong-thinking 'different' people.
I see all of your points, and I do agree with your statements. It is certainly a mistake to presume guilt, because we are supposed to be innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law.
The points that I see being made in the story are about the fact that he was instigating violence against the U.S., jihad, and wanting Shariah Law.
The reason I think all of this is important in the story is the simple fact he was stated to be a leader, and I believe we all know how dangerous cult
types of personalities can be, regardless of their religion.
However, I do think also even though there was no mention of a warrant specifically, that the legal channels had been followed, based on a few quotes
from the article.
Ten followers listed in a criminal complaint
In a court filing, the FBI said Abdullah
No one was charged with terrorism....FBI agent Gary Leone said in an affidavit
said the FBI had briefed him about Wednesday's raids and told him they were the result of a two-year investigation.
Those above statments quoted from the story wold lead a logical person to infer there were warrants involved. Certainly an assumption, but an educated
one, no?
Arrest is based on probable cause, and at the very least, investigation is based on reasonable suspicion.
If they had been investigating this for two years or more, I can also reasonably assume they have recorded evidence, which I am certain will come out
later.
Regardless of the fact that he resisted arrest and this was not one of the crimes probably listed on the warrant, he did resist, and he fired first
according to the story.
Abdullah refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.
I do have one difference of opinion in that they were not requesting his surrender, they did have very right to demand it. That what arrest is by
it's very definition, and hence why people that have the powers of arrest do.
I do also believe news is offered for consumption, I think that's a given, but I also feel the basis of consumption can be an important one. If it is
consumption for sensationalism, that's one thing. I personally do not feel this story was written for that purpose, hence my replies.
I do think that we as a nation have to let go of some of the political correctness, and realize there are people who take their religions so
fanatically, they think it is ok to cut off peoples' heads.
These are extremists, and by no means am I classifying Islamists as all being extreme, but simply pointing out the fact that they are intolerant of
people that disagree with them based on religion. That is the story, and the cause for his apparent violence, and indeed, the basis behind the
investigation as I read the story.
News for consumption for educating, warning, or advising, is far different from news based on consumption for ratings or sensationalism. I just do not
see this story being based for either.
