There’s good reason to believe that the FBI would have a generally lower rate of bad shootings because unlike a city police force, the FBI agents tend to be older, better trained, more experienced, and perhaps most importantly, they’re not patrolling the streets and responding to in-progress crimes and chaotic situations. When they go in to sort-of arresting people and so forth, it tends to be preplanned operations where they go in with overwhelming force and that’s going to minimize chaos. And yet, they still killed or wounded 150 people over 20 years and it’s kind of remarkable that not once in all that time, even in an instant where the Bureau ended up paying over $1 million to someone who was shot by an agent, did they find internally that that was not a justified shooting.
AMY GOODMAN: Charlie Savage, you referred in this piece, to the settlement of $1 million of a man shot in 2002. Can you describe that case?
CHARLIE SAVAGE: Let me preface it by saying why this is a case worth looking at. It is not that the case is particularly different than others, although there are some oddities about it, and it is over a decade old, but what is interesting about it is it’s a rare exception to the rule that there is nothing to look at but the FBI’s own narrative of what happened. In this case there was an independent investigation by a local police detective with the Anne Arundel County Police, and there was a lawsuit that led to discovery before it was finally settled and there was some additional investigations that were conducted as part of that litigation. And so, there was a lot of alternative information to put alongside the FBI’s own version of events to see at least whether they dovetailed or there were some discrepancies. And there were discrepancies.
So, this was a bizarre case. The FBI was looking for a bank robbery suspect that they thought was going to be coming by convenience store in a white baseball cap, in a car driven by his sister, and unfortunately, another man fitting that description who was innocent, Joseph Shultz, came by in a white baseball cap in a car driven by his girlfriend. So, the FBI thought he was the bank robbery suspect and chased down the car, turned on the sirens, swarmed around him, forced it over, surrounded it with guns, and just a moment later, shot Mr. Shultz — and agent shot Mr. Shultz in the face.
And he, miraculously, survived. The bullet deflected off a piece of metal on the clip that holds the seat belt, and so it sort of hit his jaw rather than his head. But, he underwent facial reconstruction surgery and the FBI eventually paid $1.3 million, or I guess I should say should say taxpayers paid $1.3 million to him to settle that lawsuit. And yet, internally, the FBI deemed this to have been a good shoot. The internal report shows that one member of the panel that was looking at this actually did not think so, but he was outvoted by the rest of them who said that the totality of circumstances surrounding this incident, including that it was a high risk stop, showed that they could not fault the agent for pulling the trigger. But, when you look at the FBI narrative, that was submitted to that panel for review, and you put it along side these alternatives, you see that in a series of small but important ways the narrative omitted information or exaggerated information in a way that made it much more sympathetic to the agent who pulled the trigger than these alternative reports, including the one by this police detective who is a neutral party, obviously, looked like.
So, for example, the FBI report spends a full page describing what happened after they turned on the siren and the lights until they finally pulled over the car. They make it sound like it was a very extended chase. They talk about how the car rapidly accelerated, and the FBI agents had to pull up along side it and shout over and over and over again for them to pull over and finally brought it to rest, maybe 100 yards away — “approximately 100 yards away.” That was a quote. And then, when you look at the alternative reports, though, first of all, a forensic crash reconstruction specialist said the car could of been going no more than 12 miles an hour. The police detective noted that it was in a merge lane so it would have had to accelerate a little bit. And an internal sketch created by the FBI but not included in this report, put the car stopped just 142 feet from the intersection, not 100 yards. So, less than half the distance. So, the FBI’s report created the sense of quite a chase that would have made it more reasonable to assume that the person in the car was a desperate and dangerous person.
Another example is the FBI’s report that was sent to this review group did not contain anything from the statement by the victim and it did not flag that that a crucial fact was in dispute. The crucial fact was, how did this guy move before the agent shot him? In the FBI’s report, it says that the agent who shot him said, “Show me your hands.” Instead he moved. In fact he moved down and to his left, and so he thought was reaching for a gun or something and shot him to eliminate the threat to himself and to his fellow law enforcement officials. And that is what that guy said, the agent. But, the victim said, no, he had been moving to the right because another agent was simultaneously shot and open the door. He was listening to that agent. So, what is true is not knowable, but the fact that this was a disputed fact is relevant, and yet that was not put in the FBI’s narrative. It only came out because of the alternative investigations, which the review panel, which deemed this to be a good shoot, did not see.
AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Schultz said that he was responding to another officer telling him to open the door. Is that right?
CHARLIE SAVAGE: That is right. So, he’s saying the guy was saying, “open the door,” so I was reaching to my right to open the door, as opposed to the agent who shot him who said he saw him reaching down and to the left. Again not knowable at this stage which of those two accounts is true, but, the relevant issue is, the FBI’s internal review panel that deemed this a good shoot did not have that information in front of them, in the narrative at least, that was prepared by the shooting incident review team.
Now, again, this is more than a decade ago. This is one incident. And it is not knowable, to me at least, at this stage whether this is in aberration or is this something that would happen more often, because the overwhelming majority of the time, there is no alternative investigation, there is no lawsuit that doesn’t get dismissed right away by a judge for a motion for summary judgment without reaching the stage of discovery and having this kind of evidence collected. And of course, most of the time, the people who are being shot are in fact criminal suspects, they are the people who — the drug dealer, whoever, who was going to go and be arrested. And so, so there is not a lot of public sympathy, I think, or interest in the judiciary in looking at those cases. The oddness of this one particular case were was a totally innocent victim overcame those hurdles, convinced the Anne Arundel Police Department that they wanted to do their own investigation, convinced the judge and the courts to let it get to discovery, and that is how we know that in this case something was odd.
AMY GOODMAN: Charlie savage, you said you got over 2100 pages from the FBI. Did you uncover any information about the killing of Filiberto Ojeda Rios, the 72-year-old Puerto Rican independence activist who was shot dead by the FBI in 2005, and according to an autopsy, he bled to death after being hit with a single bullet? Officials did not enter his home until the following day, many hours after he was shot. He was wanted by the FBI for his role in a 1983 bank heist. Did you see anything about him?
CHARLIE SAVAGE: I did not look carefully at that case. I’m not sure if that is in the [section] of documents or not. I put them all up on the — our Times website, and I invite any viewers who know anything about particular incidents going back in 1993, to go look at that and see if they think that the FBI’s internal narrative matches their understanding of what happened. There are a handful of incidents that did not go through this process. The Justice Department’s Inspector General has the right to take away a shooting incident investigation from the FBI at the onset. There was one from Puerto Rico, I’m not sure if that is the one or if it involved a police officer who shot from about five or six years ago, that was not in this document set because the IG had done his own report which is on their website as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we did a search of the documents you put on line, and this is not in those 2100 pages.