FBI’s Deadly Force Policy During Mar-a-Lago Raid Uncovered!

Not much shocks me anymore. I’ve witnessed plenty of troubling things, but this one takes the cake. Late last night, as I was scrolling through my feed, I stumbled upon an unbelievable revelation from a newly unsealed court filing. This document provided shocking insights into the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022. It revealed that the FBI’s “operations order” included a “policy statement” authorizing the use of deadly force. This revelation got me thinking about the legal and ethical implications of such an approach, especially considering the high stakes involved in raiding a former president’s property.

EPISODE 615 OF THE DON’T UNFRIEND ME SHOW: 🔊LISTEN 🎥WATCH

[wpcode id=”2759″]

As someone who has worked in both the Navy, Master-At-Arms TDY, and as a government intelligence analyst, I understand the gravity and potential danger of law enforcement operations. The use of deadly force is a serious matter, and it is typically justified only when there is an imminent threat to the lives of law enforcement officers or others. The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established that deadly force could be used when an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. This principle is fundamental to law enforcement policies across the country, including those of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

However, the details of the Mar-a-Lago raid raise serious questions. The fact that the FBI planned to bring standard issue weapons, ammo, handcuffs, and bolt cutters suggests a high level of preparedness for potential violence. This, despite knowing that Trump would not be present during the raid, as he was in New York at the time. This kind of preparedness seems excessive for a raid that, by all accounts, did not anticipate any resistance.

Moreover, the presence of Secret Service agents, who are trained to defend the president and former presidents with their lives, adds another layer of complexity. If there had been any confrontation, it’s likely that the Secret Service would have intervened to protect Trump, potentially leading to a catastrophic outcome. The mere authorization of deadly force in such a scenario feels like an unnecessary escalation. Knowing that the Secret Service’s primary duty is to protect the president, the situation could have easily spiraled out of control if they perceived a threat.

The raid itself was described by Trump’s legal team as an “armed storming” of a private residence. They argued that it was unconstitutional, violating Trump’s attorney-client privilege, and serving more as a political maneuver than a legal necessity. The search warrant, which allowed for a broad and invasive search of the 17-acre estate, including areas unrelated to the investigation, further supports this view. The warrant’s scope included rooms like a gym, a kitchen, Melania Trump’s master bedroom suite, and a child’s bedroom suite used by Trump’s son, Barron. This broad search raises questions about the specificity and justification for such an extensive operation.

From my perspective, this operation seems less about law enforcement and more about intimidation. The agents seized hundreds of documents, including Trump’s personal belongings and even his passport. This level of intrusion, coupled with the readiness to use deadly force, appears to be a blatant attempt to send a message rather than merely gather evidence. The fact that they removed Trump’s passport indicates a level of thoroughness that goes beyond the typical scope of such raids.

The presence of a detailed contingency plan also indicates a high level of anticipation for potential violence. The plan included having paramedics on-site and identifying the nearest trauma center, complete with an address and phone number. This level of preparation suggests that the agents were expecting the possibility of injuries. Moreover, the agents were instructed to wear unmarked polo or collared shirts and to keep their law enforcement equipment concealed, further indicating a desire to blend in and potentially avoid detection until necessary. This would lead to even more confusion and the risk of mistaken identity, exacerbating an already volatile situation.

In my experience, both in the military and intelligence fields, the use of force must always be the last resort, carefully considered and justified by the circumstances. The Mar-a-Lago raid appears to have inverted this principle, making force a ready option rather than a reluctant necessity. The fact that they included the possibility of engaging with Trump and the U.S. Secret Service in their plan shows a readiness for confrontation that seems excessive given the context.

This situation brings to mind several past incidents where the use of deadly force by law enforcement has been called into question. In many cases, the justification for such force is scrutinized, especially when it results in unnecessary harm or fatalities. The Mar-a-Lago raid, with its potential for deadly force, risks adding to this problematic history. For instance, consider the case of Breonna Taylor, where the use of force during a no-knock raid led to her tragic death. These situations highlight the critical need for stringent oversight and justification when authorizing the use of deadly force.

The broader implications of this raid are troubling. It suggests a willingness within parts of our law enforcement agencies to risk an “accidental” confrontation that could have had deadly consequences. In a scenario involving a high-profile figure like Trump, the potential for things to go wrong is significant. Such actions erode trust in law enforcement and the justice system, painting them as tools for political vendettas rather than impartial enforcers of the law. The perception that this raid was politically motivated, especially given its timing and execution, cannot be ignored.

I can’t help but wonder if this raid was designed to provoke a response. Knowing that Trump was not there, was the deadly force policy in place just in case someone else in the residence reacted defensively? The whole situation seems engineered to maximize tension and potential conflict. The fact that agents were prepared to engage with the Secret Service indicates a level of anticipation for violence that seems disproportionate to the actual threat.

LATEST EPISODE: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE

This approach is dangerous and counterproductive. Law enforcement should be about upholding the law, not creating scenarios where violence becomes a likelihood. The presence of paramedics and plans for contingencies during the raid indicate that they anticipated potential violence, which further underscores the recklessness of the operation. This level of preparedness for potential violence is not typical for such raids and suggests a significant overestimation of the threat.The unsealed court filing reveals more than just the operational details of the Mar-a-Lago raid; it exposes a troubling mindset within parts of our law enforcement agencies. The readiness to use deadly force, the broad search warrant, and the political undertones suggest a dangerous precedent. It’s a reminder that we must always scrutinize the actions of those in power, ensuring that justice remains blind and not influenced by political motivations. The use of deadly force should always be a last resort, justified by clear and present danger, not a tool for political gain. This raid has set a concerning example of how power can be wielded in ways that threaten the very principles of justice and fairness.