Well, you could argue that the FBI is just really well trained:
Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations.
In that time, Federal agents have shot and killed seventy people, wounded eighty more, and there are 289 total files on “deliberate shootings.” Five of those deliberate shootings were deemed “bad shoots,” but none of the bad shoots resulted in anyone actually being shot. Over the course of two decades, that’s not a tremendous amount of shooting. But it sure is a long time to go without even one agent shooting someone when they shouldn’t have.
This could be largely because the FBI is very good at what they do, at least when it comes to apprehending suspects. But no organization is perfect. There must be something wrong with how they investigate deliberate shootings, don’t you think?
There was a shooting in Maryland in 2002 which caused the FBI to pay out $1.3 million in a settlement, yet internally they deemed the shooting justified.
Obviously, this is coming up now because a FBI agent shot and killed Ibragim Todashev, an associate of the Boston Marathon bombers, while interrogating him in Orlando, Florida. And, so far, they can’t seem to get their story straight about why.
In the Orlando case, for example, there have been conflicting accounts about basic facts like whether the Chechen man, Ibragim Todashev, attacked an agent with a knife, was unarmed or was brandishing a metal pole. But Orlando homicide detectives are not independently investigating what happened.
“We had nothing to do with it,” said Sgt. Jim Young, an Orlando police spokesman. “It’s a federal matter, and we’re deferring everything to the F.B.I.”
Somehow, regardless of the facts, I suspect that the FBI will determine this a “good shoot.” Why mess with perfection?