Law Airport executive shot in firefight with federal agents at his home in Arkansas

[Sweater of AV]

You're not the only one. You just have more stamina than many. I agree completely. The only real reason to suspect they did anything wrong is prior bad acts by (most likely) entirely different individuals. At the same time, there's no reason to be sure they did nothing wrong either. It's a time to just wait and see, clearly.

I meant the only one out of people who keep responding to me with obviously biased positions. The person was implying that stance wasn't being taken. I know there are other reasonable people.

Unfortunately, having patience isn't very common around here.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I have read the thread but I can't be bothered to go back and check the exact details. So if something is slightly wrong here go ahead and point it out.

Man sells up to 150 guns illegally, some of which have been linked to serious crimes.
The ATF roll up with a search warrant and go knock knock, ATF open up.
He opens fire on them, wounding one, and gets shot, incapacitated, and dies in hospital.

That's a pretty reasonable general description but I'd still like to know exactly how agents announced and entered, or whether they even had the chance to enter before he started shooting.

The Constitution-thumping Don't Tread On Me brigade have his back. Probably because he was an upper middle class, middle aged White man from a southern state. If the same thing happened with a 22 year old Black man who worked as a cleaner in inner city Philadelphia, they would be on the agents' side 110%.

I wanted to say this but I also didn't want to make people more upset than they already were lol.

 

[Andy Capp]

I do surprise people like that sometimes.

So, in which thread are you trolling? Both?

 

[spamking]

I have read the thread but I can't be bothered to go back and check the exact details. So if something is slightly wrong here go ahead and point it out.

Sure thing . . .

Man sells up to 150 guns illegally, some of which have been linked to serious crimes.

Private sales in and of themselves aren't illegal. Up until recently, the ATF basically ignored the concept of "in the business of selling firearms". The Agency decided to try and firm up the definition last August under rule 2022R-17.

Read through the warrant, it'll clear up some details, but not all . . .

The ATF roll up with a search warrant and go knock knock, ATF open up. He opens fire on them, wounding one, and gets shot, incapacitated, and dies in hospital.

This is the part that's not very clear and where most of us who have an issue with the incident. They had the guy under surveillance for months and had probably collected sufficient evidence to detain him at some time other than 6am at his home. We don't know how the warrant was served. The ATF is supposed to announce before entry. They're not required to wait until the door is opened for them. Many of us are assuming it was a no-knock warrant or at the very least an announce and enter. Which at 6am who would be shocked that it was met with resistance? It's not shocking that a gun owner might open fire on someone barging (if it was a no-knock or if entry was made before he opened the door for them) in at 6am.

The Constitution-thumping Don't Tread On Me brigade have his back. Probably because he was an upper middle class, middle aged White man from a southern state. If the same thing happened with a 22 year old Black man who worked as a cleaner in inner city Philadelphia, they would be on the agents' side 110%.

I think you'd be greatly surprised at how many of us 2A folks would view the ATF the same exact way regardless of the color of the person getting detained or being served with the warrant.

 

[spamking]

Perhaps not by you, but by several others ITT it has been.

Not sure if you're lumping me in that group, but while I said I completely understand why he may have opened fire, I never said it was the right thing to do. It's just a horrible situation all around. I hope some day LEOs realize how bad no-knock or announce and enter methods to serve warrants are . . .

 

[650lb Sumo]

So, in which thread are you trolling? Both?

I attack where it's less expected.

Convenient links for anyone who hadn't seen them:

The 51 page affidavit
The warrant

 

[Belaya Smert]

I attack where it's less expected.

Convenient links for anyone who hadn't seen them:

The 51 page affidavit
The warrant

It appears as I speculated earlier in the thread that Mr. Malinowski was under the impression his private part sales were legal after he took procession of the firearm.

 

[StewDogg11]

I’m sure the evidence is as real as the moon landing and jet fuels ability to melt steel.

Just Google “The Boys on the Tracks”

 

[650lb Sumo]

Sure thing . . .



Private sales in and of themselves aren't illegal. Up until recently, the ATF basically ignored the concept of "in the business of selling firearms". The Agency decided to try and firm up the definition last August under rule 2022R-17.

Read through the warrant, it'll clear up some details, but not all . . .



This is the part that's not very clear and where most of us who have an issue with the incident. They had the guy under surveillance for months and had probably collected sufficient evidence to detain him at some time other than 6am at his home. We don't know how the warrant was served. The ATF is supposed to announce before entry. They're not required to wait until the door is opened for them. Many of us are assuming it was a no-knock warrant or at the very least an announce and enter. Which at 6am who would be shocked that it was met with resistance? It's not shocking that a gun owner might open fire on someone barging (if it was a no-knock or if entry was made before he opened the door for them) in at 6am.



I think you'd be greatly surprised at how many of us 2A folks would view the ATF the same exact way regardless of the color of the person getting detained or being served with the warrant.

It appears as I speculated earlier in the thread that Mr. Malinowski was under the impression his private part sales were legal after he took procession of the firearm.

Honestly I don't have time to look through all this. Maybe I'll get time though. At the moment here's what appear to be the facts:

Arkansas airport executive killed in shootout was under investigation for weapons sales

Bryan Malinowski, executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, was fatally wounded in a shootout as ATF agents tried to serve a search warrant at his home.

www.nbcnews.com

Malinowski would order guns online, including AR-style pistols, have them shipped to a business that is redacted in the affidavit and pick them up there, the ATF agent wrote in the court document.

Malinowski filled out ATF Form 4773, which warns that a gun can’t be for someone else and that the 'repetitive purchase of firearms' in order to sell them for a profit without a license is illegal, before that business transferred the guns to him, the affidavit alleges.

The search warrant affidavit mentions two laws in seeking authorisation for a search — one that restricts commerce in guns to licensed dealers and the other dealing with making fictitious statements about acquiring firearms.

There seems to be little doubt that he was knowingly breaking the law. Over 150 guns, 6 linked to crimes, this was quite a serious matter. Maybe he committed other crimes too, as criminals often do. Maybe he knew he was looking at a long prison sentence and didn't want to go. There was that weird business about the postbox where he pretended to be a lawyer and behaved unreasonably as well.

As far as the search warrant, for some reason people keep equating it with them wanting to arrest Malinowski. I doubt it was no knock, and IIRC the law is you have to identify yourself, state your business and wait a reasonable amount of time before forcing entry. It seems Malinowski opened fire between them knocking (and saying 'ATF! SEARCH WARRANT! OPEN UP!') and forcing entry. Possibly he either gave no, or an uncooperative response, then opened fire when they began to force entry, but seeing as he fired on them while they were outside, it would have had to be in the split second after they bashed the door, before entering.

Edit: Unless I suppose he had a reinforced door. The battering ram or that door opening gun thing will open a normal door in a flash.

If he wanted to be sure it really was the ATF he could have looked out of the window, or had one of them hold up ID to the window, or post it through the letterbox, or looked through his Ring, he could have called 911 or the ATF hotline etc. etc. It seems probable that he knew, or at least thought it probable, that it was the ATF.

I think people are just rationalising up fictional justifications for this person's reprehensible behaviour. Still maybe more details or bodycam footage or something will be released, we could only make definitive comments then.

 

[spamking]

Honestly I don't have time to look through all this. Maybe I'll get time though. At the moment here's what appear to be the facts:

Arkansas airport executive killed in shootout was under investigation for weapons sales

Bryan Malinowski, executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, was fatally wounded in a shootout as ATF agents tried to serve a search warrant at his home.

www.nbcnews.com

There seems to be little doubt that he was knowingly breaking the law. Over 150 guns, 6 linked to crimes, this was quite a serious matter. Maybe he committed other crimes too, as criminals often do. Maybe he knew he was looking at a long prison sentence and didn't want to go. There was that weird business about the postbox where he pretended to be a lawyer and behaved unreasonably as well.

As far as the search warrant, for some reason people keep equating it with them wanting to arrest Malinowski. I doubt it was no knock, and IIRC the law is you have to identify yourself, state your business and wait a reasonable amount of time before forcing entry. It seems Malinowski opened fire between them knocking (and saying 'ATF! SEARCH WARRANT! OPEN UP!') and forcing entry. Possibly he either gave no, or an uncooperative response, then opened fire when they began to force entry, but seeing as he fired on them while they were outside, it would have had to be in the split second after they bashed the door, before entering.

If he wanted to be sure it really was the ATF he could have looked out of the window, or had one of them hold up ID to the window, or post it through the letterbox, or looked through his Ring, he could have called 911 or the ATF hotline etc. etc. It seems probable that he knew, or at least thought it probable, that it was the ATF.

I think people are just rationalising up fictional justifications for this person's reprehensible behaviour. Still maybe more details or bodycam footage or something will be released, we could only make definitive comments then.

I don't know that the NBC link really shows anything new. It's probably already linked in the thread.

Yes, I've already acknowledged he was knowingly pushing the boundaries of private gun sales and being very bold about lying on a 4473. There's nothing illegal about buying 150 guns and then reselling them privately. You just shouldn't be doing it within 24 hours of buying them or buying that many at once. And if you plan to sell at a gun show, just get an FFL.

Nobody is rationalizing what this guy did. We're bashing the ATF for how they handled it.

I mentioned something already about the federal training center and how it only states that the ATF has to knock and/or announce before entering. Nothing in their federal training requirements state they need to wait for anyone to let them in.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Honestly I don't have time to look through all this. Maybe I'll get time though. At the moment here's what appear to be the facts:

Arkansas airport executive killed in shootout was under investigation for weapons sales

Bryan Malinowski, executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, was fatally wounded in a shootout as ATF agents tried to serve a search warrant at his home.

www.nbcnews.com

There seems to be little doubt that he was knowingly breaking the law. Over 150 guns, 6 linked to crimes, this was quite a serious matter. Maybe he committed other crimes too, as criminals often do. Maybe he knew he was looking at a long prison sentence and didn't want to go. There was that weird business about the postbox where he pretended to be a lawyer and behaved unreasonably as well.

As far as the search warrant, for some reason people keep equating it with them wanting to arrest Malinowski. I doubt it was no knock, and IIRC the law is you have to identify yourself, state your business and wait a reasonable amount of time before forcing entry. It seems Malinowski opened fire between them knocking (and saying 'ATF! SEARCH WARRANT! OPEN UP!') and forcing entry. Possibly he either gave no, or an uncooperative response, then opened fire when they began to force entry, but seeing as he fired on them while they were outside, it would have had to be in the split second after they bashed the door, before entering.

Edit: Unless I suppose he had a reinforced door. The battering ram or that door opening gun thing will open a normal door in a flash.

If he wanted to be sure it really was the ATF he could have looked out of the window, or had one of them hold up ID to the window, or post it through the letterbox, or looked through his Ring, he could have called 911 or the ATF hotline etc. etc. It seems probable that he knew, or at least thought it probable, that it was the ATF.

I think people are just rationalising up fictional justifications for this person's reprehensible behaviour. Still maybe more details or bodycam footage or something will be released, we could only make definitive comments then.

Per Yahoo Mr. Malinowski knew he was being surveilled.
With this knowledge and four months to come up with a better plan; you corner the guy in his home where he has amassed a collection of firearms. His own actions led to his death. The actions BATF crated the scenario for it to happen.

The last line of your post is hilarious considering you made up scenarios yourselves and the end it with let’s wait for the body cam footage. It was a no knock until I wasn’t; and I don’t give blanket trust to ATF because of history.

 

[Andy Capp]

It appears as I speculated earlier in the thread that Mr. Malinowski was under the impression his private part sales were legal after he took procession of the firearm.

If he thought what he was doing was legal why did he fire on law enforcement?

 

[Andy Capp]

Nobody is rationalizing what this guy did. We're bashing the ATF for how they handled it.

But we have very little information about how they handled it, right? What's there to bash them about in the absence of so much information?

 

[Ichibanner]

But we have very little information about how they handled it, right? What's there to bash them about in the absence of so much

The information that is available shows that the subject of the search warrant was known to ATF agents, his actions were known, he was interacted with prior to the execution of the warrant, and they knew his whereabouts at times.

The point of contention for many, including myself, is that there were other ways of executing the search warrant and collecting the evidence that might have mitigated risk and not led to the death and injury that sadly occurred.

You don't need the homeowner's permission nor need them present to execute a search warrant. Search warrants have been successfully executed without subjects being at home or within their place of business.

You already have the ability to track his movement. You can block a driveway and meet him as he returns home. You can show him the warrant, ask that he cooperate and open the door, detain him and knock it off of its hinges if he refuses to open the door in cooperation with the search.

Nobody has assured that there were zero-risk scenarios available since we don't know the parties involved. We do know that strangers showing up in the dark to an armed subject's home led to death which deserves scrutiny.

Was arriving in the dark to the armed subject's house in the era of Ring doorbell cameras when alternatives exist the avenue of least risk? Was it necessary? It was simply a warrant for the collection of evidence. It wasn't an arrest warrant served on a known violent felon or such.

 

[Scerpi]

But we have very little information about how they handled it, right? What's there to bash them about in the absence of so much information?

Because someone died and an agent was shot

You’re seriously saying there wasn’t a better way to arrest the guy and serve a search warrant?

lol… What’s your thoughts on Breonna Taylor? Guess she deserved it too?

 

[Andy Capp]

The information that is available shows that the subject of the search warrant was known to ATF agents, his actions were known, he was interacted with prior to the execution of the warrant, and they knew his whereabouts at times.

The point of contention for many, including myself, is that there were other ways of executing the search warrant and collecting the evidence that might have mitigated risk and not led to the death and injury that sadly occurred.

You don't need the homeowner's permission nor need them present to execute a search warrant. Search warrants have been successfully executed without subjects being at home or within their place of business.

You already have the ability to track his movement. You can block a driveway and meet him as he returns home. You can show him the warrant, ask that he cooperate and open the door, detain him and knock it off of its hinges if he refuses to open the door in cooperation with the search.

Nobody has assured that there were zero-risk scenarios available since we don't know the parties involved. We do know that strangers showing up in the dark to an armed subject's home led to death which deserves scrutiny.

Was arriving in the dark to the armed subject's house in the era of Ring doorbell cameras when alternatives exist the avenue of least risk? Was it necessary? It was simply a warrant for the collection of evidence. It wasn't an arrest warrant served on a known violent felon or such.

I'm not a cop; what do I know about better ways to serve warrants? The more I hear of this the more convinced I am he knew they were coming and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. If he intended to fire upon them all along that hardly seems like the ATF's fault. I still think not enough is known to take a side.

Because someone died and an agent was shot

You’re seriously saying there wasn’t a better way to arrest the guy and serve a search warrant?

lol… What’s your thoughts on Breonna Taylor? Guess she deserved it too?

Your whataboutism is irrelevant. And deserved what? Who said anything about deserving anything? What a waste of space you are.

 

[Sweater of AV]

It appears as I speculated earlier in the thread that Mr. Malinowski was under the impression his private part sales were legal after he took procession of the firearm.

Per Yahoo Mr. Malinowski knew he was being surveilled.

He had no idea he was doing anything illegal but he knew he was being surveilled.

 

[Sweater of AV]

The information that is available shows that the subject of the search warrant was known to ATF agents, his actions were known, he was interacted with prior to the execution of the warrant, and they knew his whereabouts at times.

The point of contention for many, including myself, is that there were other ways of executing the search warrant and collecting the evidence that might have mitigated risk and not led to the death and injury that sadly occurred.

You don't need the homeowner's permission nor need them present to execute a search warrant. Search warrants have been successfully executed without subjects being at home or within their place of business.

You already have the ability to track his movement. You can block a driveway and meet him as he returns home. You can show him the warrant, ask that he cooperate and open the door, detain him and knock it off of its hinges if he refuses to open the door in cooperation with the search.

Nobody has assured that there were zero-risk scenarios available since we don't know the parties involved. We do know that strangers showing up in the dark to an armed subject's home led to death which deserves scrutiny.

Was arriving in the dark to the armed subject's house in the era of Ring doorbell cameras when alternatives exist the avenue of least risk? Was it necessary? It was simply a warrant for the collection of evidence. It wasn't an arrest warrant served on a known violent felon or such.

Yes, arriving at the house when he isn't there and waiting for him to come home is a fantastic idea. No one will tell him federal agents are at his house and he'll happily come home to unlock the door for agents while they all share some laughs and stories.

He was served a search warrant. For whatever reason, he opened fire on agents. It's easy to use hindsight with zero information and come up with alternative scenarios but at the end of the day you have absolutely no idea what happened.

 

[spamking]

But we have very little information about how they handled it, right? What's there to bash them about in the absence of so much information?

We're all well aware of how they've handled this type of thing in the past.

 

[spamking]

The more I hear of this the more convinced I am he knew they were coming and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. If he intended to fire upon them all along that hardly seems like the ATF's fault. I still think not enough is known to take a side.

But we have very little information about how they handled it, right? What's there to bash them about in the absence of so much information?