Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HSI 1811 (August/September 2015 Announcement)

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I am just hoping the cut off score is lower than 98 this time. I missed the cut off score by a few points on the DHS only announcement.

    Comment


    • #47
      be sure everything is correct... I was screened out of the 2011? announcement after a referral because my resume had a error. I put 2001 when it should have been 2010... even though supporting docs showed 2010!! don't screen yourself out guys

      Comment


      • #48
        I took an educated guess that the west offices will be consumed by current border guys.... I chose St. Croix, I hope it was the smart plan.

        Any thoughts from you experienced guys??
        Last edited by Frostbite 22; 09-01-2015, 03:14 PM. Reason: read

        Comment


        • #49
          "A Virgin Islands jury has found a veteran Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent not guilty of using excessive force..."

          The very first sentence of the article backs up Pi's statement. Yes, he was cleared by the agency. Yes, the locals still charged him. But, the JURY acquitted him of any wrongdoing. The AG can huff and puff all he wants but the jury makes the call, not the AG. And after the jury acquits him there's not a whole helluva lot anyone can do except maybe a wrongful death suit which the AG would have no sway in one way or the other.

          The point of the discussions were in reference to your earlier point that this instance would make you not want to go there. Fact is, this is seemingly commonplace nowadays everywhere you look. The SA should be thankful that the agency backed him on this. Was it a bad thing to happen to everyone involved? Absolutely. Was the SA wrong for what he did? Not according to the agency or the jury. Look back to BearCat's post about the FPS guy that got canned for making traffic stops for a point of reference. Honestly, if that's all it takes to make you want to avoid some place, are you sure you're in the right profession?


          Smurfed from my iSmurf using Smurf
          Last edited by Fuganopolis; 09-01-2015, 04:15 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Frostbite 22 View Post
            I took an educated guess that the west offices will be consumed by current border guys.... I chose St. Croix, I hope it was the smart plan.

            Any thoughts from you experienced guys??
            Why would they even have the option for the external announcement, then?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by aspiring_fed View Post
              Why would they even have the option for the external announcement, then?
              I am pretty sure someone said current agents would not be able to apply. This announcement is meant to replace the guys on the border so that they can transfer.

              TDF

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by jb2257
                First of all, you have a lot of balls asking me if I'm sure I'm in the right profession, when you're still just trying to get hired. so to start with, drop the smug holier than though attitude.

                secondly, this case is not common place at all. this is the second time I've had to suggest you guys do more research, clearly you still haven't done it. So I guess it's left to me to spoon feed it to you. One of the more startling facts about this case was that there was an eyewitness account of the event who completely supported the self defense narrative, yet the local police deliberately omitted that witness's account from the official case file. Secondly, this happened in 2009, way before Ferguson or any of the recent events, so it wasn't common place at all. In fact I don't know of another instance where a federal agent has been cleared by DOJ and charged by locals, that is extremely rare.

                So lets review here, you have a location where, before any of the happenings of Ferguson, local law enforcement actively conspired to see that an ATF agent was prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. I'm pretty sure that's unprecedented. If that doesn't make you question whether that's the type of environment you want to work and live in for 5-10 years, maybe you need to educate yourself more about what exactly a special agent does on a day to day basis and how a corrupt local law enforcement entity could make that undesirable.
                Look, guy, you clearly have some issues that you need to work out, and are missing the bigger picture. In this instance, I'm going to say I'm allowed to play "holier than thou (not though)" on you because I actually have experience prosecuting people, graduated the top of my class from one of the best law schools in the country, and I'm better looking than you.

                You can use the facts to support whatever narrative you want, but here is what really matters:

                *ATF SA shoots and kills someone
                *ATF SA is cleared by ATF and is given his gun and badge back and allowed to do his job
                *Yahoo locals try to "get" ATF SA, but do not impede his ability to carry his badge or gun while they investigate/prosecute him (as they can't, because that would be a constitutional violation)
                *Local jury acquits ATF SA and life goes on

                At the end of the day, guy, the ATF SA kept his job, his gun, and his badge, and kept on truckin' along. Does it suck to be charged, sure. However, he wasn't found guilty. If he were found guilty, there would been inumerable constitutional issues that would have been raised to invalidate the verdict. I'm not going to go into the legal theories, but suffice it to say that there is no way that he could legally be found to be in violation of any local law based on the facts that were presented at his trial.

                So, sure, you may think this is a bad situation, and, maybe for a guy that doesn't have what it takes to go through hard times, it is. But, to Fuganopolis' point, this isn't an isolated incident. You try to bring up the point that this happened in 2008 rather than more recently. I'm not really sure how your temporal argument makes any sense... The point remains that today, law enforcement officers are under fire more than they ever have been. There is no evidence that this same situation, had it occurred in San Francisco, would have taken a different path. Hell, in San Francisco, illegals roam the streets with guns, shooting people for sport, while the City stands by and tries to legitimately argue it isn't their fault that they actively choose to ignore federal requests.

                You are you, and you are going to do what makes you feel best. But, don't try to preach to others because you think you know better. You can't possibly gain any credibility by implying he wasn't acquitted, when the story YOU posted clearly states he was.
                Last edited by 3.14 Beans; 09-01-2015, 05:46 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by jb2257
                  if you aren't willing to put the work in the read beyond the surface, i'm not going to take the time to educate you. But thanks for taking the time to include your disrespect.
                  Sick burn man. You sure told me. I had to send the wife to the store to get aloe vera. My post was not meant to come across as disrespectful. Yours, on the other hand, was nothing but disrespect. Just because you claim to be FLE already (and you very well may be) gives you no more credibility than me on the Internet. I've had plenty of education throughout my life so I'm sorry but I think I'll skip this class. Tomorrow make sure sure you put on your thick skin that you clearly forgot this morning.


                  Smurfed from my iSmurf using Smurf

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Fuganopolis View Post
                    "A Virgin Islands jury has found a veteran Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent not guilty of using excessive force..."

                    The very first sentence of the article backs up Pi's statement. Yes, he was cleared by the agency. Yes, the locals still charged him. But, the JURY acquitted him of any wrongdoing. The AG can huff and puff all he wants but the jury makes the call, not the AG. And after the jury acquits him there's not a whole helluva lot anyone can do except maybe a wrongful death suit which the AG would have no sway in one way or the other.

                    The point of the discussions were in reference to your earlier point that this instance would make you not want to go there. Fact is, this is seemingly commonplace nowadays everywhere you look. The SA should be thankful that the agency backed him on this. Was it a bad thing to happen to everyone involved? Absolutely. Was the SA wrong for what he did? Not according to the agency or the jury. Look back to BearCat's post about the FPS guy that got canned for making traffic stops for a point of reference. Honestly, if that's all it takes to make you want to avoid some place, are you sure you're in the right profession?


                    Smurfed from my iSmurf using Smurf
                    I don't understand why that case wasn't removed to District Court.


                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

                    (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

                    (1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
                    (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
                    (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
                    (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.

                    (b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.

                    (c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who is the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed to have been acting under the color of his office if the officer—

                    (1) protected an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;
                    (2) provided immediate assistance to an individual who suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; or
                    (3) prevented the escape of any individual who the officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in, or was likely to result in, death or serious bodily injury.

                    (d) In this section, the following definitions apply:
                    (1) The terms “civil action” and “criminal prosecution” include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.
                    (2) The term “crime of violence” has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18.
                    (3) The term “law enforcement officer” means any employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.
                    (4) The term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18.
                    (5) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, United States territories and insular possessions, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).
                    (6) The term “State court” includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.


                    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 104–317, title II, § 206(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3850; Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(a), (b), Nov. 9, 2011, 125 Stat. 545; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1087, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1969.)
                    Last edited by nobodyinparticular; 09-01-2015, 07:32 PM. Reason: hit post too fast. Phone posting sucks

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I'm sure even if you pick whatever location, and you get the job, they'll just put you anywhere they need you to be.
                      I'm willing to work anywhere so hopefully they don't disqualify based on I didn't pick the right locations they wanted.
                      Picked New York and SAC San Antonio when they mentioned having a better chance picking a southwest location.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Myst View Post
                        I'm sure even if you pick whatever location, and you get the job, they'll just put you anywhere they need you to be.
                        I'm willing to work anywhere so hopefully they don't disqualify based on I didn't pick the right locations they wanted.
                        Picked New York and SAC San Antonio when they mentioned having a better chance picking a southwest location.
                        I'm in the process right now with DHS for another position. I selected two locations of my preference. I found out that one of the locations no longer needs additional personnel and the other location is also popular and closing fast. I called HR to see if I can get hired at another location that wasn't on my initial preference. The response was no. I hope she's wrong but then again she's HR.
                        Maybe it's different for this announcement. At least I hope.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by nobodyinparticular View Post
                          I don't understand why that case wasn't removed to District Court.


                          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

                          (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

                          (1)The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
                          (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
                          (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
                          (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.

                          (b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.

                          (c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who is the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed to have been acting under the color of his office if the officer—

                          (1) protected an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;
                          (2) provided immediate assistance to an individual who suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; or
                          (3) prevented the escape of any individual who the officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in, or was likely to result in, death or serious bodily injury.

                          (d) In this section, the following definitions apply:
                          (1) The terms “civil action” and “criminal prosecution” include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.
                          (2) The term “crime of violence” has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18.
                          (3) The term “law enforcement officer” means any employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.
                          (4) The term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18.
                          (5) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, United States territories and insular possessions, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).
                          (6) The term “State court” includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.


                          (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 104–317, title II, § 206(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3850; Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(a), (b), Nov. 9, 2011, 125 Stat. 545; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1087, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1969.)
                          They (the ATF SA and his attorneys) did remove, but the District Court remanded on a technicality. Essentially, the District Court said the prosecutor was not seeking charges based on the SA's actions under color of law, and therefore not subject to federal jurisdiction. Prosecutor claimed his actions were in a personal capacity and unrelated to his job.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            -Disregard- Already a hammered out mess on here...
                            Last edited by hpy1; 09-01-2015, 08:36 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Fuganopolis View Post
                              I spent the entire 6 or 7 days it was up wondering why it never closed early. Maybe it's a sign that there are less than 500 to compete with. Coupled with all the spots they had vacancies in, maybe we'll get lucky.
                              Have you spoke to any USSS Agents? Before you accept the position, make sure you talk to quite a few of them from all over the country. I consistently hear rumors that their moral is worse than that of HSI SWB Agents. I can't say if it is true or not. I know HSI guys trying to leave the border putting in for USSS and I know for a fact USSS agents are tying to get on with HSI to include on the SWB. It is sort of a 'to each his own' situation.
                              Last edited by hpy1; 09-01-2015, 08:39 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Yeah I've talked to the agents at the federal building down the block from my office when I was tracking down the FPS agents. I've heard a lot of the pros and cons from different people. I heard the same things before I joined the army. Each one I talked to was pretty much dead on with what it was like. I believe it's what you make of it. Each job has its bad parts. No getting around it. For the most part, you have to take the good with the bad. I had asked the question, not because I think it'll all be peachy, but more because most people jump on these announcements when they pop up. Looking back on it, it may have been a combination of not everyone knowing you had to go to LinkedIn to get to it and a lot of people are still in the process from the announcement from a few months ago.


                                Smurfed from my iSmurf using Smurf

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4799 users online. 262 members and 4537 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X