More on Lee Paige

I had a conversation this morning with my friend Brad about the lawsuit Lee Paige is filing against the DEA over his foolish, clearly negligent discharge of a firearm into his own foot in front of a classroom full of school kids.

Brad says it's interesting to note a few things aside from Paige's obvious failure to handle the weapon properly and safely and his stubborn refusal to admit that he brought on the ridicule himself.

1 - The suit, according to the Smoking Gun (in this case a very appropriate title), says the gun "accidentally discharged." Fact is that it is clear from the video that Paige made a big show of pronouncing that the weapon is unloaded, then -- in full view of the audience and the camera that was recording his presentation -- chambered a round from the magazine that was quite obviously still in the well, pulled the trigger and shot himself in the foot. There was no accident about this. Lee Paige, the "professional" who was the only one allowed weapons at this school, chambered a round and fired the pistol.


2 - According to the suit, Paige, who writes that he was "once regarded as one of the best undercover agents, if not the best, in the DEA," points to the clip's recent airing on popular television shows and via the Internet as the reason he can no longer work undercover. Brad posed a very good question: If it was so important to this officer to be working under cover, why in the world was he not only in the public eye by giving these presentations to children at schools, but also allowing said presentation to be recorded? I've known undercover officers -- quite a few of them, as a matter of fact. And every last one has been determined to not only keep a very low profile, but has been very cautious about allowing him or herself to be photographed or videotaped.

So why was this undercover officer, to whom anonymity should be paramount, not only undertaking a very high-profile task of speaking to school children, but also allowing himself to be recorded doing so? It's not as if the cameraman was trying to hide. He was quite obviously sitting close enough to get a decent shot, amidst others, and at one point, he or she stood up, as is plain from the angle of the video.

Brad's hypothesis is that this guy was an arrogant, conceited attention whore, who only trotted out his status as an "undercover officer" when it was time to file suit.

I would agree.