Suppose an undercover FBI agent (bank robbery division) has their cover blown. The criminals decide to take the FBI agent’s girlfriend hostage to force him to help them rob a bank. During the course of the robbery a police officer tries to intervene and is shot and killed. What would happen to the FBI agent? What degree of immunity does the agent have in this instance? Alternatively, suppose nobody is injured or killed, does that make any difference?
Well, they could sell the movie rights to their story, and a remake 24 years later at any rate.
That obvious huh? 
I suspect that the FBI aspect is irrelevant; the only issue would be whether the jury/prosecutors believed the the fellow had been coerced
What do you mean that his ‘cover was blown’? Was he undercover with a group of bank robbers and this robbery was imminent? In that case he could be considered a victim and his participation was unwilling. If he was less connected to this robbery it’s just like anyone else being coerced with a threat to a loved one. That’s not a get out of jail free card, but recall that Patricia Hearst was eventually pardoned for the crimes she was involved in after being taken hostage by the SLA. People are rather forgiving of coerced illegal actions in certain circumstances. In this case the FBI agent will likely avoid prosecution because he will be a cooperating witness.
I agree with the above. Being a FBI agent, undercover or not, does not give immunity from committing crimes. Being forced under threat of serious bodily injury or death to one’s self or another can be an affirmative defense. Either the claim is strong enough that the prosecution choses not to prosecute or it can be used as a defense at trial. No immunity.
But the remake sucked. Guilty as charged.
Answers to all of your questions can be found here: Point Break - Wikipedia
And it’s not like the girlfriend was just some rando, its Lori Petty we’re talking about here, so that has to be factored in as well.
Need answer fast?
In the movie “Point Break”, upon which this question is based, the FBI agent pursues the bank robbers after they rob a bank. They see his face. In revenge, for his betrayal, they kidnap his girlfriend and force him to come on their last robbery or she’ll be killed.
Not this time. 
While most people know her from “Point Break”, I think. To me she will always be Tank Girl.
With Naomi Watts as Jet Girl!
The thing is- you have to just say no. Sure that mean they might kill your GF, but then they always have a way to force you into anything. However, robbers do not like to add Murder 1 onto the lists of their crimes.
Also, people do not do this for the obvious fact that the dude will fink on you or screw up the robbery. The agent would be expected to inform his bosses, so they could ambush the robbers.
I do not think this has ever occurred.
Being in the FBI doesn’t grant you immunity for committing crimes. Heck, even undercover cops can not commit crimes (ingesting drugs, for example) while performing their duties.
For the duress exemption to apply (if at all) it would have to be direct, not just because you feared for your girlfriend.
Since the robbery would (presumably) involve the use of weapons, duress would not be an acceptable defense. Murder and other “serious” (usually meaning violent) crimes are not excused by compulsion, though it may be possible to get charges reduced.
How about if that FBI agent pointed a firearm at a suspect, but, feeling overly sympathetic toward said suspect, was unable to shoot him, and instead discharged the firearm into the air while screaming?
I don’t know about the legal ramifications, but damn that sounds like such an awesome scene that it would be included in a buddy cop comedy/parody movie 16 years later.
This varies a lot by jurisdiction. It doesn’t work that way in mine. A threat of death or physical injury to a third party can be enough, and the defense can apply to any crime but murder.
I’m not sure you have that entirely correct. I mean, I agree that duress is no defense to murder, but I’m not sure that merely having a firearm would deprive someone of the duress defense for a crime other than murder (and I don’t see anything indicating otherwise, in your cite).
So… the question is, who killed the police officer? If the FBI agent, then the FBI agent probably doesn’t have a defense, but if it’s someone else, then the only way the FBI agent would be liable is under the following theories:
- Conspiracy to commit armed robbery (in which violence resulting in death was a foreseeable outcome).
- Felony murder, with armed robbery as the underlying felony
The thing is, even if duress is not a defense to murder, it could be a defense to the underlying felony/conspiracy to commit armed robbery charges. And without the elements of the underlying felony/conspiracy being satisfied, there’s nothing to hand the murder on.
Oh, and I agree with the posters who said that being an FBI agent probably has nothing to do with it: the same defense would be available (or not) to anyone acting under appropriate duress.