Ruby Ridge on Discovery


PDA

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 01:03 AM
I seen an excellent hour show last night on the Discovery channel. It dealt with Ruby Ridge and the problems that lead to up to the incident.
Did anyone else see it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruby Ridge on Discovery" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AR-10
April 22, 2003, 03:27 AM
I watched it. I want to catch it again, as I missed parts of it.

KMKeller
April 22, 2003, 10:01 AM
I caught it. I thought they did a tremendous job of showing both sides of the equation.

Henry Bowman
April 22, 2003, 10:15 AM
Was it worth buying a copy from them on tape?

Braz
April 22, 2003, 02:04 PM
Dang,

I missed it 4th. How did they portray it? Last I remember, he was needled for months by BATF informants to buy or modify weapons that were against the law. He refused until sawing a shotgun barrel to get them off his back. Then didn't he miss a court date? No matter his plight, he handled it wrong from what I heard.

The BATF was out of control. Few outsiders would dispute their heavy handed badgering, and irresponsible ROE. RR and Waco stand as testiments to grandstanding LE. Wish I'd seen the show.

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 07:21 PM
Braz, it was very objective. It stated both sides. I didn't know much about it until I saw the show. Weaver's 14 year old son was shot in the back while chasing one of his dogs, Weaver was shot in the back by a sniper while opening a shed door, and his wife was shot in the head while trying to open the screen door. The Weaver's NEVER fired a single shot. The FBI changed the rules of engagement (later proved unconstituational by the way). The new rules of engagement stated something to the effect of they "should shoot anyone carrying a gun." Weaver's wife did not have one. It was a botched effort from the start. They even had a an APC there. It even showed the FBI in tears when they found out what they have done. I even broke down.
One must truely understand what freedom is to understand their true plight.
Yes it is truely worth seeing. The Discovery channel trys to tone things down a bit too. It still got me upset.

blades67
April 22, 2003, 07:31 PM
Not a single fbi agent has been charged for any of those murders.:barf:

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 07:35 PM
bs, randy weaver is a criminal and a coward that hid behind his family rather than face up to his crimes. i agree that the marshalls and the fbi screwed up. but had weaver been a man and went to court the feds would not have been any where near his family. 187

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 08:15 PM
In America, a failure to appear in court charge does not constitute assasiation of your family by FBI snipers.
The courts later up held Weavers rights. The government does not have the right to assasinate your wife and child because you are outside the law. It does not give the FBI there own right to make up new laws either. I suggest you find out more on the subject like I did.
Judging from your location I can understand why you feel so strongly for the FBI. But again, the FBI should not break laws trying to enforce them.

Dex Sinister
April 22, 2003, 08:43 PM
187 blurted:
bs, randy weaver is a criminal and a coward that hid behind his family rather than face up to his crimes. i agree that the marshalls and the fbi screwed up. but had weaver been a man and went to court the feds would not have been any where near his family.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how much of our, the taxpayer's, money the government spent on surveillance of the Weaver property by federal marshals, before the marshals screwed up and shot the dog and Weaver’s son? Look it up.

You might try to remember that the “crime” Weaver was accused of violating is simply and completely a tax statute, not a criminal law. There is no illegality in owning the gun Weaver sold, absent the fact that a transfer tax was not applied to the sale.

Let’s try to think objectively here: We’re talking about a statute that also forbids putting a butt-stock on a pistol, effectively tripling the pistol’s size, because then it would be a “short-barreled rifle,” and thus highly illegal.

Weaver may in fact be a thoroughly detestable human being, but the law is objectively moronic, and unless we are robots, we should attempt to distinguish between laws that have some objective moral purpose, and laws that criminalize otherwise innocent behavior [that's as in non-directly-harmful to others] before we randomly label people “criminals and cowards.”

Dex http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

Stickjockey
April 22, 2003, 08:43 PM
Am I wrong or didn't he miss that court date because it was changed without his knowledge? I seem to remember something about that...

amprecon
April 22, 2003, 08:45 PM
As I understand it, the shotgun barrel was 1/4" too short. This episode occurred over 1/4" of steel. That 1/4" wouldn't have caused that shotgun to be any more dangerous than it previously was. It posed no more of a threat than it previously did.

Yet in an effort to set an example a government agency went fully tactical against an isolated man and his family because they were probably considered easy targets.

This is totally inexcusable. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should be in jail and/or exiled for this and for many other civil atrocities they have committed against this country, including supplying China with missile technology.

The government is the peoples worst enemy. The people have the power, I guess things just have to be bad enough for enought people to do something about it.

Wayne D
April 22, 2003, 09:33 PM
The FBI was trying to catch Weaver at something they could hold over his head to turn him into an informant against his white supremacist friends. He didn't belong to any white supremacist groups (he was a white separatist, he didn't believe the races should live together, but thought the supremacists were too extreme) but he was sympathetic to them and knew many of the leaders. When another FBI informant tricked him into cutting a shotgun barrel off 1/4" too short, they thought they had him. He told them to go screw themselves so they charged him with sawing off the shotgun. He didn't show up for court and the government was out to get even with him. So they set up the expensive surveillance of him and his home that set the stage for the tragedy. Before you start flaming me for being a conspiracy nut, it is my understanding that this was the defense that Gerry Spence used to get Weaver acquitted of all the charges against him except for the failing to show up for court charge, which was the only thing Weaver was ever convicted of.

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 10:12 PM
number one, weaver broke the law .no matter if you agree with it or not its the law. number two: the marshal's where there be cause a federal judge ordered them to arrest weaver, have you ever even seen a warrent? they say i here by command you to etc. etc. not if you think its a good idea to arrest him go a head. #3: the fbi was there because the marshals wrongly believed they were penned down. and the whole thing went to crap when some idiot change the rules of engagement.weaver had be informed by the local sherrif that the marshals had a warrent for his arrest and he refused to come down and face the music. 187

SkunkApe
April 22, 2003, 10:14 PM
A coworker and I were discussing how it is that an evil dicatator (Saddam Hussein, in this example) manages to get into power in the first place. It is my position that evil takes office through creeping gradualism. By commiting incrementally greater atrocities, each more severe than the next, but still allowing the populace some reasonably justifiable excuse for not resisting. So it is that the tyrant rises until such point that resistance is no longer possible even if desired.

United States government officials executed U.S. citizens at Ruby Ridge, and went unpunished. What is OUR limit of tolerance for atrocities? At what point would we act?

Look here, honey. Its says in the newspaper that that SkunkApe guy was killed in a shootout with government agents. Oh well, they did find an arsenal in his basement. He criticized government's war in Iraq and was always typing a bunch of weird stuff on the internet. A real weirdo, that guy. Probably got what he deserved. What's for lunch?

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 10:17 PM
btw, the statement"the weavers never fired a shot" is false in the gun fight that occurred after the dog was shot both sam weaver and kevin haaris fired their weapons resulting in the death of a us marshal. 187

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 10:25 PM
dex, the act of sawing off the barrel ie: illegaly altering the shotgun is a crime.besides selling it with out a stamp. 4thhorseman, weaver was shot opening a shed. the bullet that struck mrs. weaver first passed through kevin harris then hit weavers wife and killed her. so maybe you didn't learn as much as you thought. 187

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 10:29 PM
187- "number two: the marshal's where there be cause a federal judge ordered them to arrest weaver, have you ever even seen a warrent?"
The marshalls were not there to serve a warrent. They were there for survallance. They were there illegally. 187,"no matter if you agree with it or not its the law." The court ruled on this.
Randy Weaver was never offered the option to surrender.
Randy Weaver never fired a shot. Sammy Weaver thought some one was shooting at his dog and at him. He shot in what he thought was self defense. He was right. It was his fathers property. "no matter if you agree with it or not its the law."
Just because you break the law, you do not deserve to be killed. ,"no matter if you agree with it or not its the law." - Fourth Ammendment
Weaver was opening the shed door to view his dead son's body that was shot two days before when he was shot in back shoulder by a FBI sniper.

http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lynch082102.asp

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 10:39 PM
wrong again, the marshals were there with a warrant due to the failure to appear. wayned, the fbi weren't trying to do anything with weaver, they weren't involved at all till the marshal was shot. 187

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 10:46 PM
In August 1992, six marshals travelled to an area in northern Idaho known as Ruby Ridge to conduct surveillance of the Weaver residence in preparation for the undercover operation. During the surveillance mission, the Weaver dog discovered the marshals and began to bark. The marshalsretreated with the dog, Harris, Randy Weaver and his son, SammyWeaver, and other family members in pursuit. At an area knownas the "Y," a gun battle occurred in which Deputy Marshal Deganand Sammy Weaver were killed.

http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby0.htm

http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm

Gmac
April 22, 2003, 10:50 PM
Right on Skunkape!!!!!!! Law enforcement (especially federal) is out of control in this country! They now make their own rules----constitution? Bill of rights? What's that? Not wearing your seat belt will soon be grounds for immediate execution here in Ohio if the Highway Patrol has their way. They make the laws here, not the legislature. Don't think so? Read what Gov. Booby Daft had to say about ccw. I saw part of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" the other night and it reinforced my distrust of any and all l.e./govt. entities. But I guess that since Randy Weaver broke the law that gave the feds.the right to assasinate his wife and son because after all IT'S THE LAW!!!If your lifestyle varies even slightly from what's considered the norm by the powers that be ( maybe you want to live away from "civilization" and just be left alone); nope can't be allowed. pretty soon other people would want their privacy/ freedom and we can't have that now can we? O.K. flame away!

Wayne D
April 22, 2003, 10:58 PM
OK, it was the BATF that entrapped him, not the FBI. The fact remains the jury said it was entrapment and acquitted him of all charges but the failure to appear.

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 10:59 PM
and your point? your link plainlly states a bench warrant was issued. the marshals were survailing him to find a way to arrest him without storming his house because they knew he was armed. bot that all blew up when the dog discovered them.as i state before it was a total [removed] but weaver was just as responsable as anyone. 187

edited by moderator for foul language

amprecon
April 22, 2003, 11:00 PM
Well, I think we all now know who the loyalist is.......

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 11:00 PM
During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comme...lynch082102.asp

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 11:03 PM
187-"wrong again, the marshals were there with a warrant due to the failure to appear. "

I repeat, they were not there to serve a warrent.

187-"weaver was just as responsable as anyone. "

I think 187 that is a real cheap shot. Do really think Weaver knew his wife and son would be killed for the his illegal action?

Geech
April 22, 2003, 11:07 PM
187, if the warrant wasn't served, then it's invalid.

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 11:08 PM
they were there to find a way to arrest weaver. because of the bench warrant.

Geech
April 22, 2003, 11:12 PM
they were there to find a way to arrest weaver. because of the bench warrant.

And they really screwed that up.

Wayne D
April 22, 2003, 11:18 PM
If all they really wanted to do was serve the warrant and arrest him why didn't they just watch the road and pull him over the next time he drove to town alone? It takes six guys in camos and carrying M16s to figure out how to arrest him?

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 11:19 PM
4th, i believe any half way intelligent person should know if the there is a warrant for your arrest and you chose to arm your family and hole up in your house your family maybe injured or killed when law enforcement comes to serve that warrant. he had been told there was a warrant , choppers had been flying around his house,( he state that hisself on your little show you watched that made you an expert on ruby ridge)and he refused to surrender himself. had he done so he would have gone before a judge and if it was entrappment the charges would have been dismissed. 187

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 11:21 PM
wayned, he wasn't leaving his property because he knew he would be arrested. 187

Geech
April 22, 2003, 11:27 PM
Here's what it boils down to: LE screwed up big time, and that's official. Courts have ruled as much. Now, maybe Weaver screwed up too, but that doesn't excuse the way LE acted.

4thHorseman
April 22, 2003, 11:28 PM
187-",( he state that hisself on your little show you watched that made you an expert on ruby ridge)"
187, Sir I believed I said I learned alot from it.

187-"he done so he would have gone before a judge and if it was entrappment the charges would have been dismissed. "

!87, the charges were eventually dropped.

187, I know your heart is in the right place. I know you are trying to tell everyone to obey the law or serious thing can come from it.
;)
Things aren't that simple when it comes to our rights.

wun_8_seven
April 22, 2003, 11:31 PM
no what i'm trying to tell you is I was at ruby ridge and randy weaver ain't no persecuted saint and i didn't see the discovery chanel there either.187 and i've state repeatedly that the lea's screwed up, but they weren't there because they wanted to kill the weaver family they were there because a judge order them to do thier job.

amprecon
April 22, 2003, 11:55 PM
187, in the old days (1770's) they tarred and feathered people like you.

4thHorseman
April 23, 2003, 12:45 AM
187-"187 and i've state repeatedly that the lea's screwed up..."
"I was at ruby ridge and randy weaver ain't no persecuted saint and i didn't see the discovery chanel there either."

You were at Ruby Ridge..........?
Hmmm, I'm really lost now, if you are not 187, why are you using his handle? Ummm...troll maybe?
Or third grader staying up late when mom and dad aren't home?

4thHorseman
April 23, 2003, 12:52 AM
187 Go to bed! Go to bed now before I tell your mom!

S_O_Laban
April 23, 2003, 12:59 AM
wun_8_seven,

No one in this thread has called Weaver a "saint". I believe "White separatist with sympathy for the leaders of the local white supremacists" was how he was described.

Randy Weavers character, although "unsaint like" does not exonerate you or any one else "there"If you/they broke the law.

You say you were "at" Ruby ridge. The 4thhorseman offered you a gracious "out " as to your intentions. It would appear that in neither case you chose correctly


edited for spelling

Byron Quick
April 23, 2003, 01:18 AM
I believe the marshalls were totally camoflaged and carrying silenced, selective fire weapons when Sammy Weaver's dog discovered them. I believe that the marshalls shot Sammy Weavers dog on Sammy Weaver's father property. Sammy Weaver and Harris fired at the hostile fire from an unknown source...so would I.

If uniformed police come on my property with a warrant, I will submit, cooperate, and call my lawyer. No biggie. Shoot, if the cops call me on the phone and say,"Byron, we've got a warrant, come on down to the station." I'll put down the phone and drive to the station.

If you come on my property dressed and equipped as a ninja assassin...expect to be treated as a ninja assassin if I discover you.

Elmer Snerd
April 23, 2003, 02:09 AM
Am I wrong or didn't he miss that court date because it was changed without his knowledge? I seem to remember something about that...

Yes. He was told March 20 when it was Feb 20. Depending on the article that you read, this was either a clerical error or a setup. Oddly enough, despite the fact that the error was known, he was still convicted of failure to appear in court. It was the only thing that he was actually convicted of. The judge let him off with time served. The charges related to sawed-off shotguns were dismissed due to entrapment.

Randy Weaver was no saint, but he did not deserve what happened to him and his family.

http://www.ruby-ridge.com/
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966433408/
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/rubyridge/
http://www.constitution.org/ruby/ruby.htm
Aw heck, just type ruby ridge into a search engine, and pack a lunch.

Justin
April 23, 2003, 03:08 AM
and randy weaver ain't no persecuted saint and i didn't see the discovery chanel there either. If one's level of sainthood is the stick by which law enforcement is to judge guilt or innocence, I think we have some serious problems.

Wayne D
April 23, 2003, 09:12 AM
No one ever said Weaver was a saint, likewise I don’t believe any one here blames the “troops on the ground”. It’s the people who engineered the entrapment, told the snipers to shoot on sight, and tried to cover it up that should have been at least fired if not prosecuted.

pax
April 23, 2003, 10:41 AM
Dunno how I missed this one so long.

People, please remember that no matter how much you are annoyed by what someone else is saying, attack the argument, not the person.

I am going to leave this open, with reservations. It is an interesting thread. It will be closed if the personal insults/attacks do not cease immediately.

pax

Navy joe
April 23, 2003, 10:52 AM
Trivia question: Who has murdered women and children at both RR and Waco and never been charged?

It's sad that people like that can safely walk the streets.

Byron Quick
April 23, 2003, 10:53 AM
they were there to find a way to arrest weaver. because of the bench warrant.

Yep, took them 18 months of surveillance and several million dollars.:rolleyes:

wun_8_seven
April 23, 2003, 11:15 AM
yes i was at ruby ridge in the aftermath for two months during the doj investigation, but you watched a tv show so i'm sure you know more about it. i was also in the alfred p. murrah building when it was blown up, killing 169 men , women and childern for no other reason than they happen to work in a federal building. now lets hear your praise for your hero mcviegh.187

wun_8_seven
April 23, 2003, 11:28 AM
byron, the point is weaver didn't go down and address the charges against him. he refused to leave his property for fear of arrest. he had to know sooner or latter they would come after him. wayneD, i think your the only one that gets it. it was the politico's under janet reno that should have been held responsible for the govs. part in the fiasco. but that doesn't acuse weavers actions

KMKeller
April 23, 2003, 11:32 AM
Interesting thread. However now lets hear your praise for your hero mcviegh.187 is completely and utterly unfair and uncalled for. You obviously have your opinion, but the two are in no way shape or form comparable. I have mixed opinions on this issue and can easily understand both sides of what happened. Your comparison of Weaver and McVeigh and your veiled inference that if you support one, you must support the other betrays your bias all too clearly.

Also, i was also in the alfred p. murrah building when it was blown up, killing 169 men , women and childern for no other reason than they happen to work in a federal building.

So you were actually in the building eh? And in what capacity did you work in both situations? Inquiring minds and all that.

pdog
April 23, 2003, 11:34 AM
I don't think anyone condones the crimes of McV. or Koresh, I do think people have a problem when inocent people die because some federal agent is "just doing his job". Think about it 187.
Pdog

Navy joe
April 23, 2003, 11:43 AM
I won't defend McVeigh because he was most certainly involved. I would rather hear you defend how an air coupled low velocity explosive managed to shatter some substantial reinforced concrete at a rather good distance. This same blast that crushed concrete did not tear people apart huh? Most of the deathes in the Murrah building were from collapse injuries and there were many survivors in structural pockets. There was a bomb on the street, but it was very much smaller than the official report states. Also, study the pictures from the day of the blast, note the lack of crater, leaves on the trees and mighty aluminum lightpole still standing while that wimpy concrete just exploded.

http://www.okcbombing.org/photogallery/11.jpg

http://www.okcbombing.org/photogallery/11.jpg

For further fun, let's compare WTC bombing #1 to OKC. Structural columns not so much as scratched, signs still painted on. Concrete floors of parking garage did collapse due to proximity of explosive(right on top of it) and large pressure bearing surface. One floor above and below the bomb were breached by the blast and the rest collapsed with the weight of te falling floors. No loss of structural integrity, minimal casualties and lots of black smoke typical of ANFO. Note that the bomb was much closer to the structure than OKC.

Khobar towers. Better explosive, more of it, inferior construction of target building. Result, big ol' crater, concrete clip on face walls of building blown off, building did not collapse. 19 deathes mostly from blast injuries.

Short story, someone else shoulda joined McVeigh in jail, most likely numerous other people. There was help internal, as in mechanically coupled charges on the columns.

Please don't personally attack me, just come up with an explosives expert that can tell us how one dumb hick with a crude bomb did this. Maybe that same expert can tell us about the tests at Englin AFB where they tried to recreate the blast on 1/4 scale and had to put the bomb inside the structure to achieve even partial collapse. Maybe that same expert can tell us how you direct a charge of crappy explosives in 55gal barrels. And no, adding nitromethane to ANFO does not make the mother of all high explosives. It seems you have access to these experts, maybe they'll enlighten us all.

ElToro
April 23, 2003, 11:46 AM
didnt all the Nuremburg Nazi's use the reasoning. "i was just doing my job" ? Try getting off the government nipple, as you're obviously conflicted by who butters your bread...

The good news is that 3 million more of your tax dollars went to the kids after the fact... "without the government admitting guilt"

Ian
April 23, 2003, 11:50 AM
the point is weaver didn't go down and address the charges against him. he refused to leave his property for fear of arrest. "Come to court or we'll shoot your wife in the face." Nice. What is this, Cambodia?:scrutiny:

wun_8_seven
April 23, 2003, 11:58 AM
ian, so you believe they intentionally shot weavers wife?

KMKeller
April 23, 2003, 12:00 PM
What? No answer to my questions?

wun_8_seven
April 23, 2003, 12:06 PM
yes i was a doj employee,and i suffered a broken back and lost my right eye april 19 ,1995. and i didn't shoot anyones wife. the fbi agents were told proir to thier arrival that it was armed white supremist(which weaver was not) that already killed marshals. so lets say you were sent into a situation were some of your coworkers had been killed. with little other info except to get them out & arrest them. 187

Ian
April 23, 2003, 12:33 PM
Well, unless I'm much mistaken, Mrs Weaver was killed by a bullet fired from the rifle held by a one Lon Horiuchi. Unless his gun suffered a huge parts breakage, that shot was discharged because he pulled the trigger. If he shot her but did not mean to, he is just as responsible for her death as he would be if he intended to put a bullet through her skull. The rules of safety don't change. If you fire a shot without confirming your target, you are still responsible for what that bullet does. The fact that Horiuchi was not punished for his actions makes a mockery of any standard of justice held by the court system. If you were there, maybe you know better whether MRs Weaver's killing was intentional or negligent. But it makes very little difference to me.

It makes no difference what they thought they were dealing with. First of all, after the amount of time spent in surveillance, they should have known exactly who Weaver was. Any lapse in situational knowledge is indicative of the agents on the scene being wholly incompetant at their jobs.

Secondly, even if there had been a bona fide mass murdering, M60-weilding psychotic in that home, it would in no way justify the killing of his wife.

so lets say you were sent into a situation were some of your coworkers had been killed. with little other info except to get them out & arrest them.

"Getting them out" with "little other info" is at best foolish and more likely an example of criminal negligence and disregard for the lives of your target and your own men. After an (armed, trespassing, unidentified) agent was shot, they should have pulled back until they knew what exactly had happened. They obviously had control of the situation - and aggressing without full understanding of the situation is foolish at best. Given the circumstances, it was inexcusable.

I won't shed any more tears for a Federal agent shot under those circumstances than I would for an armed burglar who gets shot by a homeowner.

4thHorseman
April 23, 2003, 12:38 PM
187-"so you believe they intentionally shot weavers wife?"

Yes I do. The rules of engagement were change by the FBI for that incident alone.

The prosecutors investigated Larry Potts for approving the dramatic change in the "rules of engagement" for the FBI’s siege of the Weaver family’s remote Idaho cabin in August, 1992. According to the official FBI guidelines, deadly force is allowed only when necessary to protect someone against immediate danger. The rules of engagement are not based on the whims of FBI officials, or even on the acts of Congress. Instead, the limits on deadly force are implicit in the Constitution, and therefore decreed by the Supreme Court.

At Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the normal, constitutional rules of engagement were changed; the new rules were orders to kill any armed adult male seen on the Weavers’ property. The non-prosecution of Larry Potts is based on a disputed fact: it cannot be proven that Potts approved the order saying FBI agents "can and should" shoot.

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm

Justin
April 23, 2003, 12:39 PM
I think that this thread has run its course. Passions are obviously running high, and I don't think that keeping it open will lead to anything constructive.
Before this degrades into a wholesale flame-fest, this thread is CLOSED

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruby Ridge on Discovery" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!