Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

BHPshooter
August 21, 2003, 05:56 PM
I'm quite embarassed to say this, but I really don't know what happened at either place.

So, can anyone tell me what happened?

Thanks,
Wes

If you enjoyed reading about "Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wanderer
August 21, 2003, 06:05 PM
Feds got carried away, innocent people died.

Hkmp5sd
August 21, 2003, 06:10 PM
Department of Justice Ruby Ridge Report (http://web3.foxinternet.net/djf/ruby001.htm#tab)

Six years later, Waco's horror is still hazy (http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/25/wacos.dark.questions/)

oldfart
August 21, 2003, 06:16 PM
Both subjects have several books written about them. Trying to condense them into a single post is more than I can do. Go to google and do a search on them. Make sure your printer has a full paper tray.

greyhound
August 21, 2003, 06:25 PM
Actually, to understand a lot of the historical topics related to the "gun culture" discussed here, I'd recommend "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross (who sometimes posts here). Its available a bunch of places, including Amazon.com, and though a novel, manages to cover pretty much every incident in the recent past.

Time to feed the hogs!

bountyhunter
August 21, 2003, 06:40 PM
At least in the aftermath of Ruby Ridge, the State issued warrants for (and wanted to put on trial) the jack-boot fed with the sniper rifle who murdered an unarmed woman hiding behind a door with a baby in her arms. Of course, there was no trial (the Feds wouldn't allow that) but, it was an important statement made.

Both incidents were shameful dates in history, and both show how inept the Feds are in handling such matters.

bountyhunter
August 21, 2003, 06:42 PM
Department of Justice Ruby Ridge Report

You forgot to add the legal disclaimer:

"Any resemblance to the truth is purley coincidental."

Baba Louie
August 21, 2003, 06:56 PM
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id263/pg1/

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/rubyridge/

A place to start.

Adios

telewinz
August 21, 2003, 07:16 PM
I can still remember when these two incidents came to the public's attention via the news media. The PUBLIC put a great deal of pressure on the Feds for a quick resolution and more than a few were upset at the Feds for using "kids gloves". The protests against the Feds came weeks later led mainly by the extreme right. Innocents were killed and so were the guilty Weaver and Waco, the majority of the guilt should not lie with the Feds. But it's the World we live in, misfits and failures who rely on the "Turner Diaries" to explain and excuse their past mistakes and poor judgement. Its not my fault I'm a VICTIM!

Waitone
August 21, 2003, 08:00 PM
Stick around long enuf and someone will talk about "militarization of the executive branch." IMNSHO both incidents to which you refer are examples of the concept. Both got out of hand for a variety of reasons but two reasons show up in both. In both cases LE was just itching to show its stuff to the opposition. The other factor is in both cases LE at the federal level wanted a good show in the media to help convince congress to increase their respective funding.

Events got out of hand, butts were covered, evidence disappeared, those responsible were promoted, and now every time a problem occurs LE at the state and federal level what to know what can be done to avoid another Waco // Ruby Ridge.

Lots of books were written and reports made from all perspectives. Draw your own conclusions.

mete
August 21, 2003, 08:32 PM
Abuse of power. In Ruby Ridge it involved murder by the FBI HRT - not just my opinion but that of many police officers. Waco one officer shot himself and others were shot by friendly fire . Isn't it strange that in times when evidence is saved for years , all evidence in the Waco case was destroyed.

Hkmp5sd
August 21, 2003, 11:06 PM
"Any resemblance to the truth is purley coincidental."

Your right. :) The report did get one thing correct. The entire Ruby Ridge episode began with a government/court SNAFU.

When Weaver was arraigned on the weapons charges in January 1991, he was told that his trial would commence on February 19, 1991. Two weeks later, the court clerk notified the parties that the trial date had been changed to February 20, 1991. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Probation Office sent Weaver a letter which incorrectly referenced his trial date as March 20, 1991. After Weaver failed to appear for trial on February 20, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Three weeks later, on March 14, a federal grand jury indicted Weaver for his failure to appear for trial. We found that: the government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily rigid in its approach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that the USAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991;

Navy joe
August 21, 2003, 11:26 PM
Innocents were killed and so were the guilty Weaver and Waco, the majority of the guilt should not lie with the Feds. But it's the World we live in, misfits and failures who rely on the "Turner Diaries" to explain and excuse their past mistakes and poor judgement. Its not my fault I'm a VICTIM!

Umm, Weaver wasn't killed. You want to explain what Weaver was guilty of? Failing to appear for a bench warrant that the date was changed on him without informing him; stemming from an original problem of making a shotgun 1/2" too short. He was talked into working on the shotgun by an undercover fed after repeatedly telling the fed that the law said 18". He finally trusted his new buddy and made the cuts. For these two things he paid with his wife's and son's lives. They would all be dead if not for the upstanding actions of local law enforcement. I guess his guilt is proven by the fact that he won a very large lawsuit, small consolation for getting your family murdered.

Waco? Never did see the pile of illegal machine guns those cultists had. Their biggest crime was that they really didn't give much respect to the idea of the U.S. government. All B.S. weapons charges and allegations of child abuse have been proven to be just that, BS!

So, I don't live anywhere close to either of these folks ideologically, would probably think them loony if I lived next door to them, but nothing was done to warrant mass death sentences.

Let's name some common people present for both events:
Lon Horiuchi
Janet Reno

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 04:54 AM
You amaze me, you cite the felonies committed Weaver committed then you downplay his actions. "He was talked into it by a friend" man I haven't used that as an excuse since I was eight. He didn't accidently cut down that shotgun by 1/2 an inch TOO MUCH , he knowingly did it for profit. You prove my point, Weaver is an innocent VICTIM, our 20th century Little Red Robin Hood being pursued by the "big bad wolf". In both cases more than one felony was committed (not that it mattered how many) and the right wing extremists were justly required to account for their actions by lawful authority. The accused felons used poor judgement once too often and knowingly decided to put their friends/family at risk for their own selfish reasons. These people are your heroes? Bear in mind that the "Turner Diaries" is fiction written by a neo-nazi who didn't even have the guts to use his real name as the author. It's not a history nor a valid perdiction of the future (yes, I've read the book) its a poorly written fantasy intended for poorly educated, simple-minded racists.

griz
August 22, 2003, 05:40 AM
"Innocents were killed and so were the guilty Weaver and Waco"

The question still remains, which dead Weaver was guilty? Your statement is an excuse for the FBI's behavior at Ruby Ridge. To me it was inexcusable. Yes Randy Weaver should be responsible for his actions. But his family should not be shot to punish him.

sensop
August 22, 2003, 06:54 AM
Thefumegator,

Go to TFL and do a search. It's pretty much all there.

mattd
August 22, 2003, 07:25 AM
Waco: The rufles of engagement is anti fed show, And the one on pbs is more pro fed. You can watch the whole show from pbs here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/view/

and all the other pbs shows http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/twenty/watch/

brownie0486
August 22, 2003, 07:36 AM
Lets not forget that it's believed a fed marshal named Deagan from Ma. was shot and killed by one at the Weaver compound before the feds ever opened up with their artillery.

How soon everyone apparently forgets to mention that here. Wondering why.

Brownie

Mark Tyson
August 22, 2003, 07:58 AM
Both incidents are examples of of overzealous law enforcement. They are standing lessons in why you never want to escalate the use of force beyond what is required.

The shotgun-barrel issue with Weaver amounts to entrapment. Anytime the police actively persuade you to commit an illegal act you would not have otherwise have done, it satisfies entrapment. Randy Weaver may be an ignorant racist, but he did not deserve what happened to him. Anyway, the whole SBS provision of NFA 34 is asinine if you ask me; not something worth arresting someone over. And don't tell me "But it's the law ...", cops have discretion for a reason.

I don't see how that shooting was ruled justified. The sniper said he was aiming at someone else when he shot Vicky through the door.

Regarding Waco, that was a complete Charlie Foxtrot from beginning to bloody end. FBI Agents who were there claim that Davidians would hold up infants and children to cover themselves from sniper fire - I don't know if that's true. In the initial ATF raid, the ATF shot and killed one man in a tower outside the compound claiming he was aiming a rifle at them. Turns out he was unarmed. Then there's the whole controversy over who fired first, the feds or the Davidians. It's a case of he said, he said. Maybe we'll never know.

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 08:06 AM
Lets not forget that it's believed a fed marshal named Deagan from Ma. was shot and killed by one at the Weaver compound before the feds ever opened up with their artillery.

How soon everyone apparently forgets to mention that here. Wondering why.

Why? Because it's not true. Degan was killed by Harris after Sammy Weaver and his dog had already been shot. Harris was cleared of murder charges.

A quick Google on "Degan, Harris, Murder" will provide you with plenty of info.

brownie0486
August 22, 2003, 08:15 AM
Tamara,

Appreciate the refresher, stand corrected.

Brownie

seeker_two
August 22, 2003, 08:19 AM
Ruby Ridge: Feds get Weaver to make SBS illegally. Send HRT to enforce warrant & give them permission to shoot first. HRT does & kills Weaver's wife. After standoff, Weaver surrenders & is tried. Weaver acquitted. HRT sniper who killed Weaver's wife charged by state, but Feds refuse to enforce. Major coverup by Feds continues. :fire:

Branch Davidians: ATF gets search warrant for compound. Instead of using local LEO's to help serve, they decide to use SWAT team while press covers. Davidians find out through press that ATF is coming & prepares. ATF begins raid (knowing that surprise is compromised.) Still don't know who shot first, but lots of shooting. ATF's nose bloodied & withdraws. Calls FBI to help surround compound. FBI & Davidians talk. FBI wants unconditional surrender. Koresh wants to talk w/ lawyer & reporters. FBI refuses. Koresh refuses to surrender. Says he'll burn place down first. FBI cuts power to compound--forcing Davidians to use lanterns in wooden compound. After 51 days, FBI decides to use tanks outfitted w/ tear gas to crash through walls. Also use tear gas grenades. Tanks knock lanterns over, setting compound on fire. Tear gas reacts to fire to make poisonous compound. Most Davidians die, few survivors arrested. Trial held in Waco. Davidians acquitted by jury, but Fed judge Walker Smith overturns jury verdict to give Davidian survivors prison time. Also supresses trial records & evidence presented. Feds seize all materials from compound from Texas Dept. of Public Safety (state police) and refuse to let anyone examine it. Major coverup by Feds continues. :fire:

Does this help?

Wanderer
August 22, 2003, 08:52 AM
He sawed the shotgun off after constant bugging and finally relented, but it was ONLY half an inch. I wouldn't go in with a swat team because half an inch of metal was missing from one weapon, not to mention how UNCONSTITUTIONAL the law he violated is...

Richardson
August 22, 2003, 09:38 AM
Regarding Weaver,

I understand that he cut down a longer barrel (nothing illegal there), and that the result was a barrel that was 1/2" shorter than allowed by law -- at least that's what is claimed.

I'd like to know if Weaver might have been measuring from the (receiver) end of the barrel, and thought it was legal, and the feds measured from the deepest part of the chamber (or some other "not so obvious" starting point) to "technically" get weaver on weapons charges. What Weaver did required no specialized knowledge, just some tools.

Either way it was entrapment. Either way it was only a 1/2", hardly a cause for alarm. Either way the seige was wrong.

Richardson

TallPine
August 22, 2003, 10:08 AM
In both cases more than one felony was committed

No felonies were committed, because Weaver was acquitted.

I think we still have a right to a jury trial in this country, as long as you can stay alive long enough to get there.

atek3
August 22, 2003, 10:09 AM
The short barrelled shotgun in the randy weaver case ... wasn't. The po's measured from the muzzle to the shoulder and said 17.5", jail time. But measured from the end of the chamber to the muzzle it was legal. But he still got convicted on the weapons charge :fire:

atek3

stevelyn
August 22, 2003, 10:12 AM
Everyone seems to forget, like it or not, that the feds actions at Waco and probably Ruby Ridge created the tragedy of Oklahoma City.
I'm not making excuses for Tim McVeigh's actions, they were clearly wrong and he put innocent people to death.
However they are the unintended consequences of policies of the Reno Justice Dept. and the actions she sanctioned. Janet Reno created Tim McVeigh. Had the Waco fiasco not occurred, it is unlikely McVeigh would have had an excuse to do what he did. Of course evidence is starting to become exposed in OKC showing complicity on part of the feds in that event. But that's a rant for another time. :fire:

geekWithA.45
August 22, 2003, 10:15 AM
Fed judge Walker Smith overturns jury verdict to give Davidian survivors prison time.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Since when do judges get to over ride juries?

Huh?

scotjute
August 22, 2003, 10:27 AM
The whole Weaver incident was absolutely atrocious. The sniper that placed his scope on a mother holding a baby and shot her all because of a 1/2" of shotgun barrell should either be in prison or on death row in my opinion. I wouldn't care what my orders were, as a Christian, such an act is completely uncomprehensible.

Waco does appear to be a case of the Feds and Janet Reno wanting to make an example out of someone. Either that or they were grossly incompetent, or perhaps both. The Branch Davidians appear to have been selected because they were a kooky religious cult that were survivalists and had firearms. IF I wanted to sneak up on somebody I wouldn't do it in the middle of the morning driving a truck pulling a trailer full of Fed agents down a long dirt driveway visible from the house. While it does sound as if the state should have investigated them sooner for child abuse, the Federal raid was clearly botched and frankly appeared to be totally uncalled for. In the early days of the incident, I still remember the Feds were appearing on the news giving reasons for the raid, and then the next day on the news giving completely different reasons. The term "cover-up" certainly comes to mind. This is where Janet Reno earned her nickname here of "Burn-em and gas-em Reno".

MJRW
August 22, 2003, 10:34 AM
I'm on board here that the feds f***ed up as much as anyone. But the "its only 1/2"" argument does nothing. 1/2", 1/8", 8". Its not a progressive crime. Regardless of anyone's views on whether or not it should be a crime or if he was trapped, its either too short or it isn't. And regardless of whether or not its too short, the fed response was irresponsibly and maliciously disproportionate.

Edit: Wanted to add that I don't really care if it was 8" of barrel cut off, semi-auto with more than 5 rounds with a pistol grip and a folding stock, the response was still way wrong.

MJRW
August 22, 2003, 10:36 AM
Hey, Scott, how about not just you christians get to think morally? The rest of us humans outside of your club would like in on that.

Hkmp5sd
August 22, 2003, 11:16 AM
Everyone seems to forget, like it or not, that the feds actions at Waco and probably Ruby Ridge created the tragedy of Oklahoma City.

Isn't that the same as saying the US actions in Kuwait/Saudi created the tragedy of the World Trade Center?

People that want to commit a terrorist act, whether they are Americans or foreigners, will find some justification for their action. McVeigh was most likely going to do something eventually, whether or not Waco happened. His mindset was that of the radical "Turner Diary" individual that thought violence against the government was the only way to correct his perceived injustices.

rhedley
August 22, 2003, 11:29 AM
telewinz

Think about this, a gun barrel can be cut twice.

Newton
August 22, 2003, 11:48 AM
To start with a side note - Judges do have the right to throw out a jury's decision, but I have no idea if he/she did in that particular case.

Ruby Ridge & Waco were examples of what happens when you have a shiny new hammer - most everything looks like a nail.

I think that law enforcement learned some valuable lessons from these 2 incidents. The first was that even they can be held accountable when they murder people with their under utilized assault weapons, and over inflated testosterone levels. We have too many LEO departments all competing for Federal funding, there are so damned many of them and they have little or nothing useful to do. We need to start combining these departments and get rid of all the conflicting interests.

It still makes me shudder to think that Lon Horiuchi and all the other killers have got an OJ pass on all those killings.

Perhaps one day justice will prevail for those dead kids.

ReadyontheRight
August 22, 2003, 11:56 AM
telewinz -- What do Waco and Ruby Ridge have to do with the "Turner Diaries" you keep mentioning?

I hope you don't think that my expectation that the federal government follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights makes me a Nazi.

scotjute
August 22, 2003, 12:01 PM
MJRW,
Didn't mean to exclude you, the more that think this way the better in my opinion.

cpileri
August 22, 2003, 12:16 PM
Was that hammer the picture of the tank with flames coming from the muzzle of the turret gun that no one can seem to find a picture of anywhere?
Hmmm...
C-

TearsOfRage
August 22, 2003, 12:19 PM
I wonder if law enforcement also learned not to allow long standoffs to avoid unintended consequences, as well as how effective fire is at eliminating evidence.


Y'know, people a little older than I talk about how they remember exactly what they were doing when JFK was shot. I know I'll never forget watching the flames and wondering whether the children would have prefered to be abused or to be burned to death. :fire:

Keith
August 22, 2003, 12:32 PM
I'll point out something that everyone here seems to forget.

The law in both cases stemmed from the NFA of 1934 - a TAX LAW! The alleged crimes were a violation of the tax code and no citizen should have a gun drawn on them for failure to pay a tax. There are simply too many reasonable alternatives. The feds could have sent them a bill, or withheld their income tax returns, or tacked additional fines onto their taxes until the matter was cleared up.

The alleged crimes were tantamount to smuggling cigarettes out of an Indian reservation or claiming an improper deduction on income taxes, no more.

Keith

rhedley
August 22, 2003, 12:38 PM
The Feds can't defend it and neither can the ones that get their info from The HISTORY CHANNEL !!

I have often wondered, can you see and breathe with your head there? In the sand, I mean...:)

Byron Quick
August 22, 2003, 12:43 PM
You're right, Keith. But, you don't understand. When you've got all these agents and equipment then you must justify them come budget time. That means using them.


telewinz, I've never read the Turner Diaries. Nor do I care to do so from what I've heard of them. But tell me, how do the Turner Diaries or any felony that Randy Weaver committed...justify shooting his young son in the back...or his wife in the head? I mean, I understand that she was armed with a dangerous infant. Reckon the FBI was afraid she might abuse the baby? After all, that was the rationale for the final Waco assault.

And the feds have never shown the piles of illegal weapons. Nor have they shown evidence of child abuse. Oh, I suppose the children who died at Waco were the ones who were abused. They had to kill them to save them.

Baba Louie
August 22, 2003, 01:39 PM
They had to kill them to save them.

Seems to be an approved gov't policy since about the Vietnam era as I recall. Probably pre Vietnam, I just wasn't aware of it before then. It appears that the typical American response is akin to "As long as its not MY Ox being gored"...

Weaver did cut a barrel of a shotgun for someone... but as I recall reading at the time he kept it legal. Someone later might have (cough, cough) removed the buttstock pad, thus rendering the OAL to be 3/8" less than legal (cough, cough), but I digress... Then there was that slight faux pas concerning the court date... Oops. Then the boys dog thing.

Dynamics at work... not a pretty picture sometimes.

When the Feds want ya, they got ya... One way or another. We're all probably guilty of something, some more than others. And to be a fatalist, we're all going to die someday.

Koresh seemed determined to follow his self proclaimed destiny, albeit aided by his/our tax dollars. And the later trial wherein the judge over-ruled the jury... waste of still more taxpayer dough. Survivors will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, or what the judge says the law will be; the heck with 12 good men/women who obviously knew nothing about jury nullification.

Gerry Spence defended Weaver and wrote a little essay about it titled "From Freedom to Slavery". More focus on corporate King than Weaver but a good read none-the-less.

McVeigh... no hero there, tho' I still wonder about that conveniantly timed conference that the OKC ATF agents were at when the truck bomb went off and all the tin-foil hat crowd hoopla that followed.

Interesting times back then. Interesting times today.

So tell us Thefumigator, have you learned something about both incidents yet? And if so, what is your reaction 10 years after the fact?

Adios

cordex
August 22, 2003, 01:39 PM
They had to kill them to save them.
But the operation was a success, Byron. That's the important part.

You can't make an omlette of the Constitution without breaking a few "undesirables" y'know.

Correia
August 22, 2003, 01:41 PM
The gov went way way over the line at Waco.

The agents on the perimeter fired at people trying to escape from the compound when it was on fire. They deny this, even though you can clearly see the muzzle flash on the circling aircraft's FLIR video. The FBI explains the 600 RPM flashes on the FLIR as sunlight reflecting off of pieces of metal. Great explanation, except that FLIR picks up heat. Anybody want to tell me how the sun suddenly heats up metal, and then cools it, at 600 RPM?

Shaped charges were used to blow holes into the bunkers that the kids were in. I'm not talking breaching charges. When you use a charge like that you turn the people inside into hamburger.

Waco was the biggest screw up in the history of law enforcement. And the only good thing that came of it is that many American's got very angry. Thereby preventing more grandiose stupidity.

waynzwld
August 22, 2003, 02:01 PM
...and if you believe all the B.S. on OKC, I've got a bridge in New York I will sell cheap. I have worked with professional explosive experts and they will all tell you there is no way that a truck with ANFO can destroy reinforced concrete collums at that distance. Besides, look at any pictures you can find, there are trees still standing with leaves still on them, near where the truck blew up.
More government lies.

2nd Amendment
August 22, 2003, 02:08 PM
On TFL there is a kick-butt thread about OKC and the improbability of a truck bomb doing the deed. It contains links to all sorts of things, though I think some are dead now since we moved the FreeConservatives board(where an identical argument was going and the two wound up entwined) to a different server but, still, it makes for good reading.

I will ask here a question that was asked in that thread: Why is there ALWAYS a Government Apologist anytime these incidents come up? Always...

geekWithA.45
August 22, 2003, 02:30 PM
To start with a side note - Judges do have the right to throw out a jury's decision

Er, actually, I can't find any evidence of that, and it generally flies in the face of the point of having a jury in the first place.


Googling the term "judicial override" reveals a lot of discussion about judges over riding sentencing recommendations, and very little about judges over riding verdicts.

The two links that speak to judicial over ride of verdicts that I could find are here:

http://www.geocities.com/vladd77/JURYTRIAL_ENDAGERED.html

and

http://www.clr.org/jury-nullification-1.html


If judges can over ride verdicts at will, we are much deeper in it than we think, and the frog has boiled.

lexical closure
August 22, 2003, 02:46 PM
I will ask here a question that was asked in that thread: Why is there ALWAYS a Government Apologist anytime these incidents come up? Always...

Honestly?

Because there's always an apologist on any side of a controversial issue like this.

Think about it - some mother somewhere offs her three kids, you get women's rights groups blaming it on stress and untreated depression.

You get a woman who kills her husband in self defense after years of abuse, while he was assaulting her, you get the people screaming for the death penalty.

You get a completely justifiable police shooting, there's always the guy running around screaming about jackbooted thugs.

You get an entirely questionable police shooting, there's always the people blindly supporting the cop, ignoring any evidence that shows it was unjustified.

It's just the nature of the world.

It doesn't matter what happens, there will be people advocating the 'wrong side' as far as the facts go (Disclaimer: II don't know enough about OKC to have an opinion on which is the wrong side there)

gun-fucious
August 22, 2003, 03:09 PM
The feds wanted Weaver to spy on the White Supremacists_up the road

Weaver said what they did was not his business, so he told the feds no

The Feds then entrapped Weaver by having an undercover agent goad him into cutting down a shotgun at marked points

They wanted to use this as a lever to make Weaver into a spy

Weaver refused to "co-operate"

so they ratcheted up the pressure

Baba Louie
August 22, 2003, 03:29 PM
(Disclaimer: II don't know enough about OKC to have an opinion on which is the wrong side there)

286 Americans died at the hands of, apparently McVeigh and his minion, for WHATEVER reasons, real or imagined. 2 wrongs do NOT make a right, as the saying goes. Waco was real, don't get me wrong. Was it justification to do that deed?
280 million other Americans didn't think so as they did not feel compelled to rent a truck, buy fertilizer and diesel fuel, etc.

And you're right lexical...
It's just the nature of the world.

Sad, but true.

Adios

lexical closure
August 22, 2003, 03:54 PM
286 Americans died at the hands of, apparently McVeigh and his minion, for WHATEVER reasons, real or imagined.

I meant as far as 2nd amendment's allegation that the truck-bomb wasn't enough to do the damage done, not in regards to whether building the truck-bomb was justified in the first place - just to clarify. :)

The allegation sounds a bit conspiracy theorish to me, but I won't discount the possibility as I haven't seen the links, etc, he's talking about, to judge for myself whether they have merit.

I did not by any means mean to imply that McVeigh was blameless. You build a truck bomb with the intent to hurt innocent people, and set it off, it doesn't much matter if it fails, or if it wasn't enough.

Byron Quick
August 22, 2003, 04:30 PM
168 people were killed by the Oklahoma City bombing, not 286.

Baba Louie
August 22, 2003, 04:55 PM
Byron,

Thanks for the correction. Memory goes out after 4 decades and I was too lazy to look it up. 168 or 286... 1 death there was too many.
Thanks again.

Adios

(edited because I can't spell byron apparently)

Waitone
August 22, 2003, 05:05 PM
The allegation sounds a bit conspiracy theorish to me, but I won't discount the possibility as I haven't seen the links, etc, he's talking about, to judge for myself whether they have merit.There is a lot more to the OKC bombing than people want to admit. Permit me to fit you for your first tinfoil hat (which BTW is banned on THR).

David Shippers is a former Chicago federal prosecutor famous for busting up the mob and for being lead counsel for the House of Representatives during the impeachment of a former president of the US.

Shippers has done considerable investigation of the OKC bombing and has uncovered evidence to a much wider crime than originally suspected. He is also heading down roads the federal government does not want to tread. Just a few little factoids he's uncovered:
--Terry Nichols, McVey's cohort in crime, made numerous trips to Indonesia prior to the bombing. Shippers has witnesses in Indonesia that place Nichols in meetings with known Al Qaeda goons.
--Nichols or McVey (IDRW) attended a bomb making school in the Chicagoland area which was later determined to be run by organizations with sympathies to Al Qaeda.
--McVey had in his possession a list of Iraqi cell phone numbers.

Nichols first attorney screamed loud and long about the suppression of evidence by federal agencies.

I don't do tinfoil hats, but I can smell and what Shippers has uncovered does have an odor.

Run a google on "David Shippers" and read.

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 05:22 PM
What some seem to be saying is "I'm tough on crime" BUT please let decide which felonies I want LE to be tough on. LE may have shown poor judgement, what else is new? Any LE person can tell you it's VERY common and that a significant amount of the actual procedures performed by LE would not hold-up under close media attention (OJ Simson?).

If Weaver or Koresh were of middle east heritage, there would have been no outcry from the radical/unstable political right, they would have bought LE a beer! "Rolling Over" for LE is very common, its how our system of justice has functioned for decades. Commit a crime in front of your friend and he owns you! With luck he will have a "get out of jail card free" if he is ever nabbed by LE. It may not be nice, but you are a fool if you think their is honor among thieves when the heats on. What do you think LE is looking for when they are conducting an investigation and where do you think they get a great deal of their leads and evidence? Weaver chose not to roll-over and not cop a deal? That doesn't make him a hero, he is just another dumb anti-social criminal.

Weaver and Koresh had already committed felonies and responded with violence when the LE agents attempted to place them under arrest. Both subjects were considered dangerous and LE was advised to use caution in making the arrest. Entrapment is a legal term and no judge or court ever ruled that Weaver was entrapped, do you even know the legal definition of entrapment? It does not apply to Weaver, he was known to have already manufactured sawed-off shotguns for other people for profit.

I am as pro-gun as anyone, but I refuse to turn my brain off like a light switch so that I might "enjoy" pro-gun/anti-government propaganda. Neither Koresh nor Weaver are my "Poster Child" for any pro-gun statement. Serious felonies were committed, legal and just due process was attempted by LE and lethal violence was returned by the suspects. What other response does anyone expect from LE? Yes, there is alot of BS on both sides but the majority of guilt still lies with Weaver and Koresh despite any popular political beliefs they might have held.

A. Partisan
August 22, 2003, 05:41 PM
Ruby Ridge and Waco(plus various other fiascoes to numerous to mention) brought to you by the Federal Government............ The Weaver family and the Branch Davidians wanted to be left alone..........that's the bottom line. If the Feds hadn't pulled their BS, you and I wouldn't have known about any of these people. BUT NO, Big B has to come in shootin', gasin', and burnin', for no reason as far as I'm concerned. I love my country as much as the next person, but when the Government screws up they should held accountable. When is this going to happen? Everyday the Gov steps over the line and everyday they stretch that line. I have read a few articles and yes I have watched a few T.V. programs:eek: on these fiascoes. I don't believe 100% all I read or see on T.V. Just out of curiosity I think I'll buy a copy of The Turner Diaries to see what all the stink is about........ Just one man's opinion

Byron Quick
August 22, 2003, 05:51 PM
telewinz,

I personally think that Weaver was an idiot to cut a shotgun down for anyone.

That does not, in any degree not even an atomic smidgin, justify federal agents, dressed like special operatives infiltrating a totalitarian country and armed with silenced automatic weapons, shooting his son in the back. Nor does it justify sniping an unarmed woman in the head.

If you think it does, I think you need to research what is considered to be lawful use of lethal force in the US.

Oh, yes. At trial, wasn't Weaver found to be innocent?

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 06:00 PM
What some seem to be saying is "I'm tough on crime" BUT please let decide which felonies I want LE to be tough on.
I've never said that. However, can we both agree that there are "crimes" and then there are "crimes"? Is having your wife and son shot dead without trial an appropriate punishment for a $5 tax violation? What about for 5 MPH over the posted limit?
LE may have shown poor judgement, what else is new?
Oh, no! They "weren't tough enough", according to you. What? Did they miss shooting Randy's infant daughter, too? That'd learn him to miss a disputed fraction of an inch on a shotgun barrel!
Any LE person can tell you it's VERY common and that a significant amount of the actual procedures performed by LE would not hold-up under close media attention (OJ Simson?).
Now who's making excuses for felonious behavior? Willfully felonious, in the case of the behaviors you're issuing apologies for.

If Weaver or Koresh were of middle east heritage,
...it wouldn't matter one iota, according to the Constitution.

there would have been no outcry from the radical/unstable political right, they would have bought LE a beer!Funny, some of the harshest outcry on this stuff has come from all sides of the political spectrum. The best book on Waco was written by someone who hardly has impeccable conservative credentials. Judging by your lack of knowledge of both events, it's unsurprising that you don't know this. "Rolling Over" for LE is very common, its how our system of justice has functioned for decades. Commit a crime in front of your friend and he owns you! With luck he will have a "get out of jail card free" if he is ever nabbed by LE. It may not be nice, but you are a fool if you think their is honor among thieves when the heats on. Was someone here discussing thievery? Or ignorance of inane government regulations, the violation of which was disproven in a COURT OF LAW?




I had much more, but I decided to save it for a later poster who may at least possess a mere moeity of the facts on the current topics of discussion.

When you understand:
A) What charges were leveled against Weaver and Koresh to launch the respective investigations.
B) What went on in those investigations.
C) Whether they, and others present, were found guilty or innocent of those charges,

...then why don't you try to have a conversation about them? Nattering on about "Turner Diaries" this and "Far Extremist Right" that just exposes your lack of research and factual information on the topic at hand.

lexical closure
August 22, 2003, 06:01 PM
Shippers has done considerable investigation of the OKC bombing and has uncovered evidence to a much wider crime than originally suspected. He is also heading down roads the federal government does not want to tread. Just a few little factoids he's uncovered:
--Terry Nichols, McVey's cohort in crime, made numerous trips to Indonesia prior to the bombing. Shippers has witnesses in Indonesia that place Nichols in meetings with known Al Qaeda goons.
--Nichols or McVey (IDRW) attended a bomb making school in the Chicagoland area which was later determined to be run by organizations with sympathies to Al Qaeda.
--McVey had in his possession a list of Iraqi cell phone numbers.

Why would the government hide al-Qaeda links?

Suppose you assume the Clinton administration has motive. Why would the Bush administration not blow it wide open? It would seem to me that would be a huge political win for the current administration, especially after 9/11. Can't you see the headlines? "Clinton administration covered up OKC links to al-Qaeda"

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 07:12 PM
I seem to have struck a nerve. How come?

mattd
August 22, 2003, 07:24 PM
But at the core it was allways the governments fault because they are the ones inforcing unconstitutional laws.

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 07:48 PM
Because, well... how can I put this?

You're a military history buff, right?

Here's a question for you:

Why does everyone whine about Pearl Harbor when it's obvious that American armored divisions landed on Honshu in 1940, provoking the Japanese to attack?

Blain
August 22, 2003, 08:19 PM
Waco and Ruby Ridge were test cases for the confiscation of firearms from the American public.

Orthonym
August 22, 2003, 08:29 PM
I recommend this book: "No More Wacos - What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and how to fix it" by David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman. Prometheus Books, 1997, Amherst, New York. ISBN 1-57392-125-4.

It's EXHAUSTIVE! The footnotes are dang near as long as the text! This book was favorably reviewed both in American Rifleman and by Gore Vidal in Vanity Fair! (for example, Kopel, considering EVERYTHING, concludes that David Koresh was only a mediocre guitarist:p )


Oh, something else: I believe that reliable reports exist saying that D.K. went out shooting with the BATmen a few days before the beginning of the nastiness, KNOWING that they were BATmen,on his property.! AND D.K. PROVIDED THE AMMO! AAARGGH!!!!!!:fire: :cuss:

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 09:18 PM
HA! You are in trouble now! You have just revealed the great American plot thats been covered-up all these decades! MY God what's next, Oswald WAS set-up! Kennedy personally killed Monroe:what: and the CIA DID introduce AIDS as a racist plot! THe sky is falling! The sky is falling! Breakout the hardhats and barricade yourselves in your homes (CCW optional).

Besides we both know that Patton (the greatest combat general of WW2) was not yet in command of the 3rd Armored division which fielded the greatest tank of WW2 (ta, taaaa) The SHERMAN M4 (echo, echo, echo). We both know that Patton would have only needed his peal (ivory, yea right!) handled 45's, two M1 GARANDS (the greastest battle rifle ever made (God...I mean Patton said so)), and a company of M4's to defeat the empire of Japan. Besides at Japan's high water mark (pun?), their empire was mostly water anyhow and (ta, taaaa) the SHERMAN (echo, echo, echo) could be converted to swim (well at least a couple didn't sink at Normandy).

No offense intended. Maybe Mike Irwin will stay involved on THR if the jucies start flowing again.:D

Newton
August 22, 2003, 09:38 PM
Geekwitha.45

Judges do overturn verdicts all the time, actually. Here's a recent one I plucked at random :

=====================================
Judge overturns Lentz verdict

BY PAUL BRADLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Jul 23, 2003

ALEXANDRIA - A federal judge yesterday threw out a jury's conviction of former Navy intelligence officer Jay E. Lentz for kidnapping and killing his ex-wife, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove an essential element of their case.

In a 55-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee wrote that government lawyers never proved Jay Lentz held Doris F. Lentz against her will, a required component for conviction under the federal kidnapping act.

"There is no evidence Jay Lentz held or detained Mrs. Lentz as part of a kidnapping," the judge wrote. "Jay Lentz was improperly convicted of kidnapping resulting in death."
=================================

If a Federal judge throwing out a murder conviction doesn't fit with your understanding of an overturned jury decision then I don't know what does, happens all the time.

Gator
August 22, 2003, 09:42 PM
I recommend this book: "No More Wacos - What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and how to fix it" by David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman. Prometheus Books, 1997, Amherst, New York. ISBN 1-57392-125-4.

I second this recommendation. This is an outstanding book, exhaustively researched and well written. But be warned, it will scare the daylights out of you!

I have been fortunate enough to have met Randy Weaver and was able to spend a couple of hours talking with him. What was done to his family was a national disgrace. The fact that abuses like Ruby Ridge and Waco (just two of the more widely publicized ones) are allowed to go unpunished is what fuels people like McVeigh. Also, as a result of unchecked governmental abuses, countless others who will not (thank God) go to the extremes that McVeigh did, nonetheless lose trust in our elected officials and even our system of government. To maintain trust in government it is vital that abuse by the authorities not be tolerated, for not only does this tolerance erode the confidence of the people, it encourages more abuse.

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 09:51 PM
Cute, though not cunning.

Since you have chosen to miss my point in rather dramatic fashion, let's return to the previous questions:

(I'll go 'head and repeat them for you)

A) What charges were leveled against Weaver and Koresh to launch the respective investigations?
B) What went on in those investigations?
C) Were they, or others present, found guilty or innocent of those charges?

Surely you know the answers to these, as they are in the public domain.



(HINT: "The Turner Diaries!" is not the answer to A, B, or C.)

Sodbuster
August 22, 2003, 10:04 PM
With the usual disclaimer "I haven't read this book", The Turner Diaries was written by a neo-nazi named William Pierce who used a pen-name when the book was published, not sure what name is on the book now. Pierce was a confederate of Lincoln Rockwell (or whatever his name was, the head American Nazi Party chieftain of yore). Don't know why anyone would want to line this nazi's pocket by buying his book; try the library if you must.

lethal violence was returned by the suspects
Was that before or after they received lethal violence?

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 10:10 PM
Was that before or after they received lethal violence?

At Ruby Ridge, it was most definitely "after". The Marshals shot Sammy and his dog before Harris shot Degan. This is a matter of record.

At Waco, we may never know. The Effa-Bee-Eye took the front door of the Carmel compound from the Texas staties and then kinda, well, lost it, as, you know, federales are wont to do with critical bits of evidence. Both sides claim the other fired first. FWIW, the jury seemed to agree with the Davidians.

AZLibertarian
August 22, 2003, 10:20 PM
I recommend this book: "No More Wacos - What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and how to fix it"

Dang it. Orthonym beat me to my point. This is an excellent book, and more thoroughly footnoted than most of my college textbooks were. Also, this was not just another "Guy-With-A-Tinfoil-Hat" who writes a book that references books by other "Guys-With-Tinfoil-Hats". Many of the references the authors cite are testimony from court cases, Congressional hearings, and other sworn sources.

Waco--anyone remember the ATF/FBI expressing concern for the well-being of the children? How they might be suffering abuse? Anyone know if child abuse is a federal crime? Besides, these accusations had been explored by the Texas state authorities before the seige, and no charges were made.

Anyone remember watching the flag on the day the place burned down? It was flying straight out. Wind must have been blowing 30mph. Every Boy Scout in America knows that you don't go fooling around with something that might be flammable on a windy day. So what does the FBI do? They used tanks to introduce poison gas into a building they knew was a sub-code firetrap, which eventually combusted from some cause and the place burned to the ground. The FBI did all this in the name of the children. IMO, they could have waited until a calm day to launch this assault.

BTW, I'll send anyone here a case of beer if they can tell me how many people died at Waco. Short answer is...nobody knows. Look back at all the reporting, and you'll see phrases like "Koresh and approximately 80 of his followers died at Waco". Those bodies were burned so completely that some were nothing but ash.

After Waco, the feds bulldozed and carted off the remains of the buildings that burned down. Therefore, there isn't any evidence remaining to independently confirm their stories. BTW, they did the same thing in OKC.

The view that Weaver at Ruby Ridge and the Davidians at Waco committed felonies that justified LE intervention misses one point. As others have mentioned, Weaver was acquited of his charges. The Davidians were [I]alleged to have committed their felonies. The missing point is that this country is not a banana republic. In America, we hold our law enforcement officers to a higher standard than common criminals. The events at Ruby Ridge and Waco brought a shining light on the fact that, sometimes, LE gets away with a crime in the name of preventing it.

P.S. This thread has me wondering if someone is trolling THR.

TallPine
August 22, 2003, 10:22 PM
If a Federal judge throwing out a murder conviction doesn't fit with your understanding of an overturned jury decision then I don't know what does, happens all the time.

Big difference between overturning a conviction and overturning an acquittal.

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 10:27 PM
Were the arrest warrants valid?

Did LE go in planning to kill Weaver and Koresh?

Did Weaver and Koresh have an opportunity to surrender to lawful authority?

Were Weaver and Koresh considered dangerous and possibly armed?

Did Weaver and Koresh in fact commit serious felonies?

Why are you determined to condemn the government at all costs? You weren't on OJ's Jury were you?

Is it due process to arrest a person(s) alleged to have committed a crime?

Please recomend your sources of information, I've watched what the History Channel and Discovery channel had on the subject.

I prefere clever to cute.

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 10:40 PM
May I take it then that you don't know enough about the cases under discussion to answer the three questions? :confused:

Please recomend your sources of information, I've watched what the History Channel and Discovery channel had on the subject.

I bet those aren't your sources for WWII history. Why do you consider them to be the fount of factuality on this topic?

Cold Zero by Whitcomb (FBI HRT member who was at both incidents.)
Ashes Of Waco by Reavis (Indie newspaper reporter with no political axe to grind who has written the definitive account of Waco.)
Freedom In Chains by Bovard.

There's plenty more where that came from. Thirty-minutes-minus-commercials TV docudramas don't even begin to scratch the surface of what actually happened.

Hkmp5sd
August 22, 2003, 10:43 PM
Regardless of how these two incidents started, there was no reason for the way they ended. Weaver eventually surrendered and would have eventually done so even without his wife and child being killed.

In Waco, there was no way Koresh could have escaped. The decision to gas and storm the compound, given it's size and layout, was just plain stupid. In my opinion, the reason for choosing this route was the negative publicity it was giving the government agencies involved. The apparent impotence of the g-men to resolve the situation greatly annoyed the feds, at least up to Reno and probably up to Clinton. It's hard to claim to be tough on crime when the ATF/FBI/US Army are held at bay by a bunch of religious fanatics, a large number of which are women and children.

As for Weaver's shotgun, I don't buy that the government cut the barrel shorter after the fact, although I think they did coerce him into making it. If they were going to tamper with evidence in order to charge Weaver with an NFA violation, all the government needed was a SBS from any source and an agent or informant to swear they got it from Weaver. If they were going to frame him, they didn't need a shotgun that Weaver had physically touched.

P.S. This thread has me wondering if someone is trolling THR.
No troll. It started merely by someone asking for information about the two incidents, not whether the government acted improperly or not.

telewinz
August 22, 2003, 10:58 PM
How many followers of Koresh are either in prison now or were in prison for their actions connected with Waco? Seven

How many Feds are in prison for their actions? zero

You may assume what you will, I assume you will continue to do so. Its hard to break old habits.

Tamara
August 22, 2003, 11:05 PM
How many followers of Koresh are either in prison now or were in prison for their actions connected with Waco? Seven

Seven. Each and every one of which a jury of their peers found "Not Guilty".

You may assume what you will, I assume you will continue to do so. Its hard to break old habits.

Oh, yeah, there are a lot of assumptions going on here, but I'm not the one making them. You got your facts on these cases from a History Channel special, eh?

What was the amount that the Federales wound up paying to Weaver after losing the civil suit following their collossal screwup?

Why is Evil Weaver still running around loose?

How many illegal machine guns were the Davidians convicted of manufacturing?

How many children were the Davidians convicted of abusing?

How much meth were the Davidians convicted of making?





It's okay to say "I don't know", as it's growing apparent that that's your answer.

Still waiting for your answers to questions A, B and C, BTW... ;)

2nd Amendment
August 23, 2003, 12:00 AM
Were the arrest warrants valid?

The warrants appear to have had major errors in both cases. In Weaver's the dates, in the Davidian's case pretty much everything.

Did LE go in planning to kill Weaver and Koresh?

In Weaver's case apparently so, since they shot both his son and dog without provocation. in the case of Koresh, if not then why was he not arrested on any of the multitude of times he traveled into town, alone?

Did Weaver and Koresh have an opportunity to surrender to lawful authority?

In the case of Weaver, no. In the case of Koresh, apparently not since, as has been noted, it appears the feds fired first.

Were Weaver and Koresh considered dangerous and possibly armed?

Yes, but a better question is, were they considered such rightfully so?

Did Weaver and Koresh in fact commit serious felonies?

No. Weaver MAY have sawed off a shotgun barrel less than a quarter of an inch too short. Depends on how you measure it...AND if it was actually Weaver's cut.

Why are you determined to condemn the government at all costs? You weren't on OJ's Jury were you?

For the first part, because the government consistently demonstrates itself to be corrupt, over reaching and incompetent. For the second, nice attempt at a red herring but it fails.

Is it due process to arrest a person(s) alleged to have committed a crime?

Yes. And it is due process to get the warrants dated correctly for the appropriate reasons and to arrest the suspect in the least confrontational fashion available. In the case of Koresh the feds failed miserably on all counts.

Please recomend your sources of information, I've watched what the History Channel and Discovery channel had on the subject.

Then you essentially know absolutely nothing, so why jump to the goobermints defense?

I prefere clever to cute.

Then try to achieve one or the other.

AZLibertarian
August 23, 2003, 12:00 AM
How much meth were the Davidians convicted of making?

Interesting you brought this up. The No More Wacos book mentioned earlier brought out the LE use of military equipment required a "drug nexis"...IOW, a need to believe that the BGs (in this case, the Davidians) were somehow mixed up in drugs. You'll remember that the feds ended up borrowing and modifying Army armor, and Mississippi National Guard (I think) Huey's equipped with the IR cameras.

Not that it's impossible, but the story that the feds fed the sheeple of the Davidians making meth, or whatever, to fund their weapons purchases in preparation for their Apolcolypse stretches credibility. These very religious people were cooking meth? C'mon. But the feds needed to make this case to be able to use the military equipment. So they did, and most of America didn't question them.

Majic
August 23, 2003, 12:11 AM
Just out of curiousity sake, why did the courts seal all trial documents and evidence of an event that was aired on all national medias daily during it's entire duration?
David Koresh was known to frquently go to town, so if an arrest warrant was issued for him why not intercept him in town or on his travel to/fro town (avoiding innocents if there was violence)?
Did not Randy Weaver have his bank accounts siezed, credit frozen because he refused to be an informer for the government which led up to him cutting the shotgun barrel, which he had refused to do before, because he needed money?
These and other accounts I have read which may or may not be true, but sheds alot of doubt on the offical stories that in themselves make people wonder.

Don Gwinn
August 23, 2003, 12:27 AM
The last book I read on Ruby Ridge, Every Knee Shall Bow, was surprisingly good. The author set out to prove his thesis that there was very little malice on either side, but that paranoia and foolishness on both sides made the situation worse. For example, after the feds shot Vicki Weaver and as she lay dead on the floor of the cabin, the Weavers inside were treated to federal negotiators calling to Vicki on bullhorns:
"Vicki! Vicki! Are the children hungry, Vicki? We just finished pancakes and sausage, Vicki! What did you cook your children?"

The feds, of course, probably did not know (or at least, they couldn't have been sure) that Vicki was dead or had even been hit (even if Horiuchi knew, I don't know when he reported it.) Sara Weaver, though, told of hearing the feds call her mother's name in a mocking tone and being absolutely convinced that the cabin would be assaulted or burned to the ground any moment. The Weavers were convinced that the taunts were meant to make it clear that no one would be allowed to come out alive.


In the same book, it is stated that no one but Weaver and the agent in the car really know what the agent asked Weaver to do, because they indicated the lengths by pointing to parts of the barrel and there is no video record, only audio. An impasse.


Mr. Telewinz:

Were the arrest warrants valid?
The warrants at Ruby Ridge were, yes. The ones at Waco are widely acknowledged fakes--they had some blank ones ready, apparently.
Did LE go in planning to kill Weaver and Koresh?
Hard to say. The fact that their actions even raise the question in any way, no matter how remote, is not a good sign.
I don't believe there was a plan to go in and kill people, but I do believe that the ATF deliberately provoked a gun battle. I don't think they were all that concerned about casualties, but I give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe they really, honestly thought they would overwhelm the Davidians in a massive show of force and nothing "too bad" would happen.
In the Weaver case, I believe Degan and the others honestly planned to do simple surveillance, at least at first. However, that is NOT what they actually did, so I could be wrong. The fact that they DID actually go onto Weaver's land in camo with submachine guns is not in dispute. The fact that they were willing to shoot the dog, and apparently Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris, just to escape detection is also not in dispute.
Did Weaver and Koresh have an opportunity to surrender to lawful authority?
Koresh did not. That's sort of the point of all the discussion centering on why the BATF didn't just "take him when he was jogging." Koresh had had peaceful meetings with BATF agents on several occasions in the past, but he was not offered the chance to know about the warrants, much less surrender peacefully.
Weaver did not get the chance to surrender himself in the original case against him. As has been mentioned, he was sent an appearance notice with the wrong date and had a warrant sworn out for his arrest before anyone bothered to contact him or check the notice he'd been sent. I don't ascribe that to any malice on the part of the authorities, but it happened whether they intended it or not.
Were Weaver and Koresh considered dangerous and possibly armed?
Of course they were. That doesn't explain filling kids with lead, burning kids alive, shooting mothers holding babies in their arms (did the History Channel show the hotel napkin on which Horiuchi sketched his view through the cabin door, clearly showing an unarmed person behind the door at the moment he fired?)
Did Weaver and Koresh in fact commit serious felonies?
Weaver did not. If the government was absolutely right about his criminal activities, he didn't pay a $5 tax, and then he followed the instructions on a court appearance notice. BFD.
Koresh, apparently, may have committed statutory rape, but that's it. I've got a cousin who had sex with his girlfriend before he had the state's blessing, too. Koresh was certainly accused of very serious crimes, including child abuse, but not one of those accusations turned out to be true, which is kinda, sorta, important if you're going to use those felonies to justify burning people alive or shooting their children.
Is it due process to arrest a person(s) alleged to have committed a crime?

Absolutely, which is why that's what should have been done. Not placing wannabe ninjas on a man's property with no identification except masks and automatic rifles. Not some kind of wannabe D-day assault. Arrests.

Orthonym
August 23, 2003, 02:44 AM
Would anyone else like to discuss the account of D.K. going shooting with the Feds, and providing the ammo , a few days before the raid, knowing that they were out to get him?

Oh, and just how good/bad a guitarist was he?

Byron Quick
August 23, 2003, 03:02 AM
Telewinz,

Re Ruby Ridge the answer is an absolute no. There was no valid arrest warrant for Sammie Weaver...shot in the back by a federal agent. There was, in fact, no invalid arrest warrant for Sammie Weaver.

There was no valid arrest warrant for Vickie Weaver...shot in the head by FBI HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi. There was, in fact, no invalid arrest warrant for Vickie Weaver.

Sadly for your premise, Randy Weaver was found innocent of ALL charges. Therefore, exactly what felony did he commit?

The federal government also settled with him for three million dollars. If, as you maintain, the federal government was blameless, without peer, and above reproach...I wonder why it did so?

Oh, and get the feds to put Lon Horiuchi in front of a jury at the bar of justice. You'll see a fed in prison. So far federal judges keep barring the State of Idaho from prosecuting him. Give you one guess why.

Next straw man?

resmeth
August 23, 2003, 05:06 AM
Whether or not the ATF planned on killing people at Waco will only be known by them. But they did plan on putting on a good show. It was coming up to budget time and lets face it the ATF are a useless bunch of thugs and it was looking like their funding was going to get a reduction. It was noted in the PBS review of Waco that the ATF took more blank VHS tapes with them than ammo (initially). They were going to pull of a commando type assault and play it for congress as a ploy for more money.
Obviously this idiotic idea was likely to increase the chances of people getting hurt. Instead of picking up Koresh while he was getting diapers at the quickie mart they decided to storm a compound full of well armed people with little love of the feds to start with.
The rest is history, unfortunately the ATF isn't.

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 06:22 AM
What OBJECTIVE book is out there to research? The ones I have seen appear to have an anti-government slant. Why is any info from the History Channel or Discovery Channels invalid, they seemed unbiased to me.

Duncan Idaho
August 23, 2003, 07:10 AM
I seem to have struck a nerve. How come?Because you refuse to answer questions directed at you with anything other than non-related questions. Like: Why is any info from the History Channel or Discovery Channels invalid, they seemed unbiased to me.

Just answer the question. What felony did Randy Weaver commit?

While you are at it, what felony did Sammie Weaver commit, and was that felony sufficient to warrant shooting him in the back?

Is it a felony to hold open a door for another person(s), and does that felony come with the penalty of being shot in the head?????The feds, of course, probably did not know (or at least, they couldn't have been sure) that Vicki was dead or had even been hit (even if Horiuchi knew, I don't know when he reported it.)It would have been nearly impossible for the JBT not to know she was hit. By the time Vicki was murdered, the HRT had set up state of the art surveilance equipment. At minimum, two Feds knew she was hit. The murderer, and the spotter. Anyone monitoring the surveilance equipment would also have known.

Did they know she was dead? Almost certainly. Fatally shoot a deer in the head some time. Tell me if you don't "know" it's dead. They knew. Sara Weaver, though, told of hearing the feds call her mother's name in a mocking tone and being absolutely convinced that the cabin would be assaulted or burned to the ground any moment. The Weavers were convinced that the taunts were meant to make it clear that no one would be allowed to come out alive.That is exactly why they did it.

They also knew that the President, and the rat-bastard so-called Americans that put him in office, couldn't have cared less if they spitted Randy's baby daughter and roasted her for lunch.

Randy did commit a horrible felony after all. Right telewinz?


:fire: :fire: :fire:

A. Partisan
August 23, 2003, 07:29 AM
Opinions are like............................Well, we all can agree on that fact. Nobody has 100% of the all the facts on Ruby Ridge or Waco,never have, never will. Just a bunch of opinions(I stated mine earlier) mixed in with some facts about these Government F#@& ups.

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 07:48 AM
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT ON INTERNAL REVIEW REGARDING THE RUBY RIDGE HOSTAGE SITUATION AND SHOOTINGS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

B. Significant Findings
"In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF informant. When BATF agents later attempted to enlist Weaver as an informant in their investigation of the Aryan Nations, Weaver refused to cooperate. Seven months later, the government indicted Weaver for the illegal weapons sales. We have found no evidence to support the claim that BATF targeted Weaver because of his religious or political beliefs. Similarly, we found insufficient evidence to sustain the charge that Weaver was illegally entrapped into selling the weapons."

"From February 1991 through August 1992, the Marshals Service was involved in efforts to apprehend Weaver to stand trial for the weapons charges and for his failure to appear for trial. These efforts included gathering information about Weaver and developing a plan to arrest him. Based on information that it collected, the Marshals Service learned that for many years Weaver had made statements about his intent to violently confront federal law enforcement officials. As a result, the Marshals Service concluded that Weaver intended to resist violently governmental attempts to arrest him. Thereafter, the Marshals Service investigated and carefully considered alternatives that would enable it to arrest Weaver without endangering his family or law enforcement personnel. It concluded that an undercover operation would be the most prudent way to proceed."

"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 marshals retreated with the dog, Harris, Randy Weaver and his son, Sammy Weaver, and other family members in pursuit. At an area knownas the "Y," a gun battle occurred in which Deputy Marshal Degan and Sammy Weaver were killed."

"With regard to the responsibility for the deaths that occurred at the Y, the marshals assert that Harris initiated the fire fight when he shot Deputy Marsha Degan while Weaver and Harris claim that the marshals fired the first shots. After a thorough review of all of the evidence made available to us, we have been unable to determine conclusively who fired the first shot during the exchange of gunfire. Although there is evidence that one of the marshals shot Sammy Weaver during the exchange of gunfire, we found no proof that the shooting of the boy was anything other than an accident. In fact, the evidence indicates that the marshals did not know that Sammy Weaver had been killed or wounded until his body was discovered by the FBI in a shed outside the Weaver cabin two days later. Nor did we discover any evidence indicating that the marshals attempted to cover up their roles in the incident or that they exaggerated the events to cause a more drastic FBI response than was appropriate."

"With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, we concluded that the first shot met the standard of "objective reasonableness" the Constitution requires for the legal use of deadly force but that the second shot did not satisfy that standard. It is our conclusion that the sniper/observer who took the second shot intended to shoot Kevin Harris but accidentally killed Vicki Weaver whom he did not see behind the curtained door."

Mistakes were made by both sides but I still maintain that the majority of the guilt remains with Weaver. There will always be paperback books written by persons of unknown credibility that cater to the anarchists.

A. Partisan
August 23, 2003, 08:13 AM
There will always be books written by people that will whitewash the Government and portray them as the savior of the sheeple. NO 14 YEAR OLD KID DESERVES TO BE SHOT IN THE BACK,"FACT"

A. Partisan
August 23, 2003, 08:15 AM
NO CHILDERN DESERVE TO BE BURNT ALIVE, "FACT"'

AZ Husker
August 23, 2003, 08:23 AM
1) Government incompetence and coverups are real.
2) Some folks will always martyrize kooks, fringe elements, and criminals.

Is it a tie?

Autlander
August 23, 2003, 08:29 AM
All things being equal, had Randy Weaver lived in Sarajevo, and Lon Horriuchi been a Serb Army Sniper, and everything else had happened just the exact same way, a majority of Americans would have called for and got
military action against the Serbs.

Just goes to show you one man's "hero" Federal sniper is another man's
"war criminal" It ain't the act boys it's the stage it's played on.

If you can justify Ruby Ridge, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were probably good ideas in your mind. I spent 26 years telling my soldiers "there aint no right way to do a wrong thing". Still good advice, but then I guess the Feds don't need good advice, ethics don't much matter any more. Autlander

Tamara
August 23, 2003, 08:36 AM
What OBJECTIVE book is out there to research?

Several have already been suggested in this thread. Ashes Of Waco and Every Knee Shall Bow are two pretty unbiased accounts.

Yes, we're all well aware of the Justice Department report. It's one of several you'd be able to find referenced in these books. If you'd like to see the viewpoint of the other side, there's Christopher Whitcombe's Cold Zero. He was an HRT sniper who was actually at both places.

Byron Quick
August 23, 2003, 08:52 AM
Mistakes were made by both sides but I still maintain that the majority of the guilt remains with Weaver. There will always be paperback books written by persons of unknown credibility that cater to the anarchists.

Paperback books aside, the government has been unable to obtain convictions against Weaver or Harris...so what guilt?

So, you maintain that Weaver is responsible for US Marshals shooting Sammie Weaver in the back and Lon Horiuchi shooting Vickie Weaver in the head? He made them do it, right?

Seems like you skimmed right over this: With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, we concluded that the first shot met the standard of "objective reasonableness" the Constitution requires for the legal use of deadly force but that the second shot did not satisfy that standard. It is our conclusion that the sniper/observer who took the second shot intended to shoot Kevin Harris but accidentally killed Vicki Weaver whom he did not see behind the curtained door."

The second shot was not justified according to the above. But that's OK, right? After all, it was an "accident." And "accidents" "happen." Right?

John Ross
August 23, 2003, 09:35 AM
A few comments:

The shotgun Weaver shortened ended up with a barrel OVER 18" long. It was the OAL that didn't meet minimums, and we don't know who shortened the PG to put it under 25".

The warrant for the Davidian church is a public document. Read it. NOTHING listed in it is illegal for anyone to own.

There was a lot of news footage at Waco taken close-up before the feds made the news crews move back a quarter mile. It aired endlessly and is on tape. Watch it. The feds are blazing away, pulling triggers as fast as they can, firing from 30 feet at a wood frame house known to be filled with children. The feds are crouched behind vehicles in a dirt driveway/parking lot. NOT ONE VEHICLE gets a bullet hole in it or has starred glass. Not a single spout of dust/dirt appears from the ground. Get it? THERE IS NO RETURN FIRE. Later, we see feds climb though a 2nd story window, and immediately after, another fed tosses in a grenade (same window) and sprays the interior w/SMG fire. Most if not all fed casualties were friendly fire.

Additionally, whether Koresh claimed to be a messiah or was having sex with underage church members IS NOT A FEDERAL TAX MATTER. IIRC Father Bruce Ritter at Covenant House in NYC was found to be molesting young boys at his facility, BUT A FEDERAL TAX AGENCY DIDN'T SHOW UP THERE WITH A CATTLE TRAILER FULL OF TAX AGENTS ARMED WITH SMGs AND GRENADES AND START KILLING PEOPLE.

Last point: The claim that the OKC bombing happened because of Waco is imprecise. OKC happened because AFTER Waco, NO ONE was held accountable AT ALL. If Janet "I take full responsibility" Reno had been put on trial, been found guilty of manslaughter, sentenced to six months in prison, and served eight weeks but been disbarred and lost her gov't pension, it would have been enough to satisfy the millions of people who were stunned at the "We were in the right" stance that the gov't has maintained.

JR

El Tejon
August 23, 2003, 09:41 AM
John, some of us are still stunned.:(

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 09:54 AM
The Republican Congressional Report (on Waco) for 1996

"Senior officers of the Texas Rangers also testified as to the findings of their investigation into these events after April 19. The Rangers interviewed virtually everyone who was present at the Branch Davidian residence on February 28, including several of the surviving Davidians and all of the ATF agents who were present. As Texas Ranger Captain David Byrnes testified to the Subcommittees:"

"I believe the evidence was to me overwhelming in the trial that the Davidians fired first. The cameraman and the reporter, although very reluctant, finally I believe conceded that. He had broadcast that several times. He was more or less a hostile witness. But in my mind there is no doubt who fired first."

"The Subcommittees believe that the question of who fired the first shot on February 28th cannot decisively be resolved given the limited testimony presented to the Subcommittees. It appears more likely, however, that the Davidians fired first as the ATF agents began to enter the residence."

"It is clear that Koresh sexually abused minor females at the residence, in addition to having consensual sexual relations with several of the adult females who lived there. A number of former Davidians provided affidavits detailing these sexual relations, including the sexual abuse involving minors females. Joyce Sparks, an employee of the Texas Children's Protective Services agency provided the FBI with a report of an interview she conducted with a child who lived at the residence detailing an incident of sexual abuse. This child, Kiri Jewell, testified about her experience before the Subcommittees at the July hearings. Also, during conversation between FBI and Steve Schneider during the week of April 14, Schneider admitted that he knew of Koresh's sexual abuse of a minor female. While all of these incidents occurred prior to February 28, FBI behavioral expert Dr. Paul Dietz, in an April 17 memoranda to the FBI, opined that "Koresh may continue to make sexual use of any minor female children who remain inside."

"It also appears certain that Koresh employed severe physical punishments as a means of disciplining the children. A March 26 report of Dr. Bruce Perry, a - who interviewed the children who had been released from the residence during the stand-off, confirmed that Koresh physically abused children who had misbehaved."

"Analysis of the Issues Relating to the Fire."

"During the their testimony before the Subcommittees, the three fire experts stated their opinions as to the cause of the fire. They also discussed the several other theories as to the fire's origin which had been circulating in the media. Their testimony, coupled with the visual evidence provided by the FLIR and other videotape recordings made on April 19, conclusively prove that multiple fires began in different places inside the Branch Davidian residence and that they were deliberately set by the Davidians themselves."

"The methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by the FBI did not cause the fire."

"One of the theories forwarded to the Subcommittees concerning the origin of the fire is that methylene chloride, a chemical used as a dispersant to carry the CS riot control agent injected into the Branch Davidian residence, may have ignited and started the fire. During the hearings Dr. Quintiere testified that it was his opinion that the methylene chloride in the CS agent neither caused nor contributed to the spread of the fire."

"In light of this testimony, and the other information reviewed by the Subcommittees concerning the flammability of methylene chloride, the Subcommittees conclude that the presence of methylene chloride in the Branch Davidian residence did not cause the fire nor contribute to its spread."

"Some citizens have contacted the Subcommittees and forward to them copies of a video sold by an organization antagonistic to the government which attempts to explain many aspects of the government's actions at Waco, including the start of the fire. The makers of that videotape allege that the combat engineering vehicles used at Waco carried flame throwing devices which were used to intentionally set the fires inside the Branch Davidian residence. During the hearings, the fire experts were questioned about this theory."

"On another day of the hearings, a Defense Department witness testified that all of the military vehicles loaned by the Defense Department to the Department of Justice and used at Waco were unarmed. Additionally, the Subcommittees' interviews with other present at the Branch Davidian residence on April 19 confirms that none of these vehicles was armed."

"Given this fact, and the fact that had a flamethrower or similar device been installed on one of the CEVs its use would have been observable in the FLIR video, the Subcommittees conclude that the government did not use any of the military vehicles to intentionally set the fire. Additionally, as the evidence before the Subcommittees clearly demonstrate that no fire began near the time when any of the CEVs came in contact with the structure, the Subcommittees conclude that it is highly unlikely that the use of the CEVs inadvertently caused the fires to begin."

"The Davidians could have left their residence even after the fire began."

"Throughout the morning of April 19, none of the Davidians left their residence. After the fire broke out, however, nine persons left the building. This indicates that at least some opportunity existed for the Davidians to safely leave the structure had they wanted to do so. One of those who escaped the fire left the residence almost 21 minutes after the breakout of the first fire. Clearly, some means of escape from the residence existed for a significant period of time after the fire broke out."

"An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure."

"Additionally, the location of the bodies of the Davidians indicates that few of the Davidians actually attempted to escape the building. Many of the bodies were huddled together in locations in the center of the building. Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from the building, and the cause of death of several of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or gunshots from very close range."

Again, the FACTS based on an independant, professional investigation and conclusions made by INFORMED responsible people paints a different picture than many posts on THR would have us believe. "Antagonistic to the government" naw, not here on THR:scrutiny:
Biased feelings are no match against the facts, the two are not interchangeable but often are to serve those with an ax to grind.:barf:

Iain
August 23, 2003, 10:22 AM
Ok guys, lots of anger over this one that is obvious.

From my side of the Atlantic these stories have only really reached me two ways. Waco, when it happened and nothing was clear about it. Since then South Park.

South Park? you say. Yes. They did an episode where the ATF got their addresses wrong and mistook a party that the kids parents were at, for a suicide cult. To quote the ATF man that Matt Stone and Trey Parker (libertarians I think btw) created:

"We aren't going to let these crazy cultists commit mass suicide even if we have to kill them all to do it."

That made me realise that there is something important and fundamental underlying these cases and the American publics reaction to them. I have an idea what it is (but not an American so not going to assume I am right) - someone care to put it concisely for me.

Tamara - would love to put those books on my reading list, how huge are they?

Byron Quick
August 23, 2003, 10:23 AM
Biased feelings are no match against the facts, the two are not interchangeable but often are to serve those with an ax to grind.

That same report also has sworn testimony that there were no tear gas devices used that were capable of starting fires.

Only one problem with that sworn testimony...it was PROVEN to be a lie. Proven by finding the spent devices at the site. Strange thing...perjury is a crime. One which the agents giving that perjured testimony were never charged with. Wonder why?

Waitone
August 23, 2003, 10:24 AM
"The Subcommittees believe that the question of who fired the first shot on February 28th cannot decisively be resolved given the limited testimony presented to the Subcommittees. It appears more likely, however, that the Davidians fired first as the ATF agents began to enter the residence." And the key piece of evidence, the front door, mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again.
"The Davidians could have left their residence even after the fire began." Therefore its their fault they were killed.
Again, the FACTS based on an independant, professional investigation and conclusions made by INFORMED responsible people paints a different picture than many posts on THR would have us believe. Evidence disappears, no one is punished, leadership is promoted, "independent ivestigators" are establishment pubahs, and "scientific studies" are rigged. The comment "errors were made" just don't cut it when all the errors point in the same direction. I would have more faith in INFORMED investigations if there was a spread in the evidence and conclusions. I get really suspicious conclusions are completely onesided. 15 years ago a coverup of this magnitude would never have been challenged. Today, with the advent of alternative media makes it virtually impossible for government to slink away without accountability.

geekWithA.45
August 23, 2003, 10:32 AM
Agree with TallPine, there is a huge difference between overturning a conviction and overturning an acquital.

Judges have many tools at their disposal to dismiss cases and acquit a suspect, this is consistent with the principles of "benefit of the doubt" and bias towards erring on the side of acquital, and I have no problem with this.

What I was was alarmed about was the assertion that judges where overriding jury acquitals, and convicting folks at will.

If anyone can show confirmed cases of this, I think it bears (A LOT! of)scrutiny. If not, then I'm content to drop this sidebar and let it lie.

Tamara
August 23, 2003, 10:43 AM
Biased feelings are no match against the facts, the two are not interchangeable but often are to serve those with an ax to grind.:barf:

They often also serve those with a screwup to cover up or a career to save.

For the last time, telwinz, find Ashes of Waco. It's available in hardback from Simon & Schuster, and was written by an award-winning journalist who examined the situation quite carefully from both sides. It's hardly a nut-fudge-fringe book, and is considered the definitive book on the topic. (It contains everything you've already referenced, for instance.)

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 10:55 AM
No anger here, just puzzlement. Some conclusions made are lacking expert sworn testamony, questions/doubts are passed off with the same weight as facts, a lack of evidence (if it ever existed at all) to prove a BELIEF means a cover-up by the government. Prove your point with the unbiased facts, if you can't...well maybe YOU have the closed mind. But none the less this is THR and puzzled or not I'm interested in everyone's feelings and facts. Thats the purpose of this forum. Haven't heard from Mike yet.

Tamara
August 23, 2003, 11:04 AM
Facts?

You haven't read a single book on the topic, you don't know what the charges were, you don't know what the verdicts were, and you're asking me to provide facts?

Read Reavis' book, it's chock full of facts: transcripts of trials and phone conversations, interviews with participants, outcomes of investigations, et cetera.

The facts are this:

In both cases, questionable criminal investigations were screwed up by the numbers, the actual on-site operations were goat-ropes of epic proportions, and then the various branches, agencies and departments involved engaged in an orgy of finger-pointing, obfuscation and name-calling to divert blame. I'm not saying that in either case any federal agency went in with murder in their hearts, but the results were just the same as if they had. Every jury the facts were presented to seems to have agreed with that, which is why Randy Weaver has several million of your tax dollars right now.

2nd Amendment
August 23, 2003, 11:27 AM
Like I said previously: Always an Apologist. And just like the other Apologists I've encountered in threads on Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC, they refuse to answer direct questions, ignore obvious points and continue to preach the goobermint line. The only useful method in dealing with them? Ignore them and move on, you can't "change their mind" because they aren't voicing their opinion anyway, just advancing the "party line".

Telewinz, if you are anything other than a mouthpiece then be silent till you read the books and actually have a breadth and depth of knowledge to comment with. The worst thing that can happen is you'll learn something. The best thing that can happen is it'll shake this apparent faith you have in the corrupt and mostly unnecessary entity of Big Government.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2003, 11:48 AM
Coming late to the discussion; my ISP went wonky, last night...

telewinz: It's pretty much an open secret that the feds lied to Governor Richards about the drug issue. That issue was the only way under the law that she could release the N.G. helicopters to them.

Koresh and the Davidians had been pretty thoroughly checked out by the state's child welfare people as to allegations of child abuse. They were pretty thoroughly checked out as to allegations of drug use or meth-labs. They had a comfortable relationship with local area neighbors, and with the McClennan County SO. Koresh was a regular attendee and sit-in musician at local rock-music clubs. And, the sheriff was quoted as saying that any time he heard of any problem, all he had to do was call Koresh and he'd come to the sheriff's office. I have read the ATF warrant, and it's contradictory to many, many other independent accounts of the behavior of Koresh and the Davidians.

Note I do not claim the Davidians didn't buy various parts and pieces to convert an AR15 to full-auto.

The day after the ATF raid, I read newspaper interviews with various Waco citizens and with the sheriff of McClennan County. Basically, all the allegations against the ATF are essentially correct. This is reinforced if you read James Pates' series of articles in Soldier of Fortune magazine; excellent journalism. It is further reinforced if you watched the Congressional hearings as broadcast on C-Span. I followed the whole deal closely. Later, Pate covered the kangaroo-court trial in San Antonio.

Cogito ergo vomitum, or something like that.

Weaver was a separatist, not a supremicist. He avoided the Aryan Nation crowd and its politics. He couldn't be very bright, to have allowed himself to be conned into a subornation of felony situation. Regardless, the two BATF agents incited/enticed him to modify the two shotguns. Because of an erroneous date on the document given him as to a court appearance, the heavy-duty surveillance began, lasting for around a year (!). The rest is history.

My own comment about Horiuchi's story about the shot is that he was totally under-qualified as a shooter, aside from any other under-qualifications that he lacks. Again, I refer you to Pate's articles and C-Span's coverage of the hearings. I like to believe I'm halfway competent at recognizing blarney when I hear it, competent at reading body language when someone is obfuscating if not outright lying. Magaw, et al, were not what I'd call truthful witnesses. Last, the Fibbies aren't in the habit of paying $3.2 very-large to guilty people.

Art

Okiecruffler
August 23, 2003, 01:19 PM
I think the big thing that bothers me about Waco is the fact that the local 911 center was given the wrong radio frequency to communicate with the BATF. If you listen to those 911 tapes of the call from the Dividians attempting to get the shooting to stop, it's just chilling. The feds didn't bother to communicate with the Dividians until they were low on ammo and needed to remove their wounded. Ands while the feds were pulling their wounded back, not a shot was fired from thet compound. There could have been a slaughter of fed agents right then and there, but there wasn't. So who was the violent aggressor?

FWIW, Weaver was found guilty of the original weapons charge and spent a few months in the pen for that. The BATF was fined by the judge for mishandling, fabricating, and destroying evidence.

geegee
August 23, 2003, 01:46 PM
I 'm not going to read all the pages on this much discussed topic, so if the answer to my question is there, forgive me. Living in Texas, it's my understanding that the local sheriff has supreme LEO authority, trumping even that of the Feds, should they all be needed at a crime scene. Without question, the local sheriff in this state is a person who generally commands a high level of respect.

Here's where I could use the input of some Texas LEO's. If my premise is true, why wasn't the local sheriff summoned by the Feds and told that there may be a big problem brewing, so Sheriff can we count on you to help? The Sheriff at that point could walk up to the front door of the compound (alone) and ask to speak to Koresh, and then point out all the charges and accusations (and commensurate penalties). To my knowledge this was never attempted, and it's always puzzled me as to why not. :confused: geegee

GinSlinger
August 23, 2003, 01:50 PM
Uhh, hmm.

I disremember the Dallas Morning News reporter who did a lot of digging into Waco during the subsequent trials. Anyone help? Art? Anyway, I remember these reports were quite well written, and raised quite a few questions. For example, why was the Fed Attorney out of San Antonio (originally assigned to the case because it was in his jurisdiction) dismissed? Why were his records confiscated? Why did the Feds bring in a ringer? A lot of questions went unanswered during the trial, and a lot of testimony changed. Specifically the official interpretation of the FLIR footage.

Additionally: IF (and I mean IF) Koresh molested any of the girls in his care, why is this an ATF issue? Why didn't the STATE OF TEXAS arrest Koresh? I have never seen the Federal justification for an arrest on state charges.

Congressional hearings are a joke. Period. Kennedy was never inditied for his responcibility in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The only ones to take any heat there was the CIA. There are plenty of other examples. They make good PR, but serve no real purpose.

There are still Nixon apologists who insist that he did no wrong. Why would we expect any less of the Reno/Clinton/FBI/ATF apologists?

GinSlinger

AZLibertarian
August 23, 2003, 01:50 PM
...Magaw, et al, were not what I'd call truthful witnesses....

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Magaw was the head of the ATF during both Ruby Ridge and Waco. President Bush later "rewarded" Magaw as the initial head of the Transportation Security Administration, where he did everything possible to prevent arming airline pilots. His obstinance eventually got him to "retire to spend more time with the family". Magaw's replacement at TSA, Admiral Loy, is carrying on splendidly in his predecessor's tradition. While Loy is not quite as obstinant, he is still impeding this necessary step to preventing another 9/11.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2003, 05:39 PM
I didn't see the Dallas Morning News series, but I heard good things about the quality of the reporting.

Magaw came across to me as a stereotypical bureaucrat, who'd been nice to the right people on his way toward the top. More cunning than intelligent, and no conscience. In theRuby Ridge hearings, he raise "obfuscation" to a whole new level.

As head of the TSA, "inept" was far too mild a word for Magaw. A major reason for his firing was the incredible amount of money he was spending on his office and its furnishings. Aside from the "arm the pilots" issue, Loy is getting high marks for hard work, attention to detail, and interest in the grunt-level people. He inherited a lot of problems, many of them inherently built into the system.

Art

Duncan Idaho
August 23, 2003, 06:27 PM
"In October 1989, Randy Weaver sold illegal weapons to a BATF informant.It was alleged that Randy Weaver recieved $50 for cutting a shotgun barrel 1/2 inch shorter than "legal" length. He was subsequently aquitted of that charge. In American justice - like it or not - that means that his jury didn't believe beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Your JBT buddies probably don't like that, but it isn't going to change at least as long as I draw breath.

There were no "weapons", it was a weapon. One. If those are the facts you are presenting, then it looks like they didn't get past the first line before resorting to lying.

What does that tell you? :rolleyes: :banghead:

Stinger
August 23, 2003, 08:00 PM
1) Government incompetence and coverups are real.

2) Some folks will always martyrize kooks, fringe elements, and criminals.

I just wanted to repost AZ Husker's reply, just in case somebody missed it. It seems to me that we have reached an impass on this one.

Please pardon me while I go into full rant mode:

It amazes me that some people seem to believe that their thoughts and words are God's Truth. "Well, I said this, and you didn't say anything to dispute it, so that proves I'm right!" Um, no, maybe that just means you didn't say anthing intelligent/important/credible, and it's not worth a response.

Holier than thou, that seems to be the approach of some. "Well I read John Doe's book about Ruby Ridge/Waco/Whatever, and that makes me an expert. I now have all of the facts of the case, and you cannot dispute what I say." Is John Doe a credible author? No. What was John Doe's motive for writing this book? Truth or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

Rant mode off:

I don't know what happened. Why? Because I wasn't there. There are a lot of facts in these cases. You can't just look at the one's that bolster your beliefs, and ignore the others. All must be weighed. Do I have opinions on the case, yes, but I'm not going to slam my head up against a brick wall trying to convince someone that I'm right, when they may very well be right.

Sorry for the :fire:

Stinger

Newton
August 23, 2003, 08:06 PM
Geek.45


Initially, on the concept of a judicial review over-ruling a jury

Er, actually, I can't find any evidence of that, and it generally flies in the face of the point of having a jury in the first place.



Ok, so you want to differentiate between guilty and innocent judicial, I can appreciate that, but you now have actual quoted examples of a judge overturning BOTH an acquittal and a guilty verdict, that generally suffices for proof.

Judges can, AND DO, overturn ANY jury ruling, you seemed to doubt that. Their ability to do so is enshrined in law, what more is there ?

Newton

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 10:01 PM
The original post asked to be educated about Ruby Ridge and WACO, in fairness I assumed he wished for the non-fiction account not the "urban legend" or the "fairy tale" version. If you are unhappy with the facts and the results of the official/responsible investigation thats not my fault. If you cannot cite any official/unbiased reports to support your positions that is not my fault either.

Reading a book(s) on the matter may or may not be of value, it depends on the author's bias (if any). I suspect that your definition of a good book or author depends on whether they write what you wish to read (good marketing, you are his target audience). If one of the paperback books you have read presents any compelling new EVIDENCE (not questions or opinions) not already considered, then it is you duty to bring it to the attention of your elected officials. But beware, the main purpose of the books you refere to ("preach to the choir") are intended to make a profit, not to inform or perform some public service. "Don't believe everything you read in books" may apply in your case. 2+2 equals 4, reading no books or 20 books on math does not change this simple fact (for most people).

When expert, sworn statements are available and independant investigations are properly conducted then the results should be acceptable to any reasonable person. Both investigations I cited still stand as valid by MOST (unbiased) responsible people, that they were sponsored by the US Government seems to offend you.

If you have compelling evidence that you feel proves the investigations are as a whole invalid, why don't you send the New York Times or the Washington Post a heads-up (deep-throat). If you have no such evidence, then you are just barking at the moon. Have you tried obtaining reports more to your liking from other governments such as France, Syria, or Libia?

Majic
August 23, 2003, 10:07 PM
QUOTE]Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from the building, and the cause of death of several of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or gunshots from very close range."[/QUOTE]

I'm not a foresic expert, but since the compound literally burned to the ground, how can you determine the nature of a gunshot wound from a charred body?[

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 10:18 PM
As in most cases an expert can but a layman can't, but nothing prevents the laymen from writing a book questioning the expert's opinion.:D

BTW I agree with Stingers comments, in short you get the best information you can and then arrive at your own conclusion. I do not pretend to be an expert on Ruby Ridge or WACO, therefore I rely on the expert/informed opinions of responsible people.

BigDeeeeeeee
August 23, 2003, 10:31 PM
I rely on the expert/informed opinions of responsible people. And you apperently believe someone can only be an expert/ responsible person if they draw a government paycheck.:rolleyes:

BigDeeeeeeee
August 23, 2003, 10:37 PM
Is John Doe a credible author? No. What was John Doe's motive for writing this book? Truth or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$? And what was G-man's motive for issuing reports clearing fellow G-men of all wrongdoing? It's on Government letterhead so it must be true.:banghead:

telewinz
August 23, 2003, 11:07 PM
It appears to me that this is an emotional matter and therefore will not be settled here or elsewhere. After reviewing some of the posts to this thread, I am somewhat shocked and a little disappointed at some of the comments made by a few of THR regulars. For my part I apologize for any comments I made that may have offended someone's personal beliefs. I greatly enjoy "hot" topics but this is getting a little too heated. I bow out. Thanks for your opinions.

Tamara
August 23, 2003, 11:32 PM
First:
When expert, sworn statements are available and independant investigations are properly conducted then the results should be acceptable to any reasonable person. Both investigations I cited still stand as valid by MOST (unbiased) responsible people, that they were sponsored by the US Government seems to offend you.

So a government agency's in-house after-action report that attempts to minimize the various Bozo-like mistakes they made is an "unbiased source" just because it's from the government? Riiiiight. Wanna buy a bridge? Cheap, unused, you just gotta drive to Brooklyn and pick it up.

Second:
Reading a book(s) on the matter may or may not be of value, it depends on the author's bias (if any).
...whereas watching a sanitized HistocoveryLearning Channel docudrama makes one an expert? Considering that you still don't even know what the two cases were about, the charges, nor the outcomes of the trials, that's a pretty interesting statement.

Third:
The original post asked to be educated about Ruby Ridge and WACO, in fairness I assumed he wished for the non-fiction account not the "urban legend" or the "fairy tale" version. If you are unhappy with the facts and the results of the official/responsible investigation thats not my fault. If you cannot cite any official/unbiased reports to support your positions that is not my fault either.

You're right, it's not your fault. What is your fault, however, is that you come in here with your woefully uninformed views of "Koresh was a baby-raping, machinegun-making, meth-selling wierdo, and Weaver was a nazi. Or something. I know this because I saw it in two thirty minute TV shows, plus something on the net from the government told me so." and paint anyone who is more informed on the topic as some kind of weirdo. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!"

Since you're all up on the "facts" riddle me this:
1) Why did the FBI defend its decision to replace the ATF's ad hoc negotiator (who had developed a rapport with Koresh and secured the release of four children) with a Colonel Blimp-style idiot who proceded to screw up by the numbers?
2) Why did the FBI los... er, "misplace" several crucial pieces of evidence, like the Davidian compound's front door?
3) Why did a court of law give Randy Weaver over three million of your tax dollars in a wrongful death settlement?
4) Why did a DA issue a murder warrant for Horiuchi?
5) Why did a PhD from Ft. Dietrich assure Reno, Sessions, Hubbell and others at a Justice Dept. briefing on 4/14 that CS could not cause a fire or harm small children when the amount of Ferret grenades used would cause a serious concentration of the stuff which is banned from use in warfare by the US and is known to cause death in large indoor concentrations?
6) Why were the Feebs so intent on overriding Reno's 4/15 proposal to wait 'til the water supply in Mt. Carmel ran out?
7) How many machineguns were found in the wreckage?
8) How much meth was found in the wreckage?
9) Why did nobody tell Reno that the Bradleys would not be delivering CS through pipes in a CO2 suspension (like the CEV's did) but by firing Ferret rounds, which contain CS suspended in methylene chloride? (Seen the MSDS on methylene chloride, BTW?) Combustion of methylene chloride (such as by the open heaters in the compound) creates hydrogen chloride and phosgene. You know what phosgene is, right? Interesting way to "save the kiddies", no?

2nd Amendment
August 24, 2003, 12:28 AM
He's not going to give those direct answers. You know it, I know it. They never do.

Byron Quick
August 24, 2003, 08:48 AM
Tamara, you're biased.

After all, this is the same government that steadfastly denied researching the effects of tertiary syphilis on blacks...until biased, anti-government folks proved the government did it. That's right, isn't it, telewinz. The folks who proved our government did this were foes of all true Americans, weren't they? Oh, it was the experts employed by the government who did the research.

This is the same government that recklessly experimented with the effects of nuclear explosions on thousands of military veterans. Then the government lied for decades about it. And stonewalled. And prevaricated...with official investigations and reports(expert, unbiased investigators per telelwinz. Only one problem with the government's scenario...in the final extreme they lost in court. The courts ruled that the unbiased, official, expert investigators had turned out decades of reports that were a pack of lies.

But, oh, it's un-American to mention all of the examples of government idiocy. Isn't it?

geekWithA.45
August 24, 2003, 12:07 PM
Newton:


but you now have actual quoted examples of a judge overturning BOTH an acquittal and a guilty verdict,

There seemed to be some controversy as to whether or not the judge over rode the jury in the BD case, I was looking for confirmation of the actual facts here, and the details around it. The Branch Davidians is the only time I've ever heard of this being asserted.

Can anyone confirm/cite any case of a judge over riding a jury returning a "not guilty" verdict, resulting in conviction of the accused?


Their ability to do so is enshrined in law, what more is there ?

If that is indeed the case, that judges can overturn jury acquitals, I'm looking for exactly where that is enshrined in the law; what is the root authority to do so? The divine right of judges? What are the limitation on it? And how on earth does it square with the right of trial by jury, and the pre-eminence of the jury?

Intune
August 24, 2003, 12:18 PM
"The Subcommittees believe that the question of who fired the first shot on February 28th cannot decisively be resolved given the limited testimony presented to the Subcommittees. It appears more likely, however, that the Davidians fired first as the ATF agents began to enter the residence."
A glut of who D.K. was boinking but when it comes to testifying about who shot first someone must have stammered with bated breath “we’ll get to that, tell us more about the young girls…”

Since there is no evidence, um, we’re gonna go with, um… “THEY DID, THEY DID!”

Sheesh, some people’s kids. :uhoh:

MJRW
August 24, 2003, 12:48 PM
telewinz (pot), meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot.

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 01:33 PM
I accept responsible/sworn testamony over un-sworn testamony and observation whenever un-contested facts are lacking. It seems that many of the books and video's written about WACO and Ruby Ridge enjoy less than universal credibility and acceptance by the public, as does the Government's version. You may be correct in your conclusions about Ruby Ridge and WACO. But since the people who were there can't agree with any certainty about all the causes and events, how can you be certain? I guess like religion, its a matter of faith, not reason.

"masterful use of inuendo and manipulation, a truly excellent propaganda piece. Unfortunately, this work by people I have no reason to rely upon contradicts the evidence uncovered by Congress (although they quote selected segments out of context), and the evidence (even the negative evidence) reported by the Treasury Department. The Justice Department, unfortunately, whitewashed the FBI's actions with a "nobody did anything wrong" report. Nevertheless, the contrast between evidence supported by facts, and the slanted foolishness of this video, is astonishing."

"poorly organized, poorly edited and very biased "account" of the events surrounding Waco."

"adolecent "whining" about how hard life is and how much easier it gets when you have a "leader" who makes decisions for you."

"particularly disturbed by the caption on the last of a set of photographs in the middle of the book that is thoroughly inaccurate, and there seems to me to be a bit more than inadvertance at work here."

"Get the facts straight!"

"he seems to believe the Weavers' account of what transpired more than the government's."

"The author does have a decidedly pro-Davidian bias to his writing so it is not an evenhanded version of the story"

"Perfect example of how easily facts can be manipulated, to appear as the truth. How truths can be altered, yet appear as if they have not. And finally, how hard many will work, how far they will go, in attempts to turn the American People against our Government."

" The FBI murdered the women and children at Waco and got away with it, thanks in large part, apparently, to the shameful efforts of corporate media executives to keep the American people in the dark about what really happened."

"The people who wrote bad reviews on this because they said its false are idoits."

"Thus, this documentary is slander against the US government and lies about the tragic fate of the Branch Davidians."

cordex
August 24, 2003, 01:50 PM
Hey Telewinz ... any plans on answering any of the questions asked of you in this thread?

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 02:16 PM
I can repond to the questions as I have been but a lack of fact-based data precludes responsible answers. Who/what determines what the "right " answer is? Third hand unsworn contested accounts? An absolute/responsible conclusion on the events (and their causes) that occurred at Ruby Ridge and WACO are as of yet impossible to arrive at and may never be. So like this week's weather, gather what you feel is the best data available and make-up your own mind but don't take it personal (wishful thinking?) if I don't accept your data and disagree with your conclusions. You make a great to-do about your "questions" if you feel you have the (fact based, uncontested)answers, say so and quote your unimpeachable/sworn source(s).

2nd Amendment
August 24, 2003, 02:42 PM
So definitive conclusions are impossible to arrive at and yet you spend several pages vehemently defending the claims of FedGov? Does anyone else see a certain discontinuity there?

You can't answer simple, easily defined questions that have very specific, easily quantifiable answers? Yet you can claim to be qualified to not only debate others here based on your having watched two TV docudramas but to dismiss everyone(the vast majority) who do not agree with your Statist ramblings? Is this discontinuity two here? A pattern of discontinuity? Interesting...

Allow me to ask you a question you CAN answer, then, since it is one focused on your own personal knowledge and reactions: You are a war historian, correct? WWII, was it? SO, let us say that a subject comes up on this forum regarding an important battle or campaign of that war(pick an event, any that suits you for this hypothetical) and someone pops up here to tell you how wrong you are about some part of it. He insists you are not only wrong but an ignorant member of the Tin Beanie Club based on his personal education via a couple of HistoEduDocuDrama Network specials. He refuses to answer your specific fact based questions and repeatedly posts bits and pieces of what he feels supports his opinion.

What would be your opinion of this individual's views? What would you think others opinions would be? How likely would he be to have any effect on the discussion, other than as a focus of contempt?

Now, go look in a mirror and see if you recognize someone

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 02:55 PM
To me it depends on the credibility of the author and has his "work" stood the test of time. History is available in many flavors, ask the publishers. A person's bias in large measure determine's how data is interpreted, a German, Englishman, Frenchman, Russian and American can write about WW2 and come up (most often they do) with different versions. Read many versions over a long time span and again draw your own conclusions. The right or wrong of a fact should not be a vote. A vote of 0-100 doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 nor does 2+2=3 because it conforms to my beliefs and desires.

2nd Amendment
August 24, 2003, 03:02 PM
So you are not even capable of answering a question regarding your own reactions? Alrighty then...

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 03:10 PM
I guess you need to "help" me by making my acceptable responses in a mutiple choice format. Better yet, answer for me. Why change old habits?

AZLibertarian
August 24, 2003, 03:25 PM
telewinz, you've been asked multiple times about broadening your mind beyond the information you've received from government/TV sources. Yet each time you respond with something resembling "No Tinfoil Hat Authors in my Library". You ask for credible sources, yet fail to acknowledge that perhaps, the government sources you rely on might not be that credible. You go to lengths to avoid seeing that the testimony delivered by government employees might have just a hint of bias.

On page three of this thread, there are three seperate recommendations to read No More Wacos. I believe this book has the credibility you are asking for, yet you seem to have closed off your mind to anything that doesn't parrot the government story. I'm hoping that you'll open up somewhat and read what the government doesn't want you to know. It may enlighten you.

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 03:51 PM
I accept the Government report/information as the best available, most reliable but I never said it was beyond reproach or in anyway was anywhere near perfect. I concede that the best available IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD ENOUGH! Something different has comes along, but it's not better! The radical Right-wingers should not be allowed to re-define the definition of "legal evidence" and replace it with a newsreporter's investigation. That's what they damn our Government for. I'll take your advise and purchase a copy of "No More WACO" for it's entertainment value. Who knows, maybe it has "CREDIBLE" evidence, if not its just another opinion based "pulp-fiction" rip-off.

Duncan Idaho
August 24, 2003, 03:53 PM
But since the people who were there can't agree with any certainty about all the causes and events, how can you be certain?Tell me again what felony (connected to the Ruby Ridge incident) Randy Weaver was convicted of. That is all of the certainty that I will need.

Go ahead, tell me.

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 04:06 PM
Based on the proper legal procedures, Randy is as innocent as OJ. And both are free men as we speak. The system isn't perfect just as the radical right-wingers (and others) contend.

BTW did Randy stand trial for ALL the felonies he MAY have committed?

Now, should not your real question be did either man commit a felony?
But as you said, you don't need that piece of information, why not?

Keith
August 24, 2003, 04:24 PM
Based on the proper legal procedures, Randy Weaver is as innocent as OJ Simson.

That's a very poor analogy. Simpson was accused of murdering two people. Weaver was accused of violating a provision of the tax code.

I won't even argue Weavers guilt or innocence, because I don't really care. What I care about is government exercising power in a measured and appropriate way.
Accused tax cheaters like Koresh and Weaver should be subject to tax audits, not invasion by armed tax agents!

Do you not see the difference between murder and tax violations?

Keith

2nd Amendment
August 24, 2003, 05:58 PM
I guess you need to "help" me by making my acceptable responses in a mutiple choice format. Better yet, answer for me. Why change old habits?

Do you truly believe this sort of transparent manuevering furthers your "argument", such as it is?

I'll simplify further what was already an extremely simple set of questions: A neophyte claiming no knowledge beyond a couple short, sanitized TV shows arrives and not only questions your knowledge of the fundamentals of a well known event in WWII but puiblicly refuses to answer your questions and publicly insists he has all the data he needs and your sources are biased because they support your view instead of his.

What would you think of such a loon?

What would you think of the opinions of such a loon?

What do you think others would think of such a loon?

Spare me the twisting, turning verbiage and simply offer an answer, or at least have the dignity to say you can't do it, for obvious reasons.

TallPine
August 24, 2003, 06:48 PM
Based on the proper legal procedures, Randy is as innocent as OJ. And both are free men as we speak. The system isn't perfect just as the radical right-wingers (and others) contend.

So your opinion is worth more than that of the jurors that heard the evidence in those cases ...?

So why don't we just not bother with the time and expense of a trial, and instead determine the defendants' guilt or innocence in a Gallup poll ???

Or maybe the judge could just make the decision, or the prosecuting attorney, or even the arresting officer ...? Save a lot of time and money. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
August 24, 2003, 07:07 PM
Okay, telewinz, how about this: I read the BATF warrant that enabled the raid on the Davidian compound. It was claimed (among other things) that Koresh had become a recluse, and had not been out in public for a lengthy period. (I don't remember the specific allegation, now, but it was more than just a couple of weeks.) For this reason, BATF would have to enter the compound to arrest him.

Now: Numerous witnesses in the general area frequented by Koresh stated that he had been out and around during the weeks before the raid. He had sat in with a rock&roll group. He had jogged to a convenience store where he regularly got a sweetroll and coffee. He had been seen driving his Pontiac. (An older Firebird, I vaguely recall.)

It seems to me that disinterested witnesses are possibly more reliable than somebody seeking to justify a preconceived notion.

Note that the sheriff of McLennan County stated to the press that all he had to do to talk to Koresh was to phone and Koresh would appear at the sheriff's office. I then wonder why this means was not tried.

I have a buddy with BATF in central Texas. I asked him about the rumor that the raid was a PR deal, because of the budget hearings due in some two more weeks. To him, it was not a rumor; it was fact.

James Pate, in SOF magazine, stated he had interviewed people from Joint Task Force Six, who had trained the BATF agents at a facility at Fort Hood. It was claimed that this use of military personnel is a violation of federal law. I note this was omitted from the testimony before Congress.

It is for reasons like these that I have doubts about the mature wisdom of some of our federal employees, not to mention their veracity.

Art

Gewehr98
August 24, 2003, 07:43 PM
Sometimes they toe the party line. Sometimes not. Anybody read Telewinz's profile? ;)

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 07:54 PM
There is no doubt in my mind the the ATF raid was a PR stunt. IIRC the cameraman later made a statement to the Texas Rangers that the ATF didn't fire first. But creating a PR event is not unique to WACO, LE does it all the time in drug busts, is it yet against proper procedure to do so? Appearing at a suspect's residence by LE is not unique to WACO also. Could they have gotten him some other way? I don't see why not but knowing what LE knew at the time, why bother? It was suppose to be a routine procedure with just a slight twist.

It seems there were military personel at WACO but evidence says they may have been observers, the military did loan UNARMED military vehicles. There are unfounded charges that one of the vehicles had a flamethrower.

If it is illegal to train ATF agents at Ft. Hood and someone has evidence this occurred, this why wasn't this submitted to congress. Did someone or some agency prevent this information from being admitted for consideration or did James Pete just plain not bother? Isn't this a separate issue?

Again and not to wear it out, I prefer sworn testamony when available to 2nd or 3rd hand information. And I prefer expert opinion over that of a laymans. In eyewittness accounts I prefer a sighted person's account over a blind persons account. These are not foolproof sources (no one said they were)but its better than most methods.

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 08:09 PM
Nice try at discrediting me but I am a state employee not federal. At the time of WACO and Ruby Ridge I was employed by the private sector. See what I mean about the value of sworn/responsible evidence vs heresay and inaccurate opinion?:uhoh: What book do you plan on writing? BTW I've had a mental stability evaluation (routine requirement for a position I applied for) within the last 9 months. I tied for the highest score in the state. I have my papers and can prove I'm not a "loon" where are your papers? Maybe you better not leave home without them:D

Art Eatman
August 24, 2003, 08:37 PM
"Did someone or some agency prevent this information from being admitted for consideration or did James Pete just plain not bother? Isn't this a separate issue?"

Probably a separate issue. IIRC, the article appeared after the hearings, when the "Whitewash!" cry began. By the time of the article, I imagine that Congress, the DOJ, the FBI and the ATF had had all of Waco they wanted.

However, it was commented upon by many observers how differently the Montana Freemen were treated in that standoff. Later, when the Republic of Texas idiots did their standoff thing at Fort Davis, the feds stayed as far away from it as possible, leaving to the Texas Dept of Public Safety...

By and large, other than the anti-militia noises after the Oklahoma City bombing, the feds have been much less aggressive in their efforts against some of the fringe groups.

Art

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 08:46 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. Public pressure/opinion still works in this country and not just with the Feds but state and local governments as well. The blame for Ruby Ridge and WACO can and should be SHARED by all parties, no one walked away clean not by a long shot. I think lessons have been learned and changes have been made.

If their is new "creditable and compelling evidence" why not ask Congress to re-examine WACO and Ruby Ridge? They did it for JFK's murder.

Gewehr98
August 24, 2003, 08:48 PM
My papers are in order. As is my psych eval. But it pained me to see the same federal government that pays my wages twice a month go out of it's way to orchestrate Ruby Ridge and Waco. It was even a topic of discussion when the ATF requested my resume' and security clearance for my post-retirement career with them. Because of that, I know for certain that one regional ATF director would like to distance his branch from what happened in those two places. It would appear they're quite sensitive to it, I wasn't the first to bring it up in a pre-interview. ;)

telewinz
August 24, 2003, 09:12 PM
Upon my review of the EVIDENCE, I find my NON-EXPERT OPINION on the possible state of your mental health was without merit. Lacking any new and impartial EVIDENCE I must conclude that your mental health is as good as any ATF or FBI agent's.:D

Now, you were given a fair hearing (not perfect) based on the evidence (limited) available. Any responsible individual with compelling "new evidence" may request a new RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATION and hearing based on all the EVIDENCE available, not the emotions.

C.R.Sam
August 24, 2003, 09:42 PM
...I know for certain that one regional ATF director would like to distance his branch from what happened in those two places. ...
Me too, know one that feels that way.

Sam

Tamara
August 24, 2003, 11:33 PM
There seemed to be some controversy as to whether or not the judge over rode the jury in the BD case, I was looking for confirmation of the actual facts here, and the details around it. The Branch Davidians is the only time I've ever heard of this being asserted.

To give you the scoop, you have to understand that the jurors were presented with basically three counts per defendant. Count One was the conspiracy charge, Count Two was the murder charge, and Count Three was the "using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a criminal offense" charge. The jury found all eleven of the defendants innocent of the first two, and three of them innocent of all three counts. Originally the judge felt he would have to turn them loose on probation or with greatly reduced sentences, but LeRoy Jahn found a Fifth Circuit court precedent that allowed inconsistent verdicts to stand (ie conviction of the lesser third charge implied guilt on the greater first two charges, so he set aside the jury's verdict on the first two charges.

Tamara
August 24, 2003, 11:36 PM
Upon my review of the EVIDENCE

You haven't reviewed ANY evidence.

You refuse to review any evidence.

You mock people who try to present you with any evidence.

Welcome to my Ignore List. Consider it an honor, as you're only its second inhabitant.



(Misinformation I can deal with; willful ignorance is merely annoying.)

ReadyontheRight
August 24, 2003, 11:56 PM
...did Randy stand trial for ALL the felonies he MAY have committed?

Have YOU? Have I? Has everyone on this website?

Only the Thought Police know for sure.


...Randy is as innocent as OJ. And both are free men as we speak...

...the majority of the guilt should not lie with the Feds. But it's the World we live in, misfits and failures who rely on the "Turner Diaries" to explain and excuse their past mistakes and poor judgement...

...Bear in mind that the "Turner Diaries" is fiction written by a neo-nazi...

I'm not sure if you're using "circular" logic, "expansionist" logic, "zero" logic or "super-hyper-w.t.f does this have to do with the question" logic, but you certainly have me confused.

ReadyontheRight
August 25, 2003, 12:43 AM
I accept the Government report/information as the best available, most reliable...

Hey! I did a search on "government report" and came up with this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15427

"We are cracking down on gun traffickers and making it harder and harder for criminals to obtain guns illegally," said Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, according to a statement. "But, this report also shows that we must do more to close every trafficking channel, starting with closing the gun show loophole..."

"...Specifically, the report said guns sold via gun shows "were associated with the second highest number of trafficked firearms per investigation..."

I guess I'd better establish some evidence to prove my innocence the next time I visit a gun show.:rolleyes:

Just because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean that federal agancies don't cook the "facts" when it suits someone's political aspirations.

Eternal Vigilance! Or that star spangled banner will stop waving over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I'm probably closer to Al Gore :barf: than Koresh and Weaver on the political spectrum, but I don't think either of their actions justified the force applied by the Federal Government. Both were in the realm of "a shiny new toy" and I pray that the protagonists and their replacements regret and learn from the bad decisions in these tragic events.

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 06:25 AM
I have no problem listening to your evidence or reading the book(s) you base your opinions on. But the evidence you cite is seldom uncontested and is often conflicting. People (on both sides) often let their emotions dictate their evidence, that is why cross examination and sworn testamony are so valuable. It requires a person(s) to stop and think and it separates those that "think" they know vs those that do know.

Case in point: Vicki Weaver "murdered by a sniper while she held her baby" yet (from both sides)sworn testamony states that she was standing behind a CURTAINED, closed door when the fatal shot was fired. Just what kind of scope was on that rifle that the sniper could see/aim thru a door AND curtain. and still hit his supposed "target"? Worse case, it was involuntary homicide (he missed his intended target) it was accidental, yet it sounds better to say "murdered while holding a baby".

Evidence indicates that the Feds HAD no idea that Sammy and Vicki were even dead until afterwards. Yet the conspiracy theory cuts the government no slack and assigns godlike abilities to their agents. They came see trough doors on demand with ordinary rifles scopes.

Sworn testamony states that the agents were chased by ARMED members of the Weaver clan. Are you telling me that a great many (if not the majority) CCW's here on THR would NOT have fired (maybe even the 1st shot?) in a similar circumstance? Sammy was carrying a loaded firearm, who fired first is UNCLEAR. The agents were legally on the Weaver property in the performance of their duty. Also sworn testamony states that Weaver had often said he would use armed violence against any LE agent who showed up on his property. Given Weaver's known mindset, the events that occurred could hardly be a unexplainable.

You still insist on placing the information in your books on the same plane as sworn evidence. Are not many of the facts in your book(s) contested and therfore conflicting ? It has gotten excellent reviews but it's nothing more than a newspaper account. What percent of he information is obtained through sworn statements 10%, 25%? How much of it has been cross examined by experts to establish it's ACCURACY, in reviews it gets high marks for even-handedness, that mean fair not accurate. It still does not carry the same weight as sworn testamony, and should not.

As far as being on your ignore list, this "loon" has taken a great deal of heat over this subject because of a very unpopular stance on a pro-gun forum. Maybe you would prefere I be banned for my lack of PC views? There are at least two sides to every story and that seems to upset you, I have heard your comments but it is my decision not to except your conclusions based on the evidence that meets my standards not yours. If the information in your books are so valid why have they not been entered into the court record, or forced Congree to reopen it's hearings?

You disappoint me in that you tuck tail and run, thats not like you. Why do you feel you have to convert me over to your beliefs? You have made your points and I have made mine. Niether of us stand alone in our views (except here on THR) You will continue to run up against better opposition than me if you get involved with issues of the 2nd amendment. Or do you just preach to the choir?

swampsniper
August 25, 2003, 07:34 AM
I has been reported that in the aftermath of the shooting of Vickie, Horiuchi drew a sketch of his sight picture on an incident report that showed 2 heads behind the mullions of the window in the door. I wasn't there, don't know, but I heard this very soon after it happened, and it came out for some reason. Maybe someone changed the report.
As to mindsets, mine was much better before this happened. I am much more likely to have an attitude problem with anyone coming on my land. It was not handled properly, Vickie and Sammy did not have to die and it was all due to government attitude about armed peasants. If it was intended, as I suspect, to intimidate, it failed. It just pissed a lot of us off. From that moment on I have had to suspect that any LEO approaching my door is there to disarm me. My innocence or guilt does not figure. They will make me out to be just as guilty as they need to. Don't give me the line about how If I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear. This whole situation breaks my heart, but people like me didn't start it. The government has a long way to go to regain the trust they destroyed that day.

Oracle
August 25, 2003, 08:06 AM
Remember, folks, this was supposed to be enforcement of a tax matter. When was the last time you saw the IRS surrounding someone's house because they misfiled their income taxes and were off by a few dollars? It's absolutely ridiculous that we even accept the existence of an agency like the BATFE, which uses deadly force to enforce a $200 tax (actually, in Weaver's case, it may have only been a $5 tax, I believe a shortened shotgun is only an AOW). And doing "stings" to try and get people to violate little-known laws, such as the "overall length" law that Weaver supposedly violated, and somehow justified this raid by the ATF? How is a shotgun that has a stock that may or may not be a couple of fractions of an inch shorter than is allowed going to hurt anyone? And the ATF deemed it necessary to kill this man's dog, son, wife, and friend over it? How is what the BATFE does a proper function of government?

The "EVIDENCE" shows that the ATF should be disbanded, for the safety of the people of the United States.

hammer4nc
August 25, 2003, 08:08 AM
telewinz, please correct your erroneous statement. Here's the sketch that sniper Lon Horiuchi himself drew during an initial FBI interview.
http://www.ruby-ridge.com/horiuchi.gif
No curtains, two heads behind the window.

The following narrative is from Gerry Spence's book:

And, of course, we remember that Lon Horiuchi, who had taken the stand, had testified that, indeed, he had intended to kill Kevin Harris, who was running for his life, his back to the sniper. Yet the prosecution claimed that the sniper, who admittedly could see and hit a fly at two hundred yards with his ten-power scope, could not see the head of Vicki Weaver through the glass window of the open door. Instead, the prosecution attempted to make the jury believe that the curtains were closed. But from my own discussion with Randy that fact seemed in question, especially after the government failed to produce a crucial Horiuchi drawing of what the sniper had seen when fired.

From the drawing made by Horiuchi during an interview with the FBI at a hotel, on hotel stationery, he draws in no closed curtains at all. In the lower right-hand corner of the window we see two partial heads as if people were squatting there. Indeed, Randy and Sara had dived into the house just ahead of Kevin Harris. And it was Harris, not Weaver, who presumably had killed a federal officer, and who Horiuchi himself was admittedly trying to kill, whether or not he was carrying out the unwritten law that seemed to doom the cop-killer. Be that as it may, the method of hitting a running target is for the shooter to place the "mildot" seen in the scope on the target -- harris in this case -- which places the crosshairs ahead of the target, thus leading the target, so the bullet and the target will arrive simultaneously. Shortly after the killing this is exactly as Horiuchi himself drew it for the FBI interrogator.

Horiuchi's drawing shows us that he must have known that human beings were behind the flimsy door. He had to know that someone, presumably Vicki or ten-year-old Rachel, was likely standing behind the door to hold it open. Moreover, the drawing proves he knew exactly where it did strike -- at the cross, as he shows it in the drawing. Vicki Weaver's head was behind the cross, that apocalyptic symbol, which served also as the point of aim for the killer.

Byron Quick
August 25, 2003, 08:59 AM
telewinz,

You place great store in sworn testimony. What is your stance on the sworn testimony during the government's investigation of Waco that no gas devices were used at Waco capable of causing a fire? Testimony that was later found to be perjured by the locating of said devices at the Branch Davidians compound. Found in positions held by federal agents during the siege.


What's your opinion of that sworn testimony...and the government agents who gave it? What about the US attorney who has failed to prosecute those agents for perjury?

A. Partisan
August 25, 2003, 09:33 AM
Maybe those 2 objects in the window in the above drawing weren't heads. ;)

geegee
August 25, 2003, 09:38 AM
Maybe those 2 objects in the window in the above drawing weren't heads.
Don't you wonder if that wasn't discussed by Horiuchi's defense lawyers. "Hey, they could have been a couple of pots in the kitchen!" :mad: geegee

A. Partisan
August 25, 2003, 10:03 AM
Don't you wonder if that wasn't discussed by Horiuchi's defense lawyers. "Hey, they could have been a couple of pots in the kitchen!" geegee


This is trained person with a precision rifle and a spotter?








This just in.................. Maybe those were Mrs. Weaver's breasts and the sniper got excited and his gun went off early.

geekWithA.45
August 25, 2003, 10:15 AM
That seems like an awfully big lead. IIRC from the military manuals, you generally don't need more than the width of your front post unless you're shooting @ great distances. At "normal distances", in the neighborhood of 200 yds or so, you target the leading edge of the subject.


On second though, looking at the drawing again, perhaps it isn't too long. I had to mentally "bulk out" the stick figure to human proportions, and having done that, it seems somewhat reasonable.

scotjute
August 25, 2003, 10:29 AM
This may be a slightly off topic, but I've often wondered why the Branch Davidians didn't open up on the Feds with those horrible .50 cal machine guns they were alleged to have had? Wouldn't .50 cal BMG rounds have made hiding behind a car a moot point? (as in the rounds would have gone clean thru car and killed anyone on the other side?)

seeker_two
August 25, 2003, 11:11 AM
This may be a slightly off topic, but I've often wondered why the Branch Davidians didn't open up on the Feds with those horrible .50 cal machine guns they were alleged to have had? Wouldn't .50 cal BMG rounds have made hiding behind a car a moot point? (as in the rounds would have gone clean thru car and killed anyone on the other side?)

Well, since the Feds hauled off all the cars sitting out there (including the ones "shot up" by the Davidians) and destroyed them before independent and defense experts could examine them, we'll never really know. (Guess we should take the Fed's word for this...:fire: )

The upshot to both of these events is that, had ATF & FBI used the same procedures for carrying out a criminal warrant as they had in previous situations (no SWAT, local LEO's involved), then 80 Branch Davidians would still be alive, Vicki Weaver would be dropping her son off at school, and people would be working in the Murrah building today.

But they didn't... :cuss:

Duncan Idaho
August 25, 2003, 12:01 PM
If the information in your books are so valid why have they not been entered into the court record, or forced Congree to reopen it's hearings? The evidence that Tamara and others have cited, was sufficient for Randy Weaver to not only be aquitted, but also suficient for him to recieve millions of dollars in compensation for wrongful death of family members at the hands of thugs. Oh, but wait, those verdicts were handed down by American citizens, not your all knowing Masters. :rolleyes: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Oh, and one other thing. Be sure to never break a tax law. I wouldn't want the government to have come to your house and shoot your wife and kid, and then taunt you with loudspeakers about it. :fire: :fire:

ElToro
August 25, 2003, 12:49 PM
wow.. so many reponses... soory of this is a repea,t i skimmed much of them.

it smy understanding that Weaver didnt show up for the first trial becuase the letter he got had the wrong date.

slightly off topic, but why would a liberal anti gun lawyer like Gerry Spence defend weaver if he thought he was guilty ?

Anyway, as to Waco, the .gov could have arrested Koresh anytime they wanted, he routiniely jogged around town and went shoping in the market in town. why did they throw apress conference BEFORE the raid ?
Also check the research on the FLIR tapes.. the eveidence that they only had a day or 3 left of water in their water tower suggests they would have come out sooner or later.

both topics are hot buttons for freedom loving people because of the force in which the .gov applied... not neccasarily the crimes that the alleged perps may or may not have committed..

the branch davidians had some some kooky beliefs and so did the weavers
its not illegal to have nutty views yet... in this country.

Baba Louie
August 25, 2003, 01:44 PM
its not illegal to have nutty views yet

But it can be fatal.

Adios

Don Gwinn
August 25, 2003, 03:08 PM
I'll tell you what, Telewinz. If it will induce you to read the book and draw your own conclusions, PM me your address and I'll send you my copy of Every Knee Shall Bow. You can keep it, I've read it several times. I'm going to replace it with some of the others suggested on this thread.

If you can read Every Knee Shall Bow and come away really believing the author has some kind of bias against the government or in favor of Randy Weaver, you must be trying harder than I am. There are very few sympathetic figures in the whole thing.

As for this:
Case in point: Vicki Weaver "murdered by a sniper while she held her baby" yet (from both sides)sworn testamony states that she was standing behind a CURTAINED, closed door when the fatal shot was fired. Just what kind of scope was on that rifle that the sniper could see/aim thru a door AND curtain. and still hit his supposed "target"? Worse case, it was involuntary homicide (he missed his intended target) it was accidental, yet it sounds better to say "murdered while holding a baby".

You can find the answer to that in Every Knee Shall Bow. One of the only sympathetic characters in the book was the federal prosecutor who got the case against Randy Weaver (and all the fun of dealing with Gerry Spence, who also doesn't come off well) dumped in his lap and had to fight both the defense and his own government agencies which continually withheld evidence even from him.
One piece of evidence that conveniently disappeared for a long time was a sketch Lon Horiuchi made on hotel stationery the night of the shooting. It showed the Weavers' door. The curtains are tied aside in the sketch and there's a rough outline of a woman with a circle for a head. A smaller outline marks the baby. In other words, he knew exactly who was behind that door. When the prosecutor finally got that bit of evidence, he was livid, according to Every Knee. Throughout the trial he was deeply frustrated by the way his own agencies stonewalled him and acted as if they were covering things up.
The standing orders of the day were to shoot on sight any adult believed to be armed--and the bulletins before that had told the agents to assume that all the adults were armed. Note that the standing orders do not mention a threat. They amount to "shoot on sight" orders. The FBI later found it very difficult to remember who issued those orders, but a guy named Potter must have figured prominently. Of course, nothing happened to him.

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 04:15 PM
I do not pretend to be an expert wittness on this subject, nor do I wish to be.

Testamony on Vicki Weaver (not mine)

It is our conclusion that the sniper/observer who took the second shot intended to shoot Kevin Harris but accidentally killed Vicki Weaver whom he did not see behind the curtained door."


The methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by the FBI did not cause the fire.

One of the theories forwarded to the Subcommittees comcerning the origin of the fire is that methylene chloride, a chemical used as a dispersant to carry the CS riot control agent injected into the Branch Davidian residence, may have ignited and started the fire. During the hearings Dr. Quintiere testified that it was his opinion that the methylene chloride in the CS agent neither caused nor contributed to the spread of the fire.

In light of this testimony, and the other information reviewed by the Subcommittees concerning the flammability of methylene chloride, the Subcommittees conclude that the presence of methylene chloride in the Branch Davidian residence did not cause the fire nor contribute to its spread.

Don, thanks for the offer but I'll obtain a copy shortly. It is a well regarded book by readers. If this thread ever dies (1-2 years?) I'll take a rest and some nerve medicine, and I won't read any of my emails ever again!

And Duncan...get a life, I'm not responsible for my governments actions and I still don't feel they are part of the EVIL EMPIRE.

Gewehr98
August 25, 2003, 04:25 PM
He was promoted, then he was allowed to quietly retire. They even threw a shindig for him.

Between Larry Potts, E. Michael Kahoe, and Lon Horiuchi, it boils down to a minor variation on the Nurenberg defense.

And we hanged the defendants who used the Nurenberg defense.

Randy Weaver got $3.1 million to not talk about it.

Cosmoline
August 25, 2003, 04:38 PM
In the case of Ruby Ridge, it would have been much better to stop wasting taxpayer dollars trying to catch the evil maker of a shotgun an inch too short (oh my!). Nothing should have been done. The family should have been LEFT ALONE, something the gov'ment never likes to do.

In the case of Waco, the whole thing could have been solved if the feds had gone through local LEOs who were far more familiar with the group (and with whom the group was also much more familiar).

In both cases, the feds suffered from WAY too much money and time on their hands coupled with a militant attitude which made the suspects into "the enemy" in some sort of demented war.

Both provide perfect examples of why the feds were never supposed to be involved in crime fighting at this scale.

Don Gwinn
August 25, 2003, 04:46 PM
Potts! That's it. Thanks.

Telewinz, the point so many people keep setting in front of you is that a government document which names a government committee's decision is not evidence that said decision was correct. You can post that a Congressional committee came to such and such a conclusion all day long, but unless you know what evidence they examined and have weighed the evidence yourself, you don't know how or why they came to that conclusion. When their conclusions--every single one of them--conveniently go the way most favorable to them, skepticism would be in order.

The Congressional committee can conclude whatever it wants, but in view of the sketch I mentioned earlier, not to mention the firefight with a dog and a couple of kids, I can't imagine how they came to that conclusion.

You have produced no evidence for your point of view. It's possible that you're right, sure. Without any evidence to suggest that, however, it's unreasonable to expect people to embrace your point of view when the known facts contradict it.

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 04:54 PM
Your views sound wise to me but if we let the Weavers off then we should let ALL minor felons off. Are we tough on crime or are we still picking and choosing? Why not do it right and just have the minor felonies taken off the books? More 14 year old drunks, pot parties for back to school 3rd graders, and private sales of explosives and weapons to know mental defectives and a wealthy terrorist or two. I'm pro-gun and law abiding, the gun laws only hinder me. But I don't know about the "other" minor laws.:uhoh:

Waitone
August 25, 2003, 05:44 PM
I am not trying to steer the thread in a different direction.

I just found out something that floored me. I had no clue. Seems that former General and future presidential candidate Wesley Clark was the commanding general of Ft Hood during the Waco incident. As such, Ms. Reno request for military assistance would have gone directly to General Clark. General Clark would have had to agree to loaning both armored assets and troops. He would have also had to ok's training of bATF and FBI types.

Maybe this info is old hat to yous guys, but it is completely new to me.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm

No, it is not sworn testimony but it is a compilation of information from gov't reports.

Truly interesting.

Keith
August 25, 2003, 05:51 PM
Your views sound wise to me but if we let the Weavers off then we should let ALL minor felons off.

We don't have to let them off. Just withhold the $5 (and any associated fines and penalties) from his income taxes and forget about it!

Keith

Art Eatman
August 25, 2003, 06:12 PM
telewinz, as commented before, Weaver got a court notice to appear. The date was in error. It showed he should appear in March (?) although the correct date was in February (?). (I'm not sure about the specific months, but it was that sort of clerical error.

Now, Weaver did indeed show up on what he thought was the proper date. My first question, then, is that if his case was so important to the BATF, why did they not arrest him at that time? He was in the courthouse!

The next question is why was there the surveillance of him for many months--almost a year, I've read--at what has been reported as many tens of thousands of dollars worth of man-hours? There were even confrontations on public roads between Weaver and BATF agents--and no arrests nor efforts thereto.

It is the existence of facts--and these are indeed facts and not conjecture--of this sort which make me believe that none of the deaths need have happened at all. I question the judgement of the federal people involved. When I read the narrative of all of the actions of the BATF agents in the many months prior to the shooting of the federal marshall, taken from their own testimony, it seems like something from Kafka.

Regardless of any law, if you push even a wussie long enough he will turn on you. When the pushing has little or no merit in a real-world situation, and is done under the cover of "the law", one worries about both those writing the law and those enforcing it.

To me, that's more important than the arguable details of the final denouement.

Art

Tamara
August 25, 2003, 06:16 PM
The next question is why was there the surveillance of him for many months--almost a year

With ANG RF-4C's, no less. My tax dollars at work. :rolleyes:

;)

(Good question here: since no drug charges were ever manufac... er, levelled at Weaver, how the hell did they get .mil assets to help in the raid? I guess posse comitatus don't mean squat if you don't want it to anymore. :uhoh: )

Hkmp5sd
August 25, 2003, 06:35 PM
Weaver got a court notice to appear. The date was in error. It showed he should appear in March (?) although the correct date was in February (?). (I'm not sure about the specific months, but it was that sort of clerical error.

From the official US Gov'ment "Department of Justice Ruby Ridge Report"

When Weaver was arraigned on the weapons charges in January 1991, he was told that his trial would commence on February 19, 1991. Two weeks later, the court clerk notified the parties that the trial date had been changed to February 20, 1991. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Probation Office sent Weaver a letter which incorrectly referenced his trial date as March 20, 1991. After Weaver failed to appear for trial on February 20, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Three weeks later, on March 14, a federal grand jury indicted Weaver for his failure to appear for trial. We found that: the government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily rigid in its approach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that the USAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991;

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 06:36 PM
What the government sub-committee says happened DOES NOT MEAN that is what happened, but remember their conclusions are based on sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals, and ALL Evidence is cross-examined and can be challenged! An author of a book is not sworn to be trueful, his material is not cross-examined nor are his "facts or conclusions" required to be based on documentation. Books are only required to make a profit.

This is our main difference (I think). In any other legal preceding, a good book might raise public interest but it can't be cross-examined. But since we are talking about WACO and Ruby Ridge its OK to replace our legal system with the conclusions of a book(s)! It cannot or should not be permitted that a person (or government) be judged by a jury of librarians or authors.

I concede that the government report is less than 100% accurate BUT that is an opinion. I have no un-contested facts to support my Opinion and niether do the authors. Case in point, the drawing made by Lon Horiuchi, did he confress that he drew the picture and how do we KNOW when it was drawn and what did he mean by the drawing? I can hear it now, well are you stupid, it's crystal clear, he's bragging about killing Mrs. Weaver! Yet there are plenty of people out there that think it's crystal clear that aliens from outer space are here observing us and giving us technology for our secret weapons. Many books have been written on this subject and are believed!

Can you say you KNOW for a fact that Horiuchi intended to kill Vicki? Could have, might have, wanted to does not mean he did. Even an author cannot say he knows what was going on in Horiuchi's mind. Do I concede that Horiuchi MAY have MURDERED Vicki? Yes I do but I can't prove it and therefore we cannot bring him to justice. Wrongful death does not = murder. Is it possible/probable that most of the evidence presented in the (better) books and the posters here on THR (yes Tamara) are accurate? Of course! But they can't prove it! Thats a BIG difference and also why I don't believe Aliens landed at area 51, or kidnapped people, or Santa Clause doesn't live at the North Pole. No one can prove it! And in life and death matters I prefere to go with our only legal system, imperfect as it is.

BTW; Would someone please PM Tamara and relay to her that it is not and was not my intent in anyway anger her. She made a great many good points and maybe anyone else would have caved-in, I can't change my mind based on the popularity polls on a subject. It should not be that important that I do so nor that we agree with each other on any subject.

Hkmp5sd
August 25, 2003, 06:56 PM
Case in point, the drawing made by Lon Horiuchi, did he confress that he drew the picture and how do we KNOW when it was drawn and what did he mean by the drawing?

Guess we need to have a notarized, sworn on the bible, video taped while drawing on live TV, handwriting analysis and fingerprinted drawing before we can conclude it just might be real. :)

If that level of verification for evidence were needed by courts, no one would be convicted of anything.

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 07:04 PM
If you intend to hang a man LEGALLY via a court of law, yes.

griz
August 25, 2003, 07:54 PM
How about this telewinz?

During congressional testimony the rules of engagement for Ruby Ridge were discussed. For the initial sniper episode the rules of engagement were changed to read, “any adult on the property with a weapon should be shot”. That is not an exact quote but very close. I can look it up if you are interested in the precise wording. After the sniper did the damage the rules of engagement were reverted back to the normal self defense rules instead of shoot on sight rules. The testimony was not about the validity of the rules, but it focused on who approved them. Mr. Potts signed the cover sheet of the document that contained the revised rules but denied “approving” what he signed.

I saw this live on television myself. I did not tape it, nor did I see any DNA test to prove that it was Larry Potts himself, but I hope that you can believe easily proven facts.

So in your eyes does issuing a shoot to kill order in violation of the rights of the victims, indeed in violation of the constitution, rise to proof of a serious government mistake?

And to prove how misleading your “official” testimony can be, you said this:
“Sworn testimony states that the agents were chased by ARMED members of the Weaver clan.”

The only thing quoted so far says:
“During the surveillance mission, the Weaver dog discovered the marshals and began to bark. The marshals retreated with the dog, Harris, Randy Weaver and his son, Sammy Weaver, and other family members in pursuit.”

That is misleading for a couple reasons. The Marshals knew they were armed before they arrived, it makes it sound like they ran a long ways with an armed band chasing them, and it puts the worst face on a possibly benign response, IE the dog barked and the people WHO LIVED THERE came over to see what was up. At any rate, it’s obvious that Sammy Weaver and the dog discontinued the “pursuit” when the Marshals shot and killed them.

goon
August 25, 2003, 07:55 PM
According to some accounts I have read, the ceds manufactured the charges in both cases.
I have read that they went after Weaver for a shotgun that he legally modified that they re-modified, and that they went after Koresh for Boyes .55 Cal. AT rifles. In both cases, all we got was the word of the gov't, and that is most likely all we ever will get
The bottom line as I see it is this.
Right or wrong, the feds were after Weaver and Koresh.
They rolled into Ruby Ridge and Waco and pretty much just shot the hell out of the place. They killed Weaver's wife and son when they were there for him. They killed a hell of alot of people in Waco when they were there to arrest Koresh.
What the hell is that?
Also, I have been gassed with CS before, and it is quite unpleasant until your body adjusts to it. Even then, I don't think you could hold out for hours when being gassed. That is why you wear a mask when you are around it.
The feds pumped that stuff into the Davidians' compound with no regard for the innocents inside. They knew it would take a long time for the masks that the Davidians were using to get clogged up. They also knew that a mask won't seal properly on a child and even some small adults.
It is also my understanding that CS can kill people with weakened respiratory systems and is quite dangerous to a child.
So the feds pumped the stuff into a building full of a bunch of helpless children, knowing what the results would be.
That gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about the government.

It is true that if Koresh had been any kind of man, he would have evacuated the women and children. He and the others who chose to fight it out could have then fought it out with the feds if that is how they wanted to check out.
But that doesn't mitigate what the government did.

John/az
August 25, 2003, 08:06 PM
Telewinz,

It's not that you angered her, it's that you are so thick, and trying to reason with thick people is an extremely frustrating experience.

While you appear to have the air of reasonableness, your rhetoric has many on this thread noting the stubborn ignorance you exude.

Because of the proven evidence of government corruption and perjury by it's own agents who hold positions of trust, government document accuracy and veracity are suspect.

I will not enumerate this evidence, as it has been presented multiple times in this thread.

C.R.Sam
August 25, 2003, 08:23 PM
Can you say you KNOW for a fact that Horiuchi intended to kill Vicki?

Works for me. Horiuchi, at the time, was a skilled and experienced sniper.
Shot taken, shot placement good.

A professional does not take, or at least should not take, such a shot without intent and knowledge of the target.

Sam

cordex
August 25, 2003, 08:34 PM
What the government sub-committee says happened DOES NOT MEAN that is what happened, but remember their conclusions are based on sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals, and ALL Evidence is cross-examined and can be challenged!
I'd love to say that the gov't sub-committee report makes the federal employees that are in question "as innocent as OJ", but at least OJ was acquitted by a jury of relatively unbiased citizens selected by chance and a joint effort between his defense attorneys and the prosecution - instead of a group their fellow federal employees who analyzed testimony given by a group of their fellow federal employees.
So not even as innocent as the Juice.

Odd that you dismiss two jury trials - who base their opinions on "sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals" and cross-examined testimony - yet accept an opinion in full when it comes from someone who pulls a federal paycheck.

You'd laugh if someone on this thread posted sworn testimony from, for instance, Randy Weaver which stated that he had no weapons on the property, would you not? Especially if he or his friends were responsible for removing all of the evidence from the scene (say, through burning and bulldozing it). But if he worked for Uncle Sam .... hmmm....

I'd never suggest that federal investigative committees are always less reliable than non-governmental, independant investigators, however I'd be sticking my head in the sand right next to you if I claimed that they were as almost unerringly reliable as you insist.

atek3
August 25, 2003, 08:44 PM
methylene chloride isn't flammable, I don't think anyone here said it was. However, it is quite poisonous and decomposes under heat to give phosgene, hydrogen chloride, and carbon monoxide, all of which are VERY poisonous. However, it was the fine powdery CS itself that was the flammable agent. Which is why the conflageration consumed the building in a matter of minutes. And when CS burns it gives of Hydrogen cyanide. So lets see, we've got HCN, HCl, CO, and C(O)Cl2, in the air in the burning house, and people are surprise most of the people didn't leave. They spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases before eventually being incinerated. Nice.

atek3

telewinz
August 25, 2003, 09:29 PM
Do you know if the expert wittnesses were federal employees? If you do what were their names and who testified on what evidence? When did the different government agencies stop the infighting and start covering each others hind end? The FBI hasn't gotten along with the ATF for decades. The infighting has long been documented and because of the infighting, the Department of Homeland Security was created.

I am not willing to assume (as you and others are) that being a Federal, State, or local government employee is proof positive that he or she is dishonest. Have you hear of "whistle blower" protection. It exists in the government sector to protect those who testify against their employer, that protection seldom exists in the private sector if at all. I had to pass a background check to get my job to PROVE I was and am a stable, law abiding citizen. Good thought/speak wasn't enough.

No disrespect, but your assumptions prove my point of view. We have to have responsible testimony and proven evidence to obtain the most accurate conclusion possible.

"Spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases" ?

An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure.

Additionally, the location of the bodies of the Davidians indicates that few of the Davidians actually attempted to escape the building. Many of the bodies were huddled together in locations in the center of the building. Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from the building, and the cause of death of several of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or gunshots from very close range.

One of those who escaped the fire left the residence almost 21 minutes after the breakout of the first fire. Clearly, some means of escape from the residence existed for a significant period of time after the fire broke out.

GRIZ... the rules of engagement were indeed change, thats why Weaver was justly awarded 3.5 million dollars.

Special Counsel John C. Danforth today delivered to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder his Final Report Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco, Texas.

This Report unequivocally reaffirms the conclusions contained in the Special Counsel's Interim Report of July 21, 2000.

Specifically:


Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds on April 19, 1993.
Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.

goon
August 25, 2003, 09:31 PM
And when CS burns it gives of Hydrogen cyanide. So lets see, we've got HCN, HCl, CO, and C(O)Cl2, in the air in the burning house, and people are surprise most of the people didn't leave. They spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases before eventually being incinerated. Nice.


As I said, warm fuzzy feelings.
The real irony is the fact that there are those in the government who feel that we are the bigger threat.
For some odd reason, a 57 year old Vietnam vet with a Winchester scares the hell out of them, but that doesn't.
Just something to think about...

An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure.


Not really suprising.
You have the choice between choking or burning to death or putting a bullet in your own head.
Not a choice I would like to have to make.
I would like to think that as a guy who is almost a Christian (I do believe in God), I would not end my own life, but I cannot fault those who made such a hard choice.
It is easy to sit here and pass judgement on those who aren't here to give their points of view.

No matter how you put it, no one had to die there or at Ruby Ridge.
It amounted to an all-you-can-eat joyride for a bunch of armed federal agents with too much ammo that watched Robo-Cop too many times.
Whatever went wrong, there was no need for the mass carnage.
This is the United States of America, a land of justice and tolerance.
This isn't the former USSR.
There has to be accountability.

Another thing to consider.
Even a mediocre rifleman could knock off at least one of the enemy before getting shot himself.
There were only something like four casualties for the feds at Waco, weren't there?
Why?
Evil people who were at least armed with AR-15s...
Hell, didn't they have a few Barret .50 BMGs as well?
Why didn't the Davidians do more damage?
That has always puzzled me.

C.R.Sam
August 25, 2003, 09:55 PM
The FBI hasn't gotten along with the ATF for decades.

Even if so; in this case they were in concert and thereby had a vested interest in backing each other's stories. "Hang together or hang seperately."

Also, seems that I read in gvt release that at least one of the Fed casualties was due to friendly fire.

Interesting that one of the weapons displayed at the hearings appeared in good enough condition to be on a gun shop's rack. No indication of having been in a fire.

Sam

Intune
August 25, 2003, 10:21 PM
“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”

I was 16 years old when I found out that this oath doesn’t mean crap to some lying sacks of bull dung employed by the federal government. In court. Not that the feds have the market cornered on lying, they’ve just perfected it and taken it to a level where it is now considered a fine art. You wanna believe ‘em go right ahead.

I knew something drastic was going to happen at Waco as soon as the tired mantra “terrible things are happening to the children” began. The vaunted alphabet agencies had their lunch handed to them by a few men, women and children. This defiance and failure to properly surrender in a timely manner was NOT going to stand. Embarrassment and seething anger combined to make rational thought one of the early victims.

You trust them all you want and find your comfort in their “sworn” testimony. I only trust those who have earned it. Everything else is taken with a grain of salt. Particularly when someone “swears” it’s true.
:scrutiny: :uhoh: :scrutiny:

griz
August 25, 2003, 10:50 PM
Well I can see you have made up your mind that whatever mistakes the Feds made were the right mistakes and the poor fools who challenged them deserved what they got. You’re not the first person to equate government report with gospel truth, and you won’t be the last.

Did you believe the first report the government issued the last time the turret of a battleship blew up? How about the second report that was accepted as more accurate?

Stickjockey
August 26, 2003, 01:52 AM
Just a quick note RE: Lon Horiuchi. Let's assume he was aiming for Harris and mistakenly hit Vicki Weaver instead. If one of us, or any other everyday pistol-packin' peon, finds themselves in a situation where lethal force is justified and mistakenly hits an innocent bystander, wouldn't we be guilty of Negligent Homicide? And if so, how is it that Mr. Horiuchi isn't?

Duncan Idaho
August 26, 2003, 02:18 AM
And Duncan...get a life, I'm not responsible for my governments actions and I still don't feel they are part of the EVIL EMPIRE.A non sequitur is the best you can do? :confused: :scrutiny:

telewinz
August 26, 2003, 06:31 AM
Again the Government's report continues to be the "best" (but imperfect) evidence available. Niether side can state their information is "Gospel" or is beyond reproach.

San Jose Mercury News, September 12, 1999
Signs are good that the inquiry will be focused, balanced and to the direct questions of whether government agents are culpable for crimes and whether they left a trail of deceit that undermines the credibility of the law. By selecting former Sen. John Danforth as the investigator of government conduct in the Branch Davidian inferno, Attorney General Janet Reno has tried as well as we can think possible to get the Waco thing onto a high road.

The St. Louis lawyer and Episcopal priest, who left the U.S. Senate after a long career as a Republican officeholder, brings to this endeavor a sterling personal reputation, a record of professional integrity and the political skills to manage this probe.

He already has set a well-considered tone for the inquiry into the conduct of government agents during and after the April 19, 1993, attack and subsequent fire at the Branch Davidian redoubt. Calling the matters under his charge as special investigator "the dark questions," Danforth was careful to enumerate his task as to determine:

Did federal agents kill people?
Did the government cover up its actions?
Note, please, that Danforth does not intend to take side trips back into the why and what of government decisions during the 51 days of the siege, which began as a weapons violations pursuit and ended with about 80 people dead in the compound of the religious group. Danforth has been careful to explain in public that the probe is of possible "bad acts" not of "bad judgment."

The early discipline is important for a variety of reasons. Among the most important is that the Danforth probe sets out to get to the bottom of the credibility crater that federal law enforcement now occupies because it has lied about Waco. Diversions from this central question are outside the interest of focusing on a just finding that the American people can believe. Danforth, with the ways of Washington's scandal-prolongers well understood, set his boundaries smartly. He also hired on a Democratic-appointed U.S. attorney, Edward Dowd Jr., as deputy.

It is heartening, too, that the chairmen of both congressional judiciary committees have shown courtesy and respect to the Danforth probe. This respect, of course, will not sway all the partisan hound dogs who want to go another round of gotcha with the Clinton administration in general and Reno in particular. For the moment, however, signs are good that the Danforth inquiry will be focused, balanced and to the direct questions of whether government agents are culpable for crimes in Waco and whether they left a trail of deceit that undermines the credibility of the law.

Reuters, July 14, 2000
By Marcus Kabel
WACO, Texas (Reuters) - In a clear victory for the U.S. government, an advisory jury in a $675 million lawsuit by the Branch Davidians found on Friday that federal agents were not to blame for the deaths of about 80 sect members in the 1993 Waco siege and fire.

The five-member jury, whose verdict is only a guideline for U.S. District Judge Walter Smith, took just over two hours to reach a decision that Davidian lawyers conceded would settle for most Americans a seven-year debate over who was at fault in the Waco conflagration.

``I think this verdict for most of the American people is the final word. What they will take away from this is that five people sat on a jury for four weeks and they found the government not guilty,'' Michael Caddell, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, told reporters.

The lawsuit filed against the U.S. government charged that federal agents were at least partly responsible for a 51-day armed standoff at the Davidian compound outside Waco in central Texas and a blaze that consumed the building after an FBI tank and tear gas assault.

The suit was filed by surviving Branch Davidians and relatives of the dead.

FBI Director Louis Freeh welcomed the verdict, saying there had been ``a lot of speculation, misinformation and second-guessing'' about the case.

``The significance of the jury's findings to the courageous federal law enforcement officers who have had to absorb unproven allegations and public criticisms for all these years cannot be overstated,'' Freeh said in a statement. ``An enormous burden has been lifted from them and their families.''

goon
August 26, 2003, 06:52 AM
I don't know who was at fault at Ruby Ridge and I don't know who was at fault at Waco.
Whether the accused parties were really guilty or not is not really the issue.
The issue is that the government has a responsibility to treat its citizens like people. This would include not shooting their teenage sons and their wives over a $200 tax and a peice of paper.
The government had the power to be patient and end both situations with no bloodshed, or to arrest the guys they were after without causing any standoffs at all.
They chose to charge in shooting instead.
Innocent people died.
Big suprise.
Guess they didn't know about how when you have alot of bullets flying around, people tend to get hit with them.

swampsniper
August 26, 2003, 07:07 AM
When we first saw what was building up at Waco, we should all have loaded up our ready packs and started driving. Next time, maybe we will.No violent intent, just make sure things are done the proper way.
ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS THAT GOOD MEN DO NOTHING

seeker_two
August 26, 2003, 07:49 AM
I wish we could have (& I did try to go out there), but the Feds had the roads blocked off 5 miles from the compound. They wouldn't let anyone--including the media--closer than that.

After a little pondering, I may have even spotted McVeigh there too... :what:

Tamara
August 26, 2003, 08:03 AM
Gee, my favorite part of the congressional hearings on Waco.. (the first ones, that is. It was such a non-event that there were a couple, plus a Justice Dept. "independant investigation" in '99 by Clinton golfing buddy Danforth) was when Rep. Zeliff pointed out that the Clinton administration sent more Bradleys and CEV's to Waco than they did to Mogadishu, and Reno tried to counter by saying that we shouldn't think of them as "military vehicles", they were more "like a good rent-a-car".


Hey, who said the following regarding the '95 hearings: "We know what this was all about. This was an attack on the ATF. This planned hearing was simply some red meat to some of those extreme right forces." Was that A) Chuck Schumer in an interview or B) some poster in this thread?

What amazes me is that someone can blithely quote from the '99 Waco investigation without wondering why there even was an investigation re-opened into Waco six years later, and then bindly trust its veracity when the head of the investigation was picked by Reno (former Senator Danforth) who then picked as his own chief investigator someone who was currently under federal investigation (Ed Dowd). But hey, the government said it, it must be true.

swampsniper
August 26, 2003, 08:39 AM
seeker, if there had been enough of us there would have been little they could do. I sat there praying, glued to the TV, and then the smoke started rolling. Never again for me.

buzz_knox
August 26, 2003, 08:46 AM
Reading this thread has been fun. I enjoy case studies in the terminally obtuse.

Tam, you wanted to know why we spent $1 mil on surveillance? Simple. They wanted to figure out who Weaver was talking to. The real reason for the entrapment was that ATF wanted contacts inside the white supremacist movement. Getting an agent inside is difficult as finding an honest politician. But Weaver already had contacts (although he was not a member). So, after the entrapment, he was "invited" to roll over and become a gov't agent. He declined, not wanting to get his family killed. So, they spent a year and $1 mil trying to make it happen with or without his cooperation.

As for telewinz, :rolleyes: Your concept of what constitutes evidence is really funny. A gov't report is nigh irrefutable and deserving of credence, while reports from other sources are completely without regard. I'll let you in on a secret: most gov't reports aren't automatically admissible in court. In fact, keeping them out is rather easy when the gov't is a party to a case. They are inherently biased, often mistaken, not peer reviewed, and filled with hearsay and opinions. Basically, they all too often aren't worth the paper they are printed. I read enough of them (and have had enough kept out of court) to know that.

As for the credibility of the agents upon whom the report was based, we know . . . actually, that should read KNOW that they perjured themselves as to the shot on Vicki Weaver ("I never saw her" gets kind of hard to maintain when you're after action report clearly has her in view and yes, that drawing was part of his after action report by the gov't's own admission. Explains why they tried to block its production and only sent it by 4th class mail when the judge ordered it produced) and the tear gas at Waco ("no flammable cannisters were fired" "Oh, those things the Rangers found? Whoops. Forgot about them" Guess no one checks the ordnance locker on the way home.)

hammer4nc
August 26, 2003, 08:56 AM
Epilogue: This thread exemplifies exactly the type of mindset that is promoted and rewarded in the "system". Absence of critical thinking; absolute unwillingness to consider anything that might contradict the party line. For now, unless you happen to be involved in a midwest prison, its nothing more than a curiousity...repetitive crossing arguments, devoid of actual dialogue. The problem comes when the "defender of downtrodden government" receives that next promotion, and is now in a position to decide your fate. Consider that for a moment...

Of course a second (more likely) possibility is that someone is just having a little fun pulling everyone's chain, by posting the top 10 most unbelievable excerpts from the federal register, just to see who'll bite. Must be a slow week in lockup.

swampsniper
August 26, 2003, 09:19 AM
Now, we need to go back and talk about the overturned jury. Why even bother with juries anymore,HUH?:cuss: :what:

Tamara
August 26, 2003, 09:52 AM
BTW, for those interested, James Bovard's book Feeling Your Pain has excellent chapters on Waco and Ruby Ridge. (Although the actual goat-rope at Ruby Ridge occurred in the closing days of the Bush I administration, the ensuing hilarious Keystone Kops Koverup and most of the perjury-riddled, credulity-straining investigations into the snafu took place during the Clinton years...)

Goaltender66
August 26, 2003, 09:57 AM
Like most everything else in the world, I have a feeling there's Weaver's story, the agent's story (or stories), and the truth which lies somewhere in between.

I found a somewhat even-handed take (at least to me) on the affair on Court TV's Crime Library Site (http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html) written by David Lohr (http://www.crimelibrary.com/about/authors/lohr/index.html). In reading it, there seems to be credence to the theory that it was all precipicated by a misunderstanding between Weaver and the judge at his arraignment. There is plenty of blame to go around for escalation of the situation, and neither side can be held at all blameless.

Goalie

A. Partisan
August 26, 2003, 10:54 AM
It doesn't matter if someone is pulling everyone's chain or not. 204 replies to this thread is pretty good. No one should forget about Ruby Ridge or Waco,or for that matter a few other snafus of our Government. We need to get off our butt's and start demanding Government Offcials take care of our needs and wants. Vote!!!. I have had my opinions on these 2 episodes for years, I just havn't talked with anyone about them for years. Good ,bad ,or otherwise just don't forget them. An earlier post suggested these actions were a test run for confiscating firearms. Something to think about. I think if they could get away with it the Gov't would take our guns and rights to own them right now. Instead they'll have to be patient,divide and conquer, chip away at our freedoms a little at a time. They're doing a good job..............Well, I think so.

Byron Quick
August 26, 2003, 12:58 PM
Let's see: we have a FBI sniper who testifies under oath that A) one of his shots which wounded a man in peripheral muscle tissue was an intentional hit, and B) one his shots that hit a woman square in the head was an accidental hit.


And, of course, it is reasonable to conclude he's telling the truth. After all, it's sworn testimony and there are no known instances of federal employees committing perjury now is there? Trained snipers slightly wound legitimate targets all the time, don't they? Trained snipers accidentally shoot unintended targets through the head all the time, don't they?


And, of course, since the sworn testimony would clear Lon Horiuchi of all charges, the federal government allowed the state of Idaho to prosecute Mr. Horiuchi, didn't they? What? They didn't? Wonder why the federal government was afraid to trust in the sworn testimony? It couldn't have been the worry that sworn testimony of the evidence would have seen Lon Horiuchi in prison. No, that's not possible. Is it?

So, tell me. What was the reason to block the state of Idaho's prosecution of Lon Horiuchi? Not once, but several times.

buzz_knox
August 26, 2003, 01:28 PM
After all, it's sworn testimony and there are no known instances of federal employees committing perjury now is there?

Not when I represented them. First rule when dealing with me is that if an employee lied to me once, they were toast. Nothing a federal judge could do to them equalled what I'd do.

swampsniper
August 26, 2003, 02:08 PM
Buzz, evidently you are a lawyer. What is your take on over riding jury decisions. I grew up believing that jury decisions are sacred, one of the vital checks and balances of our system. I have served as juror several times and on one grand jury, always with great pride. Had some judge even tried to influence me, let alone come along and negate my decision I very surely would have exploded. Also, I do believe that trying a case through multiple jurisdictions until a conviction is reached amounts to double jeopardy. Any acquital must be the last word.:cuss:

telewinz
August 26, 2003, 05:48 PM
hammer4nc

telewinz
August 26, 2003, 05:50 PM
If you can't make your case in a court of law, then chances are you don't have a valid case. As some would pick and choose which laws to enforce they would also discredit any wittness or any testamony based on their particular bias. Whats funny is I exist under the same laws and rights you do yet since I don't expect perfection I am content with a "good job" 98% of the time. What government in history meets your terms for a perfect government?

What legal system routinely permits evidence to be admitted without the right of cross-examination? WHAT EXPERT WITTNESS was not agreed upon by BOTH SIDES!

Promotion? How so? ( My real name really isn't telewinz you know) My employer has no idea of my position on this matter and would not be permitted to ask even if he/she cared. Again, the assumptions being made on these posts continue to validate my position. I am sure this has been noted by others regardless of their position on Ruby Ridge or WACO. If you don't know how our legal system functions, it is understandable if you become upset with the nonfullfillment of your expect desires. We have lawyers (experts) that know how to function in our legal system, find one and ask him/her if my "standard of evidence" is anything other than the norm. Certainly none of the hostile posts on this board are attorneys, now how can I tell? We are a nation of laws not public opinion or didn't you know that?

Its kind of simple, if your so sure of your position and your "evidence", why can't you convince the public? Who knows maybe .00001 percent will "rise-up" to support your views and try to force their "values" on the rest. Sounds kind of romantic doesn't it? BUT its not going to happen, the "revolution" came and went in the '60's, you must have missed it.

Baba Louie
August 26, 2003, 06:08 PM
Will Rogers once wrote,
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment".

I'd say that it is the desire of most who post and lurk here to see our government, that is, us, learn from times when "bad judgment" appear to have been the watchword of the day; ala Ruby Ridge and Waco.

He also wrote,
"There are three kinds of men.
The ones who learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves."

telewinz asks that we stick to only trusting sworn testimony offered by gov't agents and employees. A fair request. But only if those gov't agents and employees, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not lie and cover, then get promoted for it.

Others here think that someone still needs to act as a "Checks and Balance" on those same fine gov't agents and employees, just in case they try to pull the wool over our eyes and gloss over the reality of the situation.

I saw what I saw, I read what I read. It wasn't sworn testimony. It was anything I could get my hands on. Usually witnessed or researched by men and women who had more time to spend on it, and yes, they made some money from doing their writing. They might have had an agenda as apparently, did Uncle Sam.

It didn't get me as amped up as it did McVeigh, but the two incidents discussed here were a disgrace and are not acts of the type of government that I call forthright and responsible.

I think its been a fun experience reading the posts here. Time to move on.

Thefumegator... did ya learn anything yet? Great thread.

Adios

telewinz
August 26, 2003, 07:01 PM
hearsay
n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.

evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

expert witness
n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge. If the expertise is challenged, the attorney for the party calling the "expert" must make a showing of the necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion to qualify the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed experts to allow pre-trial depositions

expert testimony
n. opinions stated during trial or deposition (testimony under oath before trial) by a specialist qualified as an expert on a subject relevant to a lawsuit or a criminal case.

labgrade
August 26, 2003, 07:35 PM
"Best cae" for Lon (ala Ruby Ridge) was that he violated one of the Big Four & should, at the least , be indited for "know your target & what's behiind it."

Simple enough.

Negligent homicide.

A simple enough scenario that every other on this board would be accountable to.

He wasn't.

Why not?

That in itself is enough for me to envoke the "cover-up" BS scenario.

& in case it isn't obvious enough for our less enlightened, let me 'splain, Lucy.

A woman, holding a child, was shot through a curtain (undefined target by testimony & ... ? ), through said curtain, what was the further background? (again obscured)

& this from a trained HRT-"sniper?"

Allegedly, they are held to the highest standards of ability & engagement, but this gent shot an unarmed woman while holding a child while obscured by a curtain?

Thank you for clearing that up. :(

hammer4nc
August 26, 2003, 07:49 PM
tele,

I'm not sure why you have chosen to crusade on bahalf of the feds' actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, you could have better spent the time reading some of the recommended material with an open mind...but it's still not too late.

You've repeatedly cited courtroom results as your standard for judgement. Need I remind you (again!!!) that legal prosecution of Weaver and Harris not only FAILED; but subsequent civil suits resulted in a multi-million payout to Weaver...yet you still refer to him as a felon? What's up with that?

My first post merely attempted to correct your citation that Lon Horiuchi (of all people to quote) "testified" that Vicki Weaver was behind curtains when she was shot...ergo, he was innocent (in tele-land). Yes it was "SWORN TESTIMONY". DISCREDITED SWORN TESTIMONY. The "curtain defense" was contradicted by Horiuchi's own sketch, and his lies helped acquit Weaver and Harris (among other inconsistencies brought out in court). Your rather cavalier response was to question who drew the sketch, then proceed to talk about space aliens! C'mon man!

Other issues with your posts continue to perplex...but let me conclude by drawing sharp distinction between legal proceedings (civil and criminal) and political processes (i.e., the so-called whitewashes, er, I mean whitepapers) that professed to exonerate the govt. agents; and by which you seem to hold great store. They are different. Neither is perfect; nor are they expected to be. I think you're confusing the two entities.

Meanwhile take a deep breath.

telewinz
August 26, 2003, 08:14 PM
Your opinion may be correct but its still an opinion, I doubt that most of the opinions expressed and points attempted would even make it past a high school debating team.

FACT:

Something that occurred or exists and is incontrovertible. There is no such thing as an untrue fact, but in the legal system the word is often used to denote conflicting allegations -- and it is up to a judge or jury to decide their truth or falsity.

Byron Quick
August 26, 2003, 08:40 PM
Fact: FBI snipers are highly trained per the FBI.
Fact: Lon Horiuchi is an FBI sniper.
Fact: Lon Horiuchi testified that he intentionally shot Steve Harris. He hit him in muscle tissue doing limited damage.
Fact: Lon Horiuchi testified that he accidently shot Vickie Weaver. He hit Vicki Weaver squarely in the head...killing her instantly.

Which shooting possesses the characteristics of an intentional shot of a trained sniper? Which does not possess those characteristics?

Oh, yeah. The Branch Davidians did not get to choose or have any other input into the selection of expert witnesses. Neither did Weaver or Harris. The government had total control over the selection process. These "investigations" were not adversarial and there was no cross examination. Next misrepresentations?

TallPine
August 26, 2003, 08:42 PM
telewinz, i guess I don't understand your fixation on sworn testimony, admissable evidence, and legal procedure ...

when in an earlier post you seemed to say that you dismissed the acquitals of both Randy Weaver and OJ Simpson as being bogus and a failure of our system ...?

So sworn testimony and admissable evidence is only valid when it supports the govt's case, right?

Duncan Idaho
August 26, 2003, 11:01 PM
Something that occurred or exists and is incontrovertible. There is no such thing as an untrue fact, but in the legal system the word is often used to denote conflicting allegations -- and it is up to a judge or jury to decide their truth or falsity.And in Weaver's case the courts found in his favor not once, but TWICE, criminally and civily. :rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
August 26, 2003, 11:28 PM
So you're all still arguing with The Advocate?

Let me go out on a limb here and voice my feelings: Any forum like this will have at least one individual related to the government in some capacity whose unofficial job it is to deny things. As long as people are willing to argue with him he will argue, repeating his same points in different ways. In that thread on TFL on this same general subject we had one. He pretty much disappeared afterwards. We've had others as well.

Everyone has made their points. The Goobermint screwed up. Royally. And in the end they got away with it because a large part of this country today is a nation of sheep. Continuing to pound your heads against the brick wall that is Telewinz won't do you a bit of good. Better to spend the effort raising hell before the next event of this sort goes to crap...

telewinz
August 27, 2003, 02:33 AM
Is this country a nation of sheep just because they disagree with you? Sheep are easily led, why do they choose not to follow you and others that hold your beliefs? This nation has 2/3 rds of the World's lawyers, if you feel you have been cheated and have a valid argument then the lawyers should be beating a path to your door asking to take the "goobermint" back to court again. I must assume that even with all the best selling books at your disposal, this is not happening for you. I wonder why?

That the government "screwed-up" is true, that your evidence was "aired out" in our legal/political system (which was fine until you heard the verdict) and underwent close inspection and cross examination by both sides is also true. You won some you lost some, be content with that because thats all you are getting from the "land of the sheep".

Byron Quick
August 27, 2003, 02:50 AM
and underwent close inspection and cross examination by both sides is also true.

The government might have inspected its actions closely. The evidence was never inspected by "both" sides in a formal investigation or hearing into the government's actions. There was no representative of the victims allowed in any of the government's self-investigations. Your continual reiterations of cross examination in these investigations is not true. There was no counsel for the victims with a right to cross examine expert witnesses or perform any other functions of an attorney.

The government presented its evidence to itself or to its picked "independent" investigators. No independent investigator or attorney representing the other side had the right to present countering evidence, opposing expert witnesses, or have any input of any kind into these investigations.

The type of investigation you seem to be imagining has never happened.

Orthonym
August 27, 2003, 03:34 AM
So are they all honorable men: At West Point, where Lon went to school, I thought that the cadets there had it drilled into them that the absolutely worst, most loathesome, most evil thing they could do would be to LIE, cheat, or steal. As Lurch used to say, "Aauurgh!"

Duncan Idaho
August 27, 2003, 04:04 AM
This nation has 2/3 rds of the World's lawyers, if you feel you have been cheated and have a valid argument then the lawyers should be beating a path to your door asking to take the "goobermint" back to court again. I must assume that even with all the best selling books at your disposal, this is not happening for you. I wonder why? *** are you talking about? The courts found IN FAVOR OF WEAVER. Making our point, and disproving yours - in the unlikely event that you are trying to make one. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Orthonym
August 27, 2003, 04:22 AM
Telewinz is just playing the Socratic-questioner/Devil's Advocate to help us sharpen our wits and refine our arguments. Right?

Gray Peterson
August 27, 2003, 04:39 AM
Davidians acquitted by jury, but Fed judge Walker Smith overturns jury verdict to give Davidian survivors prison time.

I thought it was unconstitutional to overturn an acquittal verdict by a jury?

swampsniper
August 27, 2003, 05:16 AM
I think it is beyond his understanding that a lot of us are pissed off. Some people think that love of your Nation equals love of the government. They really don't know that these are two separate things. I have been accused of treason several times for questioning government policy and action. In reality, blind support of government is most common treason I see today.:banghead:
Telewinz, I would really like to hear your defense of judges overturning juries. My eyes are old and not that sharp, but I get the impression you have not addressed this. Have I overlooked your view or do you not care to tackle the issue?

Art Eatman
August 27, 2003, 05:18 AM
Lonnie, James Pate of Soldier of Fortune magazine covered the trial in San Antonio. If I recall it correctly, the jurors, afterward, claimed some confusion about the instructions. I think that they found a guilty verdict on some--but not all--of the charges, and gave sentences. IIRC, the judge increased the length of incarceration, rather than "overturning" verdicts.

But it's been a few years since I read the article...

Art

Gray Peterson
August 27, 2003, 05:23 AM
They also knew that the President, and the rat-bastard so-called Americans that put him in office, couldn't have cared less if they spitted Randy's baby daughter and roasted her for lunch.

President George Herbert Walker-Bush was president of the US at the time the Ruby Ridge case occured, not Clinton.

Gray Peterson
August 27, 2003, 05:59 AM
LeRoy Jahn found a Fifth Circuit court precedent that allowed inconsistent verdicts to stand (ie conviction of the lesser third charge implied guilt on the greater first two charges, so he set aside the jury's verdict on the first two charges. :what:

Were the convictions appealed? I bet if you get it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals level, you might get different reasoning. See the Miller Mutations.

swampsniper
August 27, 2003, 06:10 AM
Although I am a lifelong Republican, George the First never has been on my favorites list. As lesser evil, the only choice we get, he was much less slimy than Slick Willie. Remember who you first heard "NEW WORLD ORDER" from? They dance us to the left, they dance us to the right, and after every dance, we get s______d just the same!!! You only get a kiss before the election. When is the last time you heard ANY leading politican refer to USA as a REPUBLIC? The problem is the sheep want a democracy, they are too stupid to know the difference. If you cloned MONICA and passed out copies they would declare you King for life!!
My conclusion? This happens again and I can get there, I am on the way if I have to crawl. Evil fails in the sight of witnesses with courage.

2nd Amendment
August 27, 2003, 03:53 PM
Is this country a nation of sheep just because they disagree with you?

No, it is a nation of sheep because so many choose to blindly accept the government spiel on a variety of subjects, no matter how inconsistent or demonstrably untrue. People such as yourself.

Sheep are easily led, why do they choose not to follow you and others that hold your beliefs?

Because it is easier and safer and less labor intensive to believe the goobermint, as you show.

This nation has 2/3 rds of the World's lawyers, if you feel you have been cheated and have a valid argument then the lawyers should be beating a path to your door asking to take the "goobermint" back to court again. I must assume that even with all the best selling books at your disposal, this is not happening for you. I wonder why?

Utterly specious line of reasoning intended to distract from the issue. *I* have no involvement in this case and thus no attorney will beat any path to *my* door about it. They have, however, beat a path to Weaver's door, and the Davidians and the government keeps losing.

That the government "screwed-up" is true,

Well, that is something from you, at least...

that your evidence was "aired out" in our legal/political system (which was fine until you heard the verdict)

It was never truly "aired out" but what was went against the goobermint across the board. Weaver won millions., The Davidians were aquitted. Koresh was never convicted of anything. In other words, I'm not complaining about the verdicts we got, I merely want more of the same.

and underwent close inspection and cross examination by both sides is also true. You won some you lost some, be content with that because thats all you are getting from the "land of the sheep".

No, we'll get much more, eventually, one way or the other...whatever it takes.

Thank you, yet again, for demonstrating exactly what i was speaking of: Repeating the same thing, over and over, in slightly different forms regardless of how often you are shown to be not merely wrong, but utterly resistant to even attempting to educate yourself.

telewinz
August 27, 2003, 09:29 PM
"No, we'll get much more, eventually, one way or the other...whatever it takes."

Maybe but I don't think so. Membership in the various militias dropped like a rock after the bomb in Oklahoma City went off (and the heat was on). There have always been malcontents and misfits that feel left out of the system because they either cannot cope or compete with main stream America. Relax, its OK to fill in your bomb shelter and lower the hammer on your 45.

Duncan Idaho
August 27, 2003, 09:49 PM
President George Herbert Walker-Bush was president of the US at the time the Ruby Ridge case occured, not Clinton.Well aware of that Lonnie, but you certainly must understand that those that were happiest about the outcome at Ruby Ridge were among those most likely to support Klinton, and among those least likely to support President George H. W. Bush.

You do know that right? :rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
August 27, 2003, 10:02 PM
Maybe but I don't think so.

You've been wrong about pretty much every other claim you have made so forgive me if I don't take you too seriously...

Membership in the various militias dropped like a rock after the bomb in Oklahoma City went off (and the heat was on).

Thank you for another excellent example of your willing ignorance. A) The militias were never as populace as the media and hacks like Morris Dees wished the sheep to think. B) The numbers haven't changed much between before and after OKC, just how they allow themselves to be seen, and when. C) "The heat" was never on, since McVeigh was never a militia member and the Alphabet Agencies never believed there was any connection.

There have always been malcontents and misfits that feel left out of the system because they either cannot cope or compete with main stream America.

Certainly. Don't you wish the militia movement did not, instead, contain US House and Senate members, State House and Senate members, local representatives of government, small business people and professionals including doctors and lawyers? In my group at this moment the lowest income individual is myself and I should, if nothing goes wrong, clear nearly 85k this year. Damnation, we certainly ARE unable to compete, eh...

Relax, its OK to fill in your bomb shelter and lower the hammer on your 45.

Funny how, at the least bit of direct confrontation, The Advocates, such as yourself, fold and stoop to the usual Statist redneck stereotypes and jabs. One would think your handlers would supply you folks with some new material once in a while.

Tamara
August 27, 2003, 10:10 PM
Well aware of that Lonnie, but you certainly must understand that those that were happiest about the outcome at Ruby Ridge were among those most likely to support Klinton, and among those least likely to support President George H. W. Bush.

You do know that right? :rolleyes:

Oh, I dunno; the fact that the whole Ruby Ridge fiasco occurred on Bush I's watch while the Keystone Kops Koverup occurred on Clinton's was a stellar example of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

You do know that, right? ;)

Pat S
August 28, 2003, 04:12 AM
The way was cleared over two years ago for the potential trial of Lon Horiuchi in an Idaho court for the wrongful death of Vicki Weaver. The prosecuting attorney for Boundary Co. in northern Idaho, Brett Benson, choose not to prosecute the case.

It was a gutless decision I believe on his part not to prosecute. It had the potential to bring justice, accountability, and closure to the Ruby Ridge incident. It wouldn't have brought Vicki Weaver back but it could have made someone accountable for her wrongful death. It could have sent a message that those who recklessly endanger and violate a citizen's rights, even under flawed orders such as the "rules of engagement", are not above the law and will be held accountable for their actions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins28a.html

Pat S

telewinz
August 28, 2003, 04:54 AM
Sorry Orthonym, I had to work late on the "chain gang" and didn't notice your post last night.

To a large extent you are right! The people in control (for the most part)are responsible and try to operate by a certain set of rules. Privately do they know the government blew-it BIG TIME? Yes, but they can't undo what was done at WACO or Ruby Ridge but they can perform damage control.

Regardless of how I feel about the issue, their have been some pretty lame arguments made based on opinion and emotion (IMHO). But then again, several people calmed-down and used reason and suggestion to swing me over to their side. "Let me send you this book" was very effective, I think it was Art who made the offer. He used reason not threats or insults to try to sway me over to his side. AND HE (and others) DIDN"T TAKE IT AS A PERSONAL INSULT if I disagreed with his conclusions, he just gave me the tools (books) to reach the same conclusions he did. I don't know much about Art, but he must be an older "young" gentleman to have his sense of reason and self-control. I'd want people like Art (and a couple others) defending my 2nd amendment rights.

Do I still feel there is enough guilt to go around? Yes but I (and our watch dog, the legal system) also expect the government (at any level) to show far better judgement and compassion (called a higher standard) than John Q. Public, they didn't! Most of the agents were hoping for a fight so they could play the childhood game of cops and robbers and have a little excitement in their lives. Their leadership is suppose to control them and prevent excess use of force, NOT encourage it. In my mind, this one issue above all others is the shortcoming that needs to be fixed (they are working on it already IMHO). WE are a nation of laws and that isn't going to change and we better hope it never does!

seeker_two
August 28, 2003, 05:13 AM
In my mind, this one issue above all others is the one shortcoming that needs to be fixed... The failure of responsible government/law enforcement leadership.

!!!By George, I think he's got it!!!

telewinz
August 28, 2003, 05:24 AM
I always did have it, no thanks to some of the posters. With some of the lame emotional arguements used and what seems to be a revulsion for our government, I'd choose the government's side simply because they represent the only SANE group to choose from.

seeker_two
August 28, 2003, 05:59 AM
...I'd choose the government's side simply because they represent the only SANE group to choose from.

My mistake.

He don't got it.... :(

Continue the discussion...

telewinz
August 28, 2003, 06:43 AM
I'm not willing to dump our government because it made mistakes. I'll still fight all enemies both foreign and "domestic".

swampsniper
August 28, 2003, 06:43 AM
telewinz, revulsion for government is one of those good old American traditions, in case you do not know. It was the clear intent of the founders to leave us with this concept. Government is supposed to fear us, not the other way around.
Government has already been given too much power. I am sure you will tell me that it is the will of the majority, this may be, but the Constitution protects me from the excesses of the majority as well as those of government.
A democracy will always lead to socialism. Marx said that when the voters in a democracy learn that they can vote themselves benefits, the end is near for democracy. If we have, in spite of being a republic, come to the point of a democracy on the way down into socialism and tyranny, it should not be a suprise that a police state is seen by some as the only way to maintain order,and you should not be amazed that some will resist this trend.
The government is not sorry for these actions, only sorry they got caught. In each of the cases involved in this discussion, the Feds planned to get in, kick ???, and get out. The lesson they learned is not the correct one, they will just try to be more discrete next time, and next time will come, unless they are informed of likely consequences.
As to your reference to sanity, there are times when if you are not paranoid, you are insane. I will plead guilty to paranoia. It seems to be a needed survival trait. Paranoia has an opposite, you know. Perhaps this is the insane position.

swampsniper
August 28, 2003, 06:48 AM
What would happen if I wanted to post that Jesus rode into the city riding on an ???? Moderators, we are going too far with censorship. :banghead:

TallPine
August 28, 2003, 09:50 AM
what seems to be a revulsion for our government

How about a revulsion for killing innocent women and children ...?


All in the name of:
1) Failure to pay a $5 tax (but on whose part - seems like that burden should have fallen on the "owner" of the shotgun, not on the mechanic who allegedly modified it)

2) Information that someone "might" have fully automatic rifles (again, a failure to pay a tax)

3) Information that children may be being abused (a state or local issue)


YES, I AM REVOLTED :barf:

And, telewinz, it seems to me like most of the opinions and feelings on this thread have come from one particular poster ... guess who ?????

Art Eatman
August 28, 2003, 09:57 AM
"Moderators, we are going too far with censorship." Huh?

swampsniper, given how free-ranging this thread has been, either you need to go to bed earlier, or not get up so early. :D Moderators have offered some of their thoughts, but certainly haven't "sat down" on anybody.

telewinz, I'd argue the "sanity" bit, for sure. I don't doubt there were and are good, ethical federal folks who were involved in the aftermath investigations. That doesn't mean their efforts were not overshadowed by those with a vested interested in minimizing the bad publicity.

Lemme offer this about "testimony" and "unsworn statements": When one reads newspaper accounts from witnesses and bystanders, there are a few things to look for: One is consistency among various folks over the period of time of the interviews. If the stories vary a good bit, they're unreliable. Another thing is bias; whether or not a person had something to gain, or a preconceived notion about who's right or wrong.

To me, if there is consistency among the stories from disparate people and there is a low likelihood of bias, I'm far more prone to accept that view than I am the court testimony of a biased witness. Maybeso that's just from the experience of my near-70 years on this ol' mudball.

Art

Triad
August 28, 2003, 10:03 AM
Art, I think he means the censorship of another name for a donkey.

Enough thread drift from me, carry on

SGT109FA
August 28, 2003, 10:57 AM
Feds got carried over zealous and innocent people died.

:rolleyes:

sabre452
August 28, 2003, 12:56 PM
Has anyone viewed the "Waco: Rules of Engagement" piece that has been airing on cable lately? I find the explanation for the video tape of the 2/28 raid that was A) initially denied to exist by the ATF/FBI/Treasury, B) later purported to exist but lost and C) finally produced under order from the congressional committee only to be blank deplorable. I am also stunned by the fact that FLIR footage from 4/19 taken by the FBI is interpreted to not show gun fire from the AFVs, and from perimeter positions towards the compound contrary to what the inventor of the technology and the manufacturer of the equipment stated when they reviewed the same footage. The FBI has testified that it never fired a single round other than gas rounds during the 51 day stand off. It is beyond my comprehension that the front door of the compound could not be produced for examination. The footage of agents hoisting the ATF flag over the center as it smoldered is also appalling to me. I can't reconcile the fact that the people in that center that had granted a cease fire to the ATF after the ATF had expended their ammunition and allowed them to retreat and recover their wounded needed to be assualted with AFVs and CS gas to resolve the standoff. The people that conducted that raid/stand off/assualt represent each of us. I have not read or viewed anything that makes me proud of our representatives in the handling of this matter.

Nightfall
August 28, 2003, 03:55 PM
Having seen the FLIR footage as well, I also find it very hard to stomach the 'fact' that the flashes seen on the film are just reflections. Can't remember where I saw it, but somebody investigating the Waco bloodbath did some comparison shots of sunlight reflection off some metal, and gun fire on FLIR footage. Surprise surprise, the comparison gun fire looked just like the 'flashes' on the Waco film. Wish I had an online link to that footage again, so others in this thread could have a look.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!