Is it true that Lon Horiuchi lives in fear for his life? (No Drift This Time Please!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
For you foil-hat wearers, check out zabasearch.com and type in any name, even yours and see what it brings up. They used to have a feature were you could see a satellite photo of the address you are looking for with just a mouse click, but since so many folks complained, you have to do a little extra work.

My whole life is on there, including my current phone number, which isn’t even under my name, first or last!

Is it paranoia if it is true?
 
At one time I'd poison the personal information databases. I've not bothered to recently as there is so much information you already have to have specifics to even find someone.
 
Just idle thought... if your a freak like Weaver and you surround yourself with Anti Government types and deal with illegal stuff like sawed off shotguns, and respond to authorities coming to talk to you about that with a rifle in your hand... You might be inviting trouble you really didn't want.
It's sad about the Mom holding the kid... it really is. But it wasn't Lon's fault he was called up for this mess. And since not one person here on this board was sitting behind Lon's rifle scope at the time he pulled the trigger - we have no idea what he saw or what was going through his head.
Innocent until Proven Guilty... It applies to the FBI Agents as much as it applies to those they go to arrest.
 
Well, that Zabasearch found an "L. Horiuchi" in Honolulu, but I somehow doubt it's him (there were a bunch of other Horiuchis in Hawaii also). I guess if I paid the $29 to get full info I would find out (based on age or other info maybe). I'm sure this guy knows that many people are aware of (and outraged over) Ruby Ridge and regard him as a murderer and so he probably keeps a low profile.

Innocent until Proven Guilty... It applies to the FBI Agents as much as it applies to those they go to arrest.

Certainly true. You can't come to a real conclusion on such things without detailed knowledge, like the kind of information a jury gets. I certainly haven't reviewed any of the documents from that, so all I really have on the subject are partially-informed opinions.
 
Beerslurpy said:
what you are seeing are not actions taken to maximize distrust of police, what you are seeing is the adversarial system ad absurdum, the police as against the public rather than as public servants. The objective is to subdue all resistance to the policymaker, either directly or by example to others.
It is the logical outcome of a free society operating under unjust laws. The people do not comply willingly because the laws were not made for their benefit. Logically, the manner of enforcement is also indifferent to the effect on the citizenry.

Quoted for truth and accuracy.

No truer words have ever been spoken around here. +1. Florida boys represent!

Anyhow, I think that is taking it mildly in a way. I think that the Federal government downright instigates conflict. They want to provoke you to make the first move (in defending your own life) then to portray that as criminal force and then squash you. All over unconstitutional laws, and made-up crimes. I mean, remember those religious nuts in Philadelphia? Sure they were whackos like the Davidians, but was it really necessary to drop C4 explosives onto them from a helicopter? Was it really justified to burn the Davidians to death after 8 hours of CS gassing? Does anyone see this as excessive force? Forget the force, does anyone see the government intervention as unjustified?

How does this serve ME? The folks at Ruby Ridge, Mt Carmel or in Philadelphia did NOTHING to me or anyone else. I don't see why the Feds have this urge to "protect" me from these types of people. It is all about maintaining the illusion of control and power. Control in this nation is so fragile that any challenge to authority must be completely obliterated in a very brutal and public way. Otherwise, the status-quo would certainly change. Imagine for a second if most American's actually started to believe that if they band together they can reform the government by rejecting unconstitutional taxes, by rejecting unconstitutional laws etc...Government cannot possibly have that. Revenue and control is at stake. Most people are all isolated and demoralized. Everyone believes that if they act, they will be singled out and destroyed. Everyone believes that the situation is hopeless. This is exactly what the government depends on. It's actually worse, people have been lied to for so long they actually believe it is beneficial to them that the government actually acts in this way. When a small group minds their own business and goes about life according to their own way, not the government's the perfect opportunity to make an example out of someone is there. A chance to project force, a chance to propagandize and demonize the victims into being the bad-guys.

It is as Beerslurpy says, it is no longer a "we serve the people" dynamic, it is an "us vs. them"...Talk to anyone who works for the Feds long enough and you'll detect this attitude...
 
...deal with illegal stuff like sawed off shotguns, and respond to authorities coming to talk to you about that with a rifle in your hand...
Didn't the feds ask him to saw off the shotgun for money? It's a stupid law anyway. Authorities who don't want to see my guns shouldn't shoot my dogs.
 
The proper wording is "Not guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Courts determine whether a person is "guilty" or "not guilty" of specific charges by a statutory burder of proof. Actual Innocence is seldom relevant.

That's why the not guilty O. J. still had to pay $34 million in civil damages (because the civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, a much lower hurdle).
 
Didn't the feds ask him to saw off the shotgun for money?

Sting operations are morally the same as prosecuting dishonesty.


I was watching FOX news about a month ago when they were discussing the Natalie Holloway missing girl / Aruba thing.


The government-media (FOX, CNN all the same garbage) all had segments about how Aruban law is so screwed up. The guests, who are put on the show to disagree with eachother, were instead all agreeing how Aruban law is flawed and unjust. They were all bashing Aruba and their system.


How do you figure? It's because they're all a bunch of JBT-loving, statist, big-government advocates. They love the idea of a police-state and oppressive law-enforcement. That's why these journalist-thugs love American law, and despise the more just Aruban law. Because it forces the government to actually have a case against a person, not to witchhunt them.


Martha Stewart was put into prison for lying to government. Not for insider trading, for lying to the government. WOW! God forbid we lie to our masters! To our superiors that we should bow down to! It isn't a crime for me to lie to a fellow citizen, but to the government - yes! Because they are master.


The most disgusting part is how she went to jail for lying about a crime that never happened. Remember, they didn't charge her for insider trading. No charge, no crime. So how can you lie about a crime that was never even a crime in the first place? Hoorah for America!

Then we have Clinton, who IS the government, part of the elite..immune from the law unlike us peasants...who is caught lying under oath..ZERO difference from what Martha did - but he didn't serve a day in prison. Equal application of the law?? HA! Yeah right. Yay America!

We criticized the Soviet system because in Communist Russia, the law was not a set of guidelines for operating a civil society, but rather a weapon that was used by the government against its citizens (see Russia as it is, by matthew maly) We're WORSE today. We're the biggest hypocrites.


Aruba law regarding the Holloway case is superior to American law. In America, the government can LIE in any way or form it chooses to you in order to make a case against you. Yet, you cannot lie to the government on any level whatsoever without committing a felony. How is this just? In Aruba, you can lie to the government all you want. That's how it should be! According to OUR system...if the government has PROOF then so be it, if they don't - they don't. NO crime, period. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore. If the government has no evidence, no proof, no witnesses..nothing, then I'm sorry - there's no case. But in our country, the government finds a way to find you guilty from a completely different unrelated angle by getting you to slip up and lie - by them lying to you in the first place.

Government playbook:
No case based on facts, proof or evidence? NO PROBLEM - plan B, put them away on something totally unrelated by busting them for lying.


God Bless America. And then you wonder why 90% of the world thinks we are a**holes. We are not more free, we are not more just. Those are just lies we are told from the day we enter government-run education.


This is basically the same dynamic as what happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco and all the other evil attrocities of our gestapo-government. You think I am over-reacting? The only thing keeping these goose-steppers from going all out on us is probably the small deterrance we can offer with small arms. They are all absorbed into their power-trip and they fantasize about the opportunities they get to use force. For the time being, they'd rather just pick on the radicals that the masses can be made to loathe by media manipulation while we good Americans slowly forfeit every last right we have decade by decade.


Water doesn't wear down the stone by force, but by persistence.
 
To anyone who is not familiar with Judge Kozinski.
We could use 10,000 more of him.


"Judge Kozinski dissented, writing that in an effort to pro-
tect Horiuchi, whose actions were patently unconstitutional,
the majority opinion materially weakened the standard for the
use of deadly force that heretofore had constrained law
enforcement personnel in the Ninth Circuit".
---------------------------------------------------------------

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
 
We criticized the Soviet system because in Communist Russia, the law was not a set of guidelines for operating a civil society, but rather a weapon that was used by the government against its citizens (see Russia as it is, by matthew maly) We're WORSE today.
I never lived under Soviet communism, but from what I've heard, it was worse than what we have.
 
Leatherneck, some "purely Art's opinion" stuff:

Consder the political views which create a Horiuchi. First off is the idea that we need a group who are trained to kill, in a non-military situation. Okay, I think we can see occasions when it's valid. But then consider the views of those who decided to do all that surveillance without trying a normal arrest. Consider the idea that all that para-military activity was truly, really needed all around his home. To me, that's a BS idea. And then send in a kill-squad?

And back up and consider that as with Waco, Weaver was under suspicion for disagreeing. He disagreed with the idea of spying on a group of people. That's all. Then he was entrapped on the shotgun deal. Then the court clerk screwed up the paperwork on the court date. And then some Gestapo-minded cretin in WashDC decides all that expenditure was rational!

Still, it's the body of law created by those who want only round pegs in only round holes--"Thou shalt obey authority and never disagree."--which creates the militarized structure of certain "police" entities. Weaver was a square peg.

Some individuals seek to hire into this system and are willing LEO accomplices to the corruption. We're indeed fortunate that they are a distinct minority.

(All the above ain't really well organized, but I ain't perfect...)

Art
 
George:
Usually I agree with you but, on this one, there's some serious flaws in your line of thought.
if your a freak like Weaver and you surround yourself with Anti Government types

The you've done nothing wrong (Pastor Niemoller and all that...) Even when LE comes to you and tries to get you to infiltrate "fringe" organizations for them, and you refuse. you've still done nothing wrong. Weaver was a Green Beanie, so he wasn't your average militia type. He was someone that subscribed to an unpopular philosophy and tried to live it.

and deal with illegal stuff like sawed off shotguns,

Didn't do anything that anyone knows of until the FBI showed up asking him to. According to everything I've read and heard, he only did it because he needed to put groceries on the table. When the kids are hungry, common sense often takes a back seat to necessity. Of course, we'll never know the whole story because he never went to court for that incident.

and respond to authorities coming to talk to you about that with a rifle in your hand...

Perhaps foolish, but unless he was threatening them, he did nothing illegal.

You might be inviting trouble you really didn't want.

Perhaps he, like millions of other Americans up to that point, never thought that wanting to be left alone would result in SWAT teams, firefights, and the death of his loved ones at the hands of the authorities.

But it wasn't Lon's fault he was called up for this mess. And since not one person here on this board was sitting behind Lon's rifle scope at the time he pulled the trigger - we have no idea what he saw or what was going through his head.

Point granted. But I have to wonder about the claim that he "missed" since FBI snipers are trained at Quantico at the Marine Sniper School (the finest marksmen in the world). Especially since he missed by 10 inches at 200 yards. That's quite a blunder by someone who is held to the standards that FBI snipers are supposed to be held.

Innocent until Proven Guilty... It applies to the FBI Agents as much as it applies to those they go to arrest.

Unless you're covered by "Sovereign Immunity" in which case, whether you murdered someone or not is moot. The truth shall never be known.
 
George, I've never, ever, read anything, anywhere--nor was anything ever said in the Congressional hearings--about Weaver being any sort of "dealer" in guns. He was approached by federal agents and asked to do the chop-job.

All descriptions of his racial views indicate he merely wanted to live away from other-than-white ethnic groups. He refused to become involved with the Aryan Nation people, after attending (IIRC) one meeting. He was not at all a supremacist. Heck, even Time magazine agreed about that. :)

As far as any onus on Horiuchi, the trial testimony about who was where, who was moving from Point A to Point B and all of that, and how the shot was taken makes it pretty easy for any experienced and skilled rifleman to form a harsh opinion.

Art
 
But I have to wonder about the claim that he "missed" since FBI snipers are trained at Quantico at the Marine Sniper School (the finest marksmen in the world). Especially since he missed by 10 inches at 200 yards. That's quite a blunder by someone who is held to the standards that FBI snipers are supposed to be held.
It is pretty unbelievable. I wonder how many professional snipers have "missed" by that margin at that range?

I'm just an untrained plinker, but I can get that close w/open sights. Never cared much for scopes, but I'm starting to see the value as my eyes age...
 
Leatherneck, some "purely Art's opinion" stuff:
Well, Art: I couldn't agree more.

I remember as a kid, even the sin of calling a LEO a "cop" would have earned me a quick rebuke or swat on the backside. Let alone any transgression of a more serious nature. Of course also in those days, many offenses now viewed nearly as capital crimes were merely "kids being kids." Then, it seemed, the LEOs truly were sworn public servants with no agenda beyond keeping the peace and rounding up the truly bad members of society.

Nowadays it seems the public servant idea is lost (admittedly, much of big and little government shares this trait) to many law enforcement individuals and organizations, and they have become a force unto themselves. Answerable to the public? Hardly. Agenda-driven? Often, it seems. We've lost something good there, and I for one have no idea if it can be gotten back.

TC
 
Well, yeah, BUT. . . .

It's easy for someone my age to hear stories about the old days and how the police back then were just dedicated public servants, not tactical military wannabes.

But how do you square that with the stories about guys like Charlie Askins? How did a lot of the gangsters of the 1920's and 1930's meet their ends--at the hands of those caring and nurturing law enforcement officers, often in what amounted to paramilitary ambushes.

How many people got beatings from police officers back then for no better reason than to adjust their attitudes? How many people got it just for being black? How many officers back then turned a blind eye when crimes happened against people they didn't care about, like blacks?

I'm not saying police today are perfect, far from it. I'm sure in a lot of ways a lot of officers are more military-minded than cops used to be. But let's not kid ourselves that all the changes are for the worse.




And George, it's good that you can keep an open mind on this, but I have to disagree. I think the lack of any evidence at all on the shotgun charge shows that they didn't really intend to take him to trial on that one--when they decided to sting him, it was purely for the sake of entrapping him so he could be used. I find that repugnant and a lot more dangerous than a couple of short shotguns.

As for answering the police with a rifle in his hands, that seems to be the way the Weavers greeted everyone at their home, which was after all a cabin in the woods of Idaho. It might have been dumb, but it was his right to do it. It was his land and his rifle.


All that said, I can't imagine cutting off shotguns for someone else. If you think it through, if you're not a gunsmith installing a choke and sights or something, then what is the money being offered for? You're being paid to take the risk of the illegal action. There's no other reason for someone to pay you any premium at all for a hack job they could do with their own saw in five minutes. I know the agent told Weaver he was going to resell these, and maybe Weaver thought that meant he was going to sell them to people who didn't know guns and would think this was some exotic modification. Just as likely is the possibility that Weaver believed the guns were going to be sold to Bloods and Crips (which might be essentially the same thing, now I think of it.)

The bottom line, however, is that here you have the collision of two worldviews. The Weavers, it seems clear, fervently believed that they would be hunted and persecuted by their government sooner or later.
The government's biggest blunder was in demonstrating that they weren't paranoid, that it really was going to persecute them. They weren't blameless, but they didn't deserve what they got.

Anyone who thinks it was inevitable that "freaks" like the Weavers got what was coming to them would do well to remember that it wasn't that long ago that the "freaks" in this country were the ones who believed the opposite of the Weavers (namely that racial mixing is not a sin, all men are created equal, and religion should inspire, not lock you into destructive patterns.) In other words, people like you and I and the majority of Americans today.

Back then, the anti-racists got roughed up, abused, persecuted and sometimes shot or lynched.
Nowadays, it happens to racists too, which I suppose is meant to be taken as progress.
 
As for answering the police with a rifle in his hands, that seems to be the way the Weavers greeted everyone at their home, which was after all a cabin in the woods of Idaho. It might have been dumb, but it was his right to do it. It was his land and his rifle.
Depending on the time of day and circumstances, that is how I may "greet" you if you drop by my place unannounced. But since I always have a revolver on my hip, I don't usually meet people with a rifle in hand.

Basically, I regard all unrecognized visitors as potential hostiles until I determine otherwise. Yet only once so far have I had to order somebody off my land (not at gunpoint, but it was getting awfully close to that:uhoh: ).
 
"Anyone who thinks it was inevitable that "freaks" like the Weavers got what was coming to them.............."

As my wife and I watched the news "stories" coming out of Waco in 1993, she bought into the government's version of the truth hook, line, & sinker. I'd watch the same broadcast, and say to her, "You believe that?" It caused much division between us, and we divorced in 1994. But she believed "those people got what was coming to them!" I pointed out there were women following their spouses, and innocent children among them. It didn't matter to her. I'm pleased she's an "Ex!"
 
I guess I don't see the point of this thread.

Our government (fed, state, and local) screws up all the time. Citizens (good, bad, and anywhere in between)screw things up too. MOST of the time gov't and citizens do more good than harm, and don't create big screw ups.

Sometimes they don't, and we get explosive problems. Sometimes those screw ups collide and get all blown out of control, with tragic results, and leave us with bad and sour memories. This leads to lots of poisonous positioning and emotions that get blown all out of proportion and (again, control). That in turn leads to whack-job "patriots" blowing up federal buildings and killing 168 (or so) innocents. An ugly vicious circle, or death spiral if you ask me.

Those of you who want Lon H's head on a spit- why not post a poll, and publicly state your position on the appropriate punishment he should receive (prison? execution? murder? suicide?) along with your name, address, and phone number. I'm sure a few true and brave believers would participate fully and honestly, but the majority will continue to hide behind their keyboards.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragic clusterf%#@s, with more than enough blame, stupidity, poor leadership and planning to go around. What purpose does grinding this axe serve? How about real solutions to the issues and problems (sorry patriotic knuckle-draggers - lynching Janet Reno and Lon Horiuchi does not count as a solution).

How do you as an individual want to be treated by your government? Some bright person said (or wrote) that we get the government we deserve. Sometimes that sounds depressing, but I think it's true.
 
How do you as an individual want to be treated by your government?

I want my Constitutional protections upheld by my government.

I want individuals, private or in government, to be held accountable for their actions, to be tried in a public court by a jury of their peers, not allowed to retire in ignomy after commiting what appears to be a murder.

I want the system applied equally, the way it was designed to be.

By "rehashing" this old news I am asserting this was not done and that omission should be corrected. No individual gets a pass on homicide because "it happened so long ago".
 
"But how do you square that with the stories about guys like Charlie Askins? How did a lot of the gangsters of the 1920's and 1930's meet their ends--at the hands of those caring and nurturing law enforcement officers, often in what amounted to paramilitary ambushes."

Even within his own milieu, Askins was an anomaly. The systemic racism tolerated him. As for the gangsters, the alternative to ambush was? You're talking about folks who had already demonstrated a willingness to kill without provocation.

Don, I think that what we're seeing today, at least on the part of the feds, is that a greater percentage of the public meets your "How many people got beatings from police officers back then for no better reason than to adjust their attitudes? How many people got it just for being black? How many officers back then turned a blind eye when crimes happened against people they didn't care about, like blacks?"

As for attitudes, what else, really, caused the willingness to use Weaver? People like him have the "wrong attitude". As for blind eyes, consider the situation on our southern border, right now. I guess in part you could call it reverse racism, or maybe it's the lack of voting strength in the low-population areas there. More votes in blue cities than out in red ranching country.

I dunno. It seems to me that where once it was mostly minorities who were targeted, now it's everybody. Less to do with color, and more to do with disagreement with government. Big Nanny is becoming an ever more strict disciplinarian...

Art
 
Big Nanny is becoming an ever more strict disciplinarian...
That, I'm beginning to believe, is the biggest problem of all. The Government has become a self-sustaining beast and does not need us any more, except in the abstract--the great unwashed and brainwashed masses.

TC
 
From the Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility
Bermann Commission Task Force Report

aka

Department of Justice Report on Internal Review
Regarding The Ruby Ridge Hostage Situation and
Shootings by Law Enforcement Personnel

or just

DoJ OPR Report:

The Rules of Engagement

....At 3:30 p.m. on August 22, HRT sniper/observers, along with
members of the Marshals Service SOG, began their ascent to the
cabin. Before their departure, they were briefed on the Rules of
Engagement, which provided that:
1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the
announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the
shot can be taken without endangering any children.

2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after
the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to
surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize
the individual.

3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that
animal should be eliminated.

4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin
Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the
FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be
utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to
oneself or that of another.
No shots had been fired since the previous day, but, while the
HRT members were moving to positions overlooking the cabin, other
observers reported to FBI headquarters that the subjects were
outside the cabin. FBI Headquarters reminded the field commander
that the Rules of Engagement would apply. By 5:45 p.m., the
sniper/observers reached their positions. The engines of the
personnel carriers at the command post below were audible. An
unarmed, young female ran from the cabin to a rocky outcropping
and returned to the cabin. Within a minute, an unarmed male was
seen on the cabin's back deck. About ten minutes later, a
helicopter carrying HRT personnel began an observation mission.
When the helicopter's engine was started, the female seen earlier
and two males ran from the cabin to the outcropping. The last
person to emerge was carrying a rifle. Sniper/observer Horiuchi
identified him as Kevin Harris.

A few seconds later Horiuchi saw a person he believed to be
Harris near an outbuilding known as the "birthing shed." The man
appeared to be scanning above and behind the snipers for the
helicopter. Horiuchi believed that he was trying to position
himself to shoot at the helicopter from the more protected side
of the shed. Horiuchi fired one shot as the man suddenly moved
along the side of the shed out of sight. When Horiuchi fired, the
man's back was toward Horiuchi and the helicopter. Because the
man moved unexpectedly, Horiuchi assumed he missed. The man he
aimed at was not Harris, but Weaver, who was slightly wounded.
Harris and Weaver have maintained that they had no aggressive
purpose in leaving the cabin and that Weaver was opening the door
to the shed to look at the body of his son.

After ten or twenty seconds Horiuchi saw the target of his first
shot following the other two people as they ran to the cabin. The
first two entered the cabin through an open door. Horiuchi fired,
aiming slightly in front of the last running man. The bullet went
through the curtained window of the open door, fatally wounding
Vicki Weaver and seriously injuring Kevin Harris. The sniper
testified that he did not know that Vicki Weaver was standing
behind the door.

attachment.php


When Commander Rogers, who had been aboard the HRT helicopter,
learned of the shootings, he and an FBI negotiator went in a
personnel carrier to the cabin to make a surrender announcement
and to begin negotiations by leaving a telephone. There was no
response. A few hours later, due to deteriorating weather
conditions, the snipers left their positions and returned to the
command post where Rogers debriefed them....

. . . . .

....Most significant is the testimony of Lon Horiuchi, the
sniper/observer who eventually fired at members of the
Weaver/Harris group. Horiuchi conceded that the Rules were
different from those in the FBI manual and the Rules under which
the HRT usually operated. He had never before been asked to
operate under such Rules, which differed from the standard deadly
force policy in that "the decision that we were already in danger
had already been made for us prior to going on the hill."(619)
Horiuchi testified that this was the first time he had been asked
to apply Rules that differed from the standard deadly force
policy. Under the latter, he could not shoot a person, unless
that person posed a threat to his or another person's safety, and
the decision as to whether a person posed a threat was left to
Horiuchi. Under the new Rules, the decision that there was a
threat had already been made.(620) Horiuchi acknowledged that,
under the Rules, he could and should shoot any adult male, if he
had an opportunity.(621)

619. Trial Testimony of Lon Horiuchi, June 3, 1993, at 164- 65.

620. id. at 166-67.

621. id. at 172-73. He emphasized that all the snipers were
present when the Rules of Engagement were discussed:

The individuals that went up on the hill were present when the
Rules of Engagement were discussed:

The individuals that went up on the hill were pre-briefed by me
and Mr. Love, the other team leader, to ensure that the
individuals that we had under our control were well-briefed on
the rules of engagement.

id. at 178.

DoJ OPR Chronology of Events: Saturday, August 22, 1992

At approximately 5:58 p.m., HRT sniper/observer Lon Horiuchi
fires round which wounds Randy Weaver. Seconds later, Horiuchi fires
a round which kills Vicki Weaver and wounds Kevin Harris.

At 6:30 p.m., an Armored Personnel Carrier ("APC") arrives at the
cabin area. FBI hostage negotiator delivers message over loud
speaker that there are arrest warrants for Randy Weaver and Kevin
Harris and asks Weaver to accept negotiations telephone.
 

Attachments

  • RESPONSE.GIF
    RESPONSE.GIF
    14.1 KB · Views: 215
The 22 August 1992 Shootings

{NOTE: Redacted information is here labeled "GARRITY," or "G.J."
Under U.S. Supreme Court ruling in GARRITY v. New Jersey (1967).
government employees who provide information during an
administrative investigation must be granted immunity from
criminal prosecution. Apparently, such testimony was redacted
from the DoJ OPR Report.)


HRT helicopter pilot, Frank Costanza, flew six reconnaissance
missions on August 22, 1992, from the staging area at the command
post to an area above and around the hilltop where the Weaver
cabin was located. He believed that the purpose of the flights
was to afford FBI, Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorney's Office
personnel the opportunity to assess the area and the terrain
around the Weaver residence. Costanza tried to avoid hostile fire
during the flights by remaining at least 200 yards away from the
cabin. He described the weather conditions as a mixture of rain
and snow and noted that visibility was limited.(634)

According to Glenn, the helicopter was used to fly over the area
to identify possible sites for the sniper/observer teams. Aerial
operations were severely hampered by inclement weather. The low
cloud ceiling made it impossible to operate the helicopters out
of range of the weapons thought to be in the Weaver cabin.
Accordingly, the helicopters were utilized at low altitudes, and
they weaved "around the crisis site.....to avoid being an obvious
target." Glenn took one flight that was within range of a rifle
shot, but the helicopter never flew directly over the Weaver
cabin.(635)

A member of the Marshals Service SOG reported that, while he was
at the command post area on Saturday, August 22, he saw the
helicopter fly toward the cabin and return very quickly. He heard
that the Weavers had come out of the cabin and had acted in a
hostile manner toward the helicopter but that they had not fired
at the helicopter.(636)

f. Placement of HRT Sniper/Observers in Area Surrounding the
Weaver Cabin

Because of the rugged terrain and deteriorating weather
conditions, HRT sniper/observers began arriving at positions on
the ridge overlooking the Weaver cabin approximately two to two
and one half hours after setting out from the command
post/staging area.(637)

At 5:07 p.m., the HRT sniper/observer team designated as Sierra
4, of "S-4," arrived at its position. this team consisted of Lon
Horiuchi and Dale Monroe. At 5:20 p.m., the HRT team designated
Sierra 2, consisting of Edward Wenger and Warren Bamford, arrived
at its position. At 5:52 p.m., Sierra 3, consisting of Jerome
Barker and Christopher Curran, arrived at its position. Between
5:52 p.m. and 5:57 p.m., S-1, consisting of HRT members
Christopher Whitcomb, Roger Love, and Mark Tilton, arrived at its
position.(638)

Horiuchi's "Sierra 4" position was the closest of the four
positions, almost due north of the cabin in a line almost
parallel to the front wall. He was at a slight angle above the
cabin, approximately 646 feet from the front door and
approximately 579 feet from the outbuilding known as the
"birthing shed." There was a ravine between Horiuchi and the
cabin.(639) Horiuchi could see the top of the front porch of
the cabin and straight through the porch. He could see the front
of the door as it opened and when it was in an open position.
Horiuchi could not see the front door when it was closed, nor
could he see into the cabin. He could also see the deck at the
back of the cabin.(640)

g. Circumstances Involving the Two Rifle Shots Taken by HRT
Member Lon Horiuchi

(1) The First Shot

At approximately 5:45 p.m., Horiuchi saw an unarmed, young
female, slight of build, with a ponytail, run from the front of
the Weaver cabin toward a rocky outcropping.

(G.J.)(641)

(GARRITY)(642)

After viewing this female with the naked eye, Horiuchi observed
her through his rifle scope and determined that she was a child.
Although he could have fired at her, he did not because "the
female was not armed at that time and (he) was assuming she was a
child because of the size of the stature."(643) Horiuchi could
not recall whether the front door was open when the child was
outside the cabin, but after she returned to the cabin, the door
was closed.(644)

Within a minute after the girl returned to the cabin, Horiuchi
observed an unarmed male on the back deck. The man moved to the
back corner of the deck where ponchos or blankets were hanging on
a string. "It seemed like he just felt them to see if they were
dry and then he went back in."(645) The man was in Horiuchi's
vision for perhaps ten seconds, and, although Horiuchi could have
both fired and hit the person, he did not because "the individual
did not appear to be armed, there was nothing in his hand, and I
did not see any weapons around or on his person."(646) HRT
sniper.observer Whitcomb, from his Sierra-1 position, the highest
and farthest away from the Weaver cabin of the four positions,
could vaguely observe this individual on the back porch.(647)
The other HRT sniper/observers did not report that they saw a man
on the back porch.

At 5:57 p.m., the HRT helicopter took off for its sixth
observation mission of the day. HRT Commander Rogers, Marshals
Service Deputy Director Smith, Marshals Service SOG Commander
Haynes, and HRT pilot Frank Costanza were aboard.(649) Haynes
observed someone outside the cabin, but he could not identify the
person or see whether the person was armed.(650) Rogers and
Smith recall that someone aboard the helicopter reported seeing
two persons outside the cabin, armed with rifles, although none
of the other people in the helicopter recalls observing anyone
outside the cabin. About the time the helicopter landed, Costanza
recalls hearing radio reports that two shots had been fired.(652)

Horiuchi heard the helicopter and the armored personnel carriers
start their engines, and he saw the helicopter take off from the
command post to the left of the Weaver cabin, circle to his left
and out of his sight.(653) Within five to ten seconds after
the helicopter engine started, Horiuchi saw two males and the
female he had seen earlier come out of the front door of the
cabin and run toward the "rocky outcropping" a defensive position
near the front of the cabin.(654) (G.J.)

(G.J.)(655)(656)(657)

Horiuchi saw the three people run behind the "birthing shed,"a
wooden building close to the cabin and disappear from his view.
Horiuchi focused on the person he believed to be Harris because
he was carrying a "shoulder weapon" at "port arms."(658)

(G.J.)(659)

and because the person was not making a threatening movement,(660)

(G.J.)(661)

Jerome Barker at the Sierra 3 position saw two adult males and
one adult female, carrying "long barreled weapons," move from the
cabin toward the birthing shed.(662) He perceived their
movements as rapid, evasive, and indicative of a confrontational
posture.(663) He lost sight of the second male who exited the
cabin, and he saw the other male and the female move toward his
position and the Sierra 4 position. He lost sight of these people
as they entered a ravine, less than two hundred yards from
Barker's position. Barker prepared to "encounter" the two
individuals whom he considered a threat.(664)

Horiuchi continued to concentrate on the person who had rounded
the rear corner of the birthing shed. As he came back into view,
Horiuchi believed that the man was the armed individual he had
initially seen running from the cabin.(665) The man picked up
a stick and appeared to be poking at the ground and looking up
above and to the right of Horiuchi where Horiuchi sensed that the
helicopter was flying.(666)

(GARRITY)(667)

When the person reappeared at the side of the shed from which he
had disappeared, he held his weapon at high port and scanned
above and behind Horiuchi's position. He seemed to be looking for
the helicopter. The person was "watching the helicopter, and at
times he would kind of bring his weapon up and (Horiuchi)
perceiv(ed) that perhaps he was trying to get a shot off."(668)

(669)(GARRITY)

Horiuchi fired one shot, just as the man suddenly moved along the
side of the birthing shed out of sight.

When Horiuchi shot, the man was at the corner of the shed, with
his back toward Horiuchi.

(GARRITY)(670)

Horiuchi "assumed that he was raising (his arm) to grab
inside the building to spin himself around the corner."(671)
Horiuchi acknowledged that when he shot he was aiming at the
man's back.(672)

Horiuchi assumed that he had hit the man or the edge of the
birthing shed.(673) After he fired, the person "continued to
move around the corner of the birthing shed, so -- without any
effect, it didn't seem like he was hit at all, so that's why my
assumption was that I had missed."(674)

Horiuchi assumed that the person at whom he had fired was Kevin
Harris.(675) In fact, Horiuchi shot Randy Reaver. After the
first shot, Horiuchi decided that he would shoot at this person
again, if he got the opportunity.(676)

Harris has said that he, Randy Weaver, and Sara Weaver left the
cabin with rifles and that he went to the rocks near the cabin to
retrieve a battery, while Randy and Sara Weaver went to the
birthing shed to see Sammy Weaver's body. After hearing a shot,
Harris ran to the birthing shed where Weaver exclaimed, "I'm
shot."(677)

Randy Weaver stated:
Kevin, Sara and I (Randy) left the house to check the North
perimeter. We didn't see anything so I (R) was going into the
guest shed where Sam was to see him one last time. As I (R)
reached up to unlatch the door I was shot from the rear and hit
in the upper right arm."(678)
(2) The Second Shot

According to Horiuchi, after ten to twenty seconds, the man he
thought he had initially shot at came back into his view, joined
by the other male and the female. Horiuchi observed the male and
female run toward the cabin trailed by nine steps by the man
Horiuchi thought had been the target of his first shot.
The first two people disappeared behind the open door, and,
Horiuchi assumed, went inside the cabin. Horiuchi had determined
after the first shot that he "was going to shoot at that
individual again" because:

I believed he was the same individual that had attempted to shoot
. . . at the helicopter, and therefore, I assumed that he was
moving back to the house to get a more protected location inside
the house and I didn't want him back in the house. . . .
(K)nowing that the children were inside the house, that would
have been my last opportunity to shoot him before he got into the
house because I probably would not have shot at anyone inside the
house for fear of shooting the children.....(H)e would have been
more protected inside the house and he could have shot at either
me or my fellow agents or the helicopter still flying around at
that location, probably knowing that we couldn't shoot back in
there without harming some of the children.(679)

Horiuchi fired as Harris approached the porch. Harris was
reaching out with his left hand toward the door and taking a last
step to the doorway, appearing to be holding the door open or
moving someone out of the way.

(GARRITY)(680)

Horiuchi was leading the running target, that is, aiming slightly
in front of him as he ran, so that the target subject would, in
effect, run into the bullet. The cross hairs of the rifle's scope
were on the edge of the door or just on the wood portion of the
door.(681) The door was fully open, and Horiuchi could see the
entire front face of the door, except for the bottom portion. At
the time of the shot, the target had his weapon in his right hand
and was reaching out with his left hand.(682)

Horiuchi saw the individual flinch as if he had been hit and
disappear into the doorway. The man reached like he had been
"punched" or hit on the side; he fell behind the door.(683)

Afterwards, Horiuchi heard a female scream for about 30
seconds.(684) He assumed that the female was screaming because Harris
had been hit.(685) In fact, Vicki Weaver had been fatally shot.
Horiuchi assumed that the individuals preceding the person at
whom he shot had gone inside the cabin. He has testified that he
did not see anyone standing behind the door when he shot and that
he did not intend to shoot Vicki Weaver.(686)

. . . . . . .

FOOTNOTES

634. FD-302 Interview of Frank Constanza, September 10, 1992,
at 1.

635. Glenn Sworn Statement, January 12, 1994 at 22-23.

636. FD-302 Interview of Luke Adler, January 7, 1994, at 1. 637.
Shooting Incident Report, September 30, 1992, at 2.

638. HRT Sniper Log, August 22, 1992, at 1. Unless otherwise
noted, times specified in that log are Pacific Daylight Savings
Time.

639. Upon arrival at this position, Horiuchi took out his rain
jacket because it had begun to rain. He positioned his rifle
through the limbs of a small pine tree. His weapon was a
Remington, Model 700 rifle which has a fixed Unertyl, ten power
telescope sight. The weapon fires a .308 calibre, match grade 168
grain bullet.

640. (G.J.) Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 52-57.

641. (G.J.)

642. (GARRITY)
At trial, he said that the female stayed outside the cabin "two of
three minutes, I'm not sure." Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993,
at 63-64.

643. id. at 64

644. id. at 64-65

645. id. at 66.

646. id. at 66-67

647. Sworn Statement of Christopher Whitcomb, December 7, 1993,
at 6.

648. HRT Sniper Log, August 22, 1992, 5:57 p.m., at 1.

649. Smith FD-302, November 24, 1993, at 7; and Rogers Trial
Testimony, June 2, 1993, at 60-61.

650. FD-302 Interview of John Haynes, October 20, 1993, at 7.

651. Smith Sworn Statement, January 6, 1994, at 7-8; Rogers Trial
Testimony, June 2, 1993, at 63-65.

652. Constanza FD-302, October 22, 1993, at 2.

653. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 67-69.

654. id. at 81. Horiuchi assumed that the female was the same
person he had seen earlier because of her small stature. id.
at 74.

655. (G.J.)

656. (G.J.)

657. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 71-72.

658. "Port arms" is a military term which describes a weapon
being carried across the chest with both hands in a slanting
direction with the barrel near the left shoulder.

659. (G.J.)

660. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 86-87.

661. (G.J.)

662. Barker Sworn Statement, August 31, 1992, at 3.

663. id., November 12, 1993, at 2.

664. id., August 31, 1992, at 3. Barker alerted Curran, who was
preparing his position at Sierra 3 and did not observe any of
this activity. Monroe, who was stationed with Horiuchi, did not
see anyone leave the cabin until Horiuchi alerted him because
Monroe's view was obstructed by brush. Monroe watched three
persons run from the cabin with weapons at port arms or other
positions of readiness. Monroe Sworn Statement, December 17,
1993, at 6-7. Whitcomb and Love at the Sierra 1 position and
Wenger at Sierra 2 observed three armed persons move from the
front of the cabin to rock outcropping. Tilton, the third
sniper/observer at Sierra 1, heard radio transmissions that
people were outside the cabin, but did not observe anyone. See
Tilton Sworn Statement, August 31, 1992, at 3. Warren Bamford,
also at Sierra 2, did not observe anyone near the Weaver cabin
because he was preparing his position. See Bramford Sworn
Statement, October 25, 1993, at 6.

665. Horiuchi Trail Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 81-82.

666. id. at 82.

667. (GARRITY)

668. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 88, 90.

669. id. at 93; (GARRITY) Horiuchi conceded that, although it may
have not been effective, he could have yelled to Weaver and
Harris to drop their weapons before he fired the first shot.
Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 169.

670. (GARRITY)

671. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 4, 1993, at 40-41. 672. id.
at 42.

673. id., June 3, 1993, at 93.

674. id. at 94. However, Horiuchi acknowledged that he know that
the man had been hit "in the back up towards the fleshy part of
his arm." id. at 37.

675. id. at 103.

676. id., June 3, 1993, at 90-94.

677. FD-302 Interview of Kevin Harris, September 1, 1992, at 3-4.
The only other sniper who saw the birthing shed activity was
Monroe, Horiuchi's partner. Monroe saw an adult male, who he
believed was Kevin Harris, armed with a rifle. The person
appeared to be using the birthing shed as cover, while
maneuvering to take a shot. Monroe Sworn Statement, November 17,
1993, at 7. None of the sniper/observers saw a female by the
birthing shed.

678. Letter dated August 26, 1992, signed "Randall C. Weaver,
Kevin Harris, Sara Weaver, Rachel and Elisheba," at 5 (Appendix
at 27).

679. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993, at 110-11.

680. (GARRITY)

681. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 3, 1993 at 113 (GARRITY)

682. id., June 3, 1993, at 111-15. Horiuchi testified that he
could not see through the window in the door.

683. id. at 126.

684. id.

685. id. at 127

686. Horiuchi Trial Testimony, June 4, 1993, at 62. Horiuchi also
testified that at the time Harris was reentering the cabin
Horiuchi "knew that (Harris) was trying to move somebody out of
the way when (he) shot, and that (Horiuchi) knew somebody was
behind (the) door." Horiuchi emphasized that, "(he) wasn't
shooting at the individual behind the door, (he) was shooting at
Mr. Harris." id. at 61-62.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top