Ruby Ridge on Discovery

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

11.jpg


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

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

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

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

Please don't personally attack me, just come up with an explosives expert that can tell us how one dumb hick with a crude bomb did this. Maybe that same expert can tell us about the tests at Englin AFB where they tried to recreate the blast on 1/4 scale and had to put the bomb inside the structure to achieve even partial collapse. Maybe that same expert can tell us how you direct a charge of crappy explosives in 55gal barrels. And no, adding nitromethane to ANFO does not make the mother of all high explosives. It seems you have access to these experts, maybe they'll enlighten us all.
 
didnt all the Nuremburg Nazi's use the reasoning. "i was just doing my job" ? Try getting off the government nipple, as you're obviously conflicted by who butters your bread...

The good news is that 3 million more of your tax dollars went to the kids after the fact... "without the government admitting guilt"
 
the point is weaver didn't go down and address the charges against him. he refused to leave his property for fear of arrest.
"Come to court or we'll shoot your wife in the face." Nice. What is this, Cambodia?:scrutiny:
 
yes i was a doj employee,and i suffered a broken back and lost my right eye april 19 ,1995. and i didn't shoot anyones wife. the fbi agents were told proir to thier arrival that it was armed white supremist(which weaver was not) that already killed marshals. so lets say you were sent into a situation were some of your coworkers had been killed. with little other info except to get them out & arrest them. 187
 
Well, unless I'm much mistaken, Mrs Weaver was killed by a bullet fired from the rifle held by a one Lon Horiuchi. Unless his gun suffered a huge parts breakage, that shot was discharged because he pulled the trigger. If he shot her but did not mean to, he is just as responsible for her death as he would be if he intended to put a bullet through her skull. The rules of safety don't change. If you fire a shot without confirming your target, you are still responsible for what that bullet does. The fact that Horiuchi was not punished for his actions makes a mockery of any standard of justice held by the court system. If you were there, maybe you know better whether MRs Weaver's killing was intentional or negligent. But it makes very little difference to me.

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

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

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

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

I won't shed any more tears for a Federal agent shot under those circumstances than I would for an armed burglar who gets shot by a homeowner.
 
187-"so you believe they intentionally shot weavers wife?"

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

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

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

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm
 
I think that this thread has run its course. Passions are obviously running high, and I don't think that keeping it open will lead to anything constructive.
Before this degrades into a wholesale flame-fest, this thread is CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top