Anyone have a response to the statement issued by the Woodring family late Wed. night? I don't think its been posted yet. It contains some details about the "standoff" (pre-shooting) that have not been discussed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1354579&nav=0RceGoqA
Woodring family releases statement
Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
(Fremont, July 9, 2003, 11:43 p.m.) The Woodring family issued a statement today.
The Woodring family statement:
Our sympathy, thoughts, and prayers are with Trooper Kevin Marshall's family.
Before the standoff started, the family feels that the whole ordeal could have been prevented. We know that a family member contacted authorities with specific information on the best way she felt they could have served the original warrant to Scott, where he would be located during daylight hours on July 4th when he would be with family members for support.
But, for reasons unknown to us they chose not to use this information.
We find it hard to believe Scott would intentionally harm anyone unless it was from a feeling of self-defense. The statement presented at the news conference this morning would indicated otherwise.
To clarify previous statements about Scott's wife's removal from the home, she wants it known that
she left willingly.
We KNOW that Scott did not prevent her from leaving.
The authorities say communication with Scott ceased at approximately 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 7th.
Up to that point, family members had direct contact with Scott via cell phones and amateur radio, and he was talking calmly and rationally with us. The authorities were surprised to discover we had been communicating with Scott.
Shortly thereafter Scott's telephone number was disabled. The authorities apologized to the family for
"ACCIDENTALLY" knocking down Scott's amateur radio tower he had been using to communicate with his wife. The authorities told the family
they had Scott's telephone number changed. Family members requested the new phone number, and this
request was denied. After all communication with family members was cut off, we know Scott would refuse to communicate with authorities due to his distrust of them.
Later in the chain of events, the
family requested that two family ministers be allowed to talk to Scott and was refused.
We are strongly urging Scott to peacefully surrender to authorities. Your family is willing to support you in any possible way. Scott, we love you and are praying for you and your safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(emphasis added)
Isn't it curious how the details mentioned above differ markedly from the "official" statements? Those who are defending the actions of the authorities, portray how avoidance of injuries is paramount when dealing with this type of situation. Went so far as to chastise me for posting a Waco analogy.
One of the big themes learned from Waco (in post-op analyses) was NOT to isolate the suspect; keep lines of communication open; esp. with a suspect whose distrust in govt. is well known and documented going in? Yet, it seems the actions described above go completely opposite...many actions to isolate the suspect - way beyond "accidental" knocking down of a radio tower (yeah, right). At least they didn't play "These Boots are Made for Walkin" at 140 db in the middle of the night (so we've made progress, eh?)
If the authorities were "bending over backwards" to avoid injuries, how do you explain all these actions to intentionally ISOLATE the subject?
Its apparent in this thread that one side is predisposed to believe the authroities, and make rational arguments for defendants to "trust the system". The rhetorical alternative posed is nothing short of anarchy.
Perhaps there's a third path, where official response takes into account the DISTRUST people have for the officials going in (for whatever reason...larger issues in society or whatever), not assuming that the other side shares your faith in the system. Seems like some missed opportunities in this case, eh?