In America, "victims" quickly become "heros".
Curious.

Dutch is correct.  This was a setup from the git-go, by a vindictive BATF when Weaver refused to turn snitch.  I have seen the alphabets do this before, only RW had the stones to tell Unk to 'come and get me.'  What else coulde he have done?  His family likely could not have fed themselves if he was in jail (on trumped up charges no less) and he realized that he had been tricked twice, by the act of sawing off the gun and by the altered court date.
 RW was in fact a two tour vet in Special forces, an E-6 IIRC.  He is also a far better man than I.  Horiuchi would be BEGGING to die had that been Mrs Warner not Mrs Weaver.  3mil sure buys a lot of information,and the world is too small to hide in any more.  Ops

Weaver is not a "nut job". He moved out of the city to protect his family. Prolly smarter than some here.



The ATF wasn't just flawed, it was illegal entrapment.



The same "Authorities" who set him up??? Heh, heh..



ATF told SOG that Weaver was a suspect in an Aryan Nations Bank robberies, and that he was violent. They LIED!



So being a white seperatist makes someone "out of touch with reality??? Good investigative techniques there eh???



So am I, Am I nuts too???



The warrant was based on perjured info, and was false. Therefore the "authorities" had NO right to arrest him.



Bullshit!! Deagan shot the dog with no warning, a 14 year old boy returned fire, and was killed.



The info they should have gathered, should have been facts, instead of lies...



It was an unlawful warrant. People paid for LEO fuck ups with their lives!! Maybe the deaths of the LEO's will wake some of you up....I doubt it from your post. You are so mis-informed, I don't know where to start..



Horseshit!! He did resist, he did evade, was found "Not Guilty" by a jury, the same jury found he was "entrapped" by the govt. No disciplinary action was taken over this fiasco. No accountability by LEO. False statements were made on the warrant, and to the Marshalls service.



The right answer is that when an unidentified stranger on your property, shoots your dog, you shoot back!!



Bullshit. Look at the Congressional hearings. There was no gunfire from the house, They were running to a shed to prepare Randy's sons body.



As I demonstrated, if the govt had not entrapped weaver everyone would be alive!! Who got everyone killed?? LYING law officers. Wanna blame someone??

Blame your own!!



He did present himself at court on the day HIS papers said to, the papers had the wrong day on them.



NO! The proper place to fight is then and there, and the person to hold accountable is standing in front of you to take your rights. Make him pay...



He had the courage of his convictions, and minded his own business. He was setup from beginning to end. The individuals in govt leo killed those people, and never, (except Deagan), was anyone held accountable.



The govt side has done everything possible to prevent any of this from being heard in the courts....


Oh, BTW, Those Federal "law" officers that lied about Weaver??




They all got commendations, and promotions...


Have a nice day.

As I understand it, the barrel was of legal length.  However, the gun itself was to short overall, requiring a $5 tax stamp for AOW licensing  -- the stock had a shortened length of pull.

So someone has a shotgun that is too short...anyone alive now that was alive when it was LEGAL to have a shotgun that was 1/2" shorter than they are allowed to be today?  I'm sure all the drug dealing scum have those AOW registered guns too, for making sure they are on the up and up.[rolleyes]

Anybody think that the bullshit law, which Weaver was being accused of breaking, is maybe just a revenue making device?  How was he to beat it?  The shotgun he had was too short overall.  He was cooked.  The law itself was the issue, not whether he could beat it or not.  Who care who he likes or dislikes?  That's just an excuse to kick a door in.

Read, "Unintended Consequensces" by John Ross.

The more you read, the more you'll understand.[size=1][blue]Thanks for the recommendation, Duncan[/size=1][/blue]

The fact that Weaver's son was shot in the back is, by itself, not relevant to the discussion.  If someone has fired upon you and you believe that he is maneuvering to gain tactical advantage, you may use deadly force against him, whether his back is to you or not.  I am not saying that this is the case in the Weaver shooting (as I stated before, I was not there.)  I am simply saying that the fact that he was shot in the back, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything.

Duncan, he won't ever see it.....

I believe:

Natez = LEO

See the angle now?

It meant something to that boy.

We can't be having that shit!!! Next thing you'll want is for people to actually BE free, instead of just Thinking they're free.....

Yes, but that doesn't advance the discussion in any rational sense, it is simply an emotional appeal.  You must want democr****undergr****.com; two doors down, on the left.  You can't miss it.

The "advance" team was not serving a warrant, were they?  They were on Weaver's property, which was posted, and they shot Weaver's dog.  His son had been taught to return fire when fired upon.....

He got shot by trespassers, wearing alphabet soup gear.

Any more questions?

Actually, they were actively pursuing a criminal warrant against Mr. Weaver, and therefore had every legal right to be on his property.

Ed, you have no idea, how glad I am you are looking at the book. I really liked the first half, with the history, and technical gun stuff. How far are you?? Was thinking 'bout you the other day, and the exchange we had some time ago, and wondering how you're doing. Glad to see you are gleaning info, we perish without it!![:D]

But what appears to be running away to one person's perspective may appear to be maneuvering for tactical advantage to someone else's, especially on a wooded mountainside.  I was simply saying that Weaver's son being shot in the back didn't prove anything one way or the other.  I was not there that day, so I don't know what happened, and unless your last name is Harris, neither were you.

Actually, the warrant was based on perjured, and fabricated info. It was invalid, and a jury found it so, when they acquitted Weaver.....
The officers, had no legal right to be there..

Interesting chicken before the egg type conclusions here.....

So, if they had not asked him to modify the shotgun, which they knew was too short prior to his modifying it, would they have had anything against him and any reason to be on his land?

I was unaware that entrapment was alright in Idaho.  I guess I should be more up to speed on laws in other states in the Union.

No entrapment = no warrant = no reason to be there = no dead dog, boy, and wife.

Hmm.....very interesting indeed.

3/4 through it....shit has just officially hit the fan....

First half was very informative.  Was it 100% historically accurate?  Outside Henry's stuff?

I am feeling the urge for a 44mag....

Yes, isn't it just fascinating.......

Look at all the "instant heros" generated on 9/11, when all those cops and firefighters ran into the WTC.
I guess they were really just victims..[rolleyes]

It prolly took MORE courage for Randy and his family to resist the illegal actions of Federal cops, than it did to run into those buildings....


(flame suit on!! [:D])

ED, I heard, (not verified), that there are historical problems with the bonus march story... Just don't know, maybe someone who does, will chime in.

The pefect illustration of your character.

As it is of yours.

Just a random thought here, I have never been accused of having a cogent one....

Morally, legally and otherwise:

1) Regardless of circumstances of you being there, is it OK to shoot a woman in the head while she is unarmed from a distance at which you, nor your team is in harm's way?

2) A 14 year old armed boy retreating from the firing line, ON HIS OWN PROPERTY, makes him what kind of target?

3) "How's your head, Vicky?" over a bullhorn after they get word she has been shot in the head?

It is widely known that no federal agent or other LEO was taking fire when Lon capped Weaver's wife.  As a sniper, you better damn straight know where your round is going....a head shot means they wanted her DEAD.

Rights...what a funny dicussion this has turned into.

As if somehow an officer can have the "right" to shoot your child.  As if somehow an officer can have the "right" to come on your property and shoot your dog.  As if it was well within the officer's "rights".  Afterall, all Randy had to do was show up to court.  He knew he was wanted, correct?  He knew what would happen if he didn't show up, so that must make it "right"? The officers had a "right" to be there...

Its obvious that you don't have the slightest idea what real "rights" are Natez.  Above all, the right to be left the fuck alone and to NOT have to submit to Government bodies who will stop at nothing to destroy your family and your life.

I don't know much about the Ruby Ridge incident, so this thread is very interesting to me. Natez sounds kinda funny so far:



Why was he a repulsive, miserable turd of a human being and a whacked out nutjob? Lots of people here say they have personally spoken to him at length, and they seem to think he's all right. Have you spoken to him personally? What is it that makes you think that?



Planerench says that he has seen the indictment and that a mini-14 was Weaver's most potent weapon. Please justify the "armed to the teeth" statement.

He did live far out in the woods. I don't think anyone here would say that being armed while living deep in the woods is paranoid or crazy, since not all animals are nice fuzzy Bambi clones.

Is preparing to fight the government paranoid if they do come to get you based on entrapment and perjury?



What if they never declared themselves to be federal agents serving a warrant? If it was just a guy in camo lying in the woods who shot your dog, what would you do?

Okay, so the Marshals are trying to stay covert and a dog (maybe?) smells them. Since they want to stay covert, and they presumably want to avoid the loss of life, the best response is to... shoot the dog with no warning, while two armed people are standing nearby.



Why does he deserve to be rotting in prison? Because an ATF agent managed to get him to cut a shotgun a quarter-inch too short, violating a law that makes little sense? Because he was given a incorrect court date and therefore failed to show up for the correct one? Because he refused to inform on the Aryan Nations? (Don't they advocate armed overthrow of the US government? I wouldn't be real eager to get them pissed off at me) Because he armed his children when they walked around in the woods? Because he taught them that when an unidentified man shoots as them, they should shoot back?

Let me see if I understand Natez correctly.

1) You have rights, but they immediately become null and void when a government agency decides to pursue you for one reason or another.

2) Since (1) is the case, that makes Randy Weaver responsible for the people killed by the feds at Ruby Ridge.

3) R.W. is a scumbag deserving of death because THERE WAS A WARRANT ISSUED FOR HIM?  


It's coming, boys.  Never doubt it.  But when it comes, you'll be standing alone, maligned and bullied - then you'll get one chance to prove what you're made of.

Mobs don't have balls.  Individuals do (or do not.).

STOP IT!

Right now!

You are not allowed to use common sense to analyze the situation, nor are you allowed to think that the gov't, and their methods, are not looking out for your best interest.

Geez.....come on man.

that sums it up nicely

Natez, ever hear the phrase "pick your battles"
I know prosecutors/DA's utilize that discretion every day, I was under the impression many LEO's do too.


Maybe better judgment should have been used before going after Weaver & his family on his property?

If it was a bogus charge trumped up through entrapment then why didn't they just leave him the hell alone??
(egos maybe?)

 Who was he a threat to living in his cabin in the woods in rurual Idaho ????????????

Agreed QS.....one question for you?

Won't you be torn when it does happen?  Being military and all?

Nope.  I've sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.


Nowhere in there do I see 'Support and defend the right of the government to issue ukases and edicts and crush like a bug those who refuse to comply'.

I haven't had to make a decision like that yet.  

I hope when that time comes everyone REMEMBERS that oath applies to protecting the Constitution, not the part against domestic enemies.  It is all where you place the emphasis....[;)]

[bow]

Nimrod: Do you mean that discounting the boy as collateral damage makes it OK?  Mentioning that an officer of the law shot the boy in the back as he was running away (NOT FLANKING THE OFFICER) makes me a bleeding heart whacko?  I'm troubled that you can dehumanize this murdered boy so easily, just write off the shooting as a tactical precaution.  I hope you are never called upon to serve a warrant at my door.  If you are give me a heads up so my family can make funeral arrangements for me.

Sheesh.

You have devoted some thought here, and, you are correct. When they come, it will be men like natez, and plenty of 'em, who will believe the hype of the moment.

Most of us will stand alone.......or not.

The fact that the criminal case was inherently flawed DOES NOT make the warrant invalid.

The Marshals had no way of knowing what the ultimate outcome of the criminal case would be. This is where the "good faith" standard comes in for warrants. The officers have a legal standard that alows them to serve the warrant in good faith. They would not be able to get their jobs done, otherwise.

The fact that a felony warrant had been issued in fact gave them the right, very long recognized under most state laws, and federal law, to enter Weaver's property for law enforcement purposes, to include surveillance. There is another long-standing legal doctrine about this called "Open Fields," which I won't even go into at this point, but suffice to say that the Marshals were legally there.

Weaver was first arrested on this charge by the ATF in August of 1991, when agents used a ruse to arrest him away from his house. Weaver reportedly told the agents that that would "never work again" and he refused to show for subsequent court hearings.  Weaver subsequently wrote letters to the court and to the local Sheriff that indicated that "blood would flow" and that he would not surrender. He also said that law enforcement would have to take him out because he would not peacefully surrender.

The case of now-fugitive (through his own designs) Randall Weaver was reassigned to the US Marshals Service. During the spring of 1991 to the summer of 1992, the Marshals were in negotiations with Weaver through his local acquaintances to surrender peacefully, all of which were rebuffed. The Marshalls also had the Weaver residence under constant surveillance, attempting to get Weaver away from his family so that he would not be endangered and to attempt to devise a plan to arrest him.

Afetr this failure, the Marshals began more in-depth surveillance, looking for places where they might be able to catch Weaver away from his family on the property.

On the 21st of August, 1992, the Marshals SOG Team on Weaver's property saw Weaver, his son, Kevin Harris and some of Weaver's daughters. When one of Weaver's dogs sniffed out the Marshals,

This is where accounts begin to vary. I personally believe the Marshals over Weaver.

The Marshals identified themselves to Weaver and they fled the area. Weaver and clan pursued. The Marshals claimed that they did not fire at the Weaver's dogs, though one apparently did not survive the subsequent encounter.

There was an extended exchange of gunfire between the Marshals and Weaver's party. At this point, it was clear to all participants, including Weaver, that they were exchanging fire with law enforcement. Weaver continued to fire, and the Marshals were pinned down on the hill for several hours with Marshal Deagan, who was shot and killed by Kevin Harris during the fight. Sammy Weaver, who was armed and actively firing at the Marshals, was also killed. Whether or not he was shot in the back is irrelevant. How old he was is irrelevant. An armed person who shoots at you is and continues to be a direct threat to your safety, regardless of which direction they are facing. It is tragic that Weaver choose to expose a child to this situation, but it is Weaver's fault that he was in it.

While there is lots of disagreement about this (maybe quite an understaement), what is clear is that three people died, and needlessly, because Weaver couldn't be bothered to show up for court. This is the point many here apparently do not get, or refuse to get. Weaver blew this situation out of proportion. Weaver is not a hero. And Weaver has never been held accountable for his actions.

Nah, what I get is that if a citizen doesn't want to show up to court to face illegal/unconstitutional weapon charges, then he doesn't have to.

If the representatives of said law show up to take him away, he doesn't have to comply.

If they then attempt to use force to make him oblige, then he has the right to use force to make them reconsider.

That is what I get.

Another thing that I get quite clearly is that one is  free as long as one doesn't pull on the chain around one's neck.

Ah, yes...freedom.  The freedom to pace back and forth in one's cage...provided one doesn't rattle the bars too vigorously.

[%(]

They don't get it. Some never will. Do you think the Krauts who loaded the jews on the trains gave it a second thought?? If they did, they were just getting rid of "vermin", and "nut jobs"...
They figger, if you are FRAMED, you should at least have the decency to show for Kangaroo court!!

TRUST the court of the authorities who falsified evidence, and entrap you!!  Sure pal, where do I sign?

Natez, can you tell me the source of your info?? It seems to contradict what I recall from the Congressional hearings, and the trial court record....

Oh! Be advised, that some citizens will hold you personally accountable for your actions, when you are armed, and on their property to deprive them of their Freedom.

"Open-fields" notwithstanding....[:D]

Shooting a 15 year old boy in the back isn't "defensive".

Is this guy Lon Horiuchi?

Lon?? Is that you??

The fact that he was shot in the back proved that the Marshalls were lying. So it is relevent. Also, it was the Marshalls who shot first, killing the boys dog.

Based upon the forensic evidence, the Marshalls lied.

Based upon their changing stories, the Marshalls lied.

Perhaps the Weavers also lied, but clearly the Marshalls did.

I'm curious natez.  In real life are you a tall, ugly-as-sin woman who wears glasses with inch thick lenses?  If not, would you mind telling us how many posts you have made on democraticunderground.com?  Is it greater than 5000?

Okay, I'm just going to add my quick 2 cents to this:

1. Anyone who wasn't present when all of this went down should keep that fact in mind. You can argue what or what not happened, but unless you were there you don't know for a fact what went down.

2. Having met Randy Weaver does not make you an expert on the Ruby Ridge tragedy. Having seen the special on Discovery Channel is equally unreliable. Also, just because you met Randy Weaver and he seemed like a nice enough guy doesn't mean his book is the gospel of truth. John Wayne Gacy seemed like a nice enough guy too, so I think it's safe to say that you cannot make any correlations between how a person behaves in public to how they behave in the comfort of their own home, or when under pressure.

3. Do not equate those who carried out the orders with those who issued the orders. I'm fairly certain that the individual officers who were involved did not sit around saying, "Hey let's shoot up the place. We can always cover it up later."

4. I'm not saying that there wasn't any mistakes in the actions of the LE personnel at Ruby Ridge. But then anyone can fuck up, especially under stress. And anyone on this board who claims they've never fucked up are full of it. Sure these guys are supposed to be so well trained that the risk of any mistakes is next to zero; but so are surgeons, and how often don't you hear about people filing malpractice suits against hospitals? We're talking about humans here, none of us are error proof.

5. I do agree that the reason the warrants were issued were bogus, but how would the individual officers know this? They have their jobs to do, and they can't sit down and examine each and every warrant they are sent for. This is the "good faith exemption" that Natez was referring to. Individual officers must be able to trust that the warrant they are serving, or the arrest they are supposed to make based on warrants, have been issued based on legitimate grounds.
It's not the officers' job to second guess their superiors.


That's my 2 cents.

did they know why they were going after him? did they read the warrants?

what law he had broken?

the jack booted thug anti-2nd amendment storm troopers and their leaders are 100% at fault

Ahem, well actually I have a "friend" who had some direct experience with this sort of thing and this "friend" can tell you it's a fact that the LEO serving a warrant may not know what the hell the warrant is for.

is that a standard policy? i.e. the executors not knowing what the warrant is for?


or just laziness

Skullworks wins. He is correct on all accounts.

... the Nuremberg defense huh? The event took place over a WEEK.

I don't know for sure, the warrant had the charge on it, but it was abbreviated (mnt/pub/nuis.) and they had no idea what it was except that it was a felony.

I am not belittling that boy's death at all.  What I was saying was the the mere fact that he was shot in the back didn't necessarily prove malice on the part of the marshals, and that your statement, "It meant something to that boy" did nothing to disprove my argument. I was also not saying that the boy [b]was[/b] trying to flank the marshals, I was simply saying that in the heat of the confrontation, the marshals could have [b]perceived[/b] that he was maneuvering.

I am not saying that this is how I would have handled the situation.  But considering the intelligence that was given to the Marshals Service by the ATF, and considering what happened when the Marshals Service attempted to serve an arrest warrant on Gordon Kahl, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would send a team up the mountainside to recon the area and try to figure out what they were up against.