Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did you read the report I linked above? The one I read was an internal review, finished and published in 1994 (~ 2 years after the incident, 1 year after Weaver's indictment). Their conclusion was that: "[...] the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team overreacted to the threat of violence and instituted a shoot-on-sight policy that violated bureau guidelines and Fourth Amendment restrictions on police power. The FBI disciplined 12 agents and employees, including Larry Potts, then the head of its criminal division and now its deputy director, for their roles in the operation." So wrong doing was admitted in this report, so it may be much different than the original after-action-report filed. I haven't seen the report released right after the incident. I wish I got disciplined like that. Guess I have to be in charge of a bunch of murderous thugs first, though. Is the FBI hiring? Yeah, I'm not debating the fact that the punishments weren't harsh. I'm just trying to figure out if the report others are referring to is the same one I have linked to above.

I guess you could say it speaks volumes about what the FBI thought of the whole deal.

Bureaucracy at its finest, huh?

Quoted: He had to have known that the stand-off was not going to end well from the start.  Either option would not have been pleasant.  I guess it is Monday morning quarterbacking though.

Well, when unidentified, camoflaged, armed men sneak onto your property, shoot your dog for no goddamned reason, them shoot your son, what other result could be expected? The .gov didn't negotiate in good faith, shot his wife in the head while she held their baby, and then taunted Weaver and his wounded friend about the stench of the corpse after Vickie Weaver had time to rot.

Would you come out if Jack Booted Thugs had your place surrounded, and this was happening to you? Would YOU send your children out after they had already shot one of your own?

It has been quite awhile since I read up on the incident but I remember it like this. There were several agents (US Marshalls ?)in place to observe and recon Weaver. The son, and family friend and dog happened upon them. One of the agents shot the dog fearing the dog would discover them, the son seeing a cammo clad person shoot his dog then shot that person, a second agent then shot the son. So the dominos started to fall. At that time the person in charge of the FBI was a career beauracrat with a high school diploma and zero law enforcement experience, in short a political apointee. He also changed the shoot rules to shoot on sight for anyone armed. The FBI agent who shot Weavers wife did so I think in error. Really, think for a minute, what purpose could it possibly serve to shoot a mother holding a child? That may be the ultimate PR nightmare and serves no tatical purpose. The account I read told it like this. Weavers wife was standing behind the open cabin door holding the child, holding the door open and motioning the family friend (who was armed) to run back inside the cabin. The door conceled Weaver's wife who was shorter than the window in the door. I remember Weaver demonstrating this at the Senate hearings on the shooting. He stooped behind the door to demonstrate the hight of his wife and how she would be unseen to the FBI sharpshooter. The FBI sharpshooter fired thru the door to hit the family friend who was running back into the cabin. Sadly the bullet passed thru the door, thru Weavers wife and then hit the family friend.  Back in those days the ATF and FBI were more interested in headlines rather than doing their job. David Koresh for instance could have been taken in town on several occasions but the agency wanted to stage a media event, and they did. Times have changed since then. In those days if you defied the Gvt and branshied weapons at them, they would kill you.

Locked at thread originator's request.