To: DainBramage
I agree that assault was completely overdone and mismanaged, but in the end Randy Weaver shoulders full responsibility. JMHO I think he did pretty much..and I agree. He had no business getting his family involved in such a thing. If he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory he should have gone alone.
6 posted on
03/17/2007 7:45:33 AM PDT by
bkepley
To: bkepley
"He had no business getting his family involved in such a thing. If he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory he should have gone alone."
___________________________________________________________
Like in most police car chases.... the best thing to do is to actually back off a bit... keep the perp under surveillance.... wait till he cools down a bit and slows down.... and then apprehend him when it scales tip towards the LEO's advantage thus lessening the risk to others in the vicinity.
With Weaver....set up a scout team or two at a distance and wait a month, or two... or what ever.... until he comes out of his little compound and then pinch him when he's on his way back into town on a dirt road out in the middle of bubble-fook.
Weavers "situation" just proves how stupid it is to have a military response to a nut ball holed up in his home......just government trying to play Rambo and try out some new toys...
11 posted on
03/17/2007 7:52:47 AM PDT by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: bkepley
>>>He had no business getting his family involved in such a thing.<<<
Yea. Weaver should have known from the beginning that if he exercised his Right to Keep and Bear Arms the government would kill his family.
38 posted on
03/17/2007 8:17:56 AM PDT by
PhilipFreneau
(God deliver our nation from the disease of liberalism!)
To: bkepley
He had no business getting his family involved in such a thing.
Yeah, Randy should have known that living by yourself,minding your own business, is a capital crime.
39 posted on
03/17/2007 8:19:58 AM PDT by
freedomfiter2
(Duncan Hunter: pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border control, pro-family)
To: bkepley
"He had no business getting his family involved in such a thing...."
Undoubtedly so and Randy Weaver was no rocket scientist. Having said this, however, Randy Weaver's low IQ in no way justifies the Government's attempt to intimidate and entrap him in the first place and having failed at this, having the orchestrate a coordinated, military-style assault worthy of Pablo Escobar.
What the Ruby Ridge incident shows is a Federal Law Enforcement action in which extraordinary means were used to capture a minor violator and the means used to effect the capture were highly militarized in violation of the Posse Comitatus Statute.
Both the Ruby Ridge and Waco tragedies were motivated by nakedly political goals within the FBI and ATF. Vilifying the victims in such cases begs the question about the due proportionality of the enforcement actions and the creeping
militarization of Federal Law Enforcement.
To: bkepley
RE: "If he [Weaver] wanted to go out in a blaze of glory he should have gone alone."
Didn't you watch the hearings? It cost American citizens years of abuse, threats, and just the type of ridicule you've expressed before real hearings were held by the Congress.
My recollection is that a trial date mix up caused Mr. Weaver to miss his court appearance. Marshals were dispatched. They approached the cabin via the woods.
Mr. Weaver's son and and adult male visiting the Weavers were out on the property when the Weaver's dog spotted something and ran toward the two Marshals hiding in the woods.
The dog was shot dead. The Weaver boy became enraged and fired at whoever killed his dog.
The adult male, also carrying a rifle, joined what turned out to be a fire fight. One Marshal was killed, the adult male years later during the televised hearings agreed that his shot likely did it.
The boy was shot dead by the Marshals. I believe it was a few days before the Weavers were allowed to retrieve their son's body.
Mr. Weaver was looking to go out in a blaze of glory?
Do you have valid sources especially the Senate hearings that confirms your opinions? I will use those hearings to backup my recollection -- I ain't that old.
BTW, if anyone reading this knows of a complete transcript I 've been wanting to confirm another of my recollections; to wit, that federal agents testified that they, in general, had the right to kill citizens based solely upon the likelihood that the citizens may become a threat later.
100 posted on
03/17/2007 9:21:59 AM PDT by
WilliamofCarmichael
(If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson