Aside from the original entrapment and subsequently sending Weaver notice to appear, then holding the hearing onthe original charge a month earlier than the notice said, they did have the hill under surveillance.
Apparently the family dogs smelled the team, and thinking it was a deer, Weaver's son and a dog took one route down the hill after meat for the larder, Weaver and Harris took another (with rifles to hunt with).
The kid and dog came across the surveillance team, the dog was shot, the kid allegedly returned fire, kiling a US marshall. The kid was fatally wounded in the firefight--according to most accounts--shot in the back.
Now, with all that,would you be willing to trust the government?
Had it not been for Bo Gritz and a host of protestors, Weaver would have been Wacoed.
Too many witnesses, even locals videotaping parts of the operation from adjacent ridges, made things sticky for even the FBI.
They learned, though, and controlled the press when the Waco operation went down other than they (ATF) intended, and moved the press off a couple of miles where they could control access on entirely different terrain.
In Weaver's case the argument can be made that the original entrapment was to pressure Weaver into turning 'snitch' for the FBI, attending seperatist group functions in the region, and reporting on them . When Weaver would not turn informant nder pressure, things started getting really ugly.
The word "argument" implies there is some possible alternative explanation.
After they shot the kid IN THE BACK, the feds rearranged the crime scene to make it look like they were shooting in self-defense. They staged photogrpahs and planted evidence. The whole thing is an example of government abuse of power, and anyone who says differently either does not know the facts of the case, is a fascist apologist, or an idiot. The Weaver case should make any real American's blood run cold with rage.