Posted on 04/19/2003 2:05:26 PM PDT by ASTM366
As I do each year, I post information to commemorate the attack by FBI agents in military vehicles on the Branch Davidians compound near Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993.
The Branch Davidians, a reclusive group of Christian believers, had been attacked 51 days earlier by over 100 heavily armed BATF agents, surrounded and subjected to psychological warfare techniques by government agents. On April 19th the feds sent in military vehicles to fill the building at the Branch Davidian compound with chemical agents to flush out the remaining occupants. What resulted was a fire that burned to death nearly all the occupants; INNOCENT men, women, children and infants. Some committed suicide by self inflicted gunshot.
To this day the federal government has never accepted responsibility for the events of 1993, nor have they apologized for their ugly and glaring display of unchecked power.
In a tragic and spectacular act of revenge, Timothy McVeigh and his associates carbombed the offices of the BATF and FBI in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.
WHERE, exactly, was this 'entry' made?
It *sure* wasn't the front door - or are you making stuff up now?
Are you suggesting that no BATF agents entered Mount Carmel Center? I thought you were earlier complaining that the Davidians shot four agents who did so.
In response to your question, agents entered via two of the rear second-story windows. At least that was the plan, and there's no indication they didn't go through with it.
Absent a no-knock warrant, which was not issued, law enforcement personnel are required to make at least a token effort to show a warrant to the occupant of a dwelling before entry. To be sure, the token effort is sometimes pretty minimal (e.g. kicking open a door half a second after knocking) but it is nonetheless required.
The BATF made no effort whatsoever to serve the warrant in the legally required fashion. As such, they had no authority to enter the Davidians' home. Given that their plan entailed the preemtive use of deadly force (concussion grenades), it is likely the BATF agents gave the Davidians every legal reason to shoot them. As it is, I'm not convinced the agents weren't killed by friendly fire (given the complete lack of fire discipline on the part of BATF agents), but even if the agents were shot by the Davidians it was entirely their fault for failing to make any effort enter the building in lawful fashion.
This will depeend on the laws of the state which the police department in question is in and the rules of that department.
Generally speaking an officer may use deadly force when he reasonably believes it is necessary to save himself or some other person from death or great bodily harm.
Depending on the jurisdiction he may be authorized to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a serious felon if he reasonably believes lesser force will not be effective, but this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
For your particular jurisdiction check your state's laws and your police department's rules.
Something I'd like quidnunc or _Jim to explain to me: when Koresh appeared at the door, he himself was unarmed, but was shot. Why? Even if one of the other Davidians had already started shooting at BATF agents, how would that justify the BATF shooting Koresh?
The Davidians ahd every right to refuse entry until such time as they were shown a physical copy of the warrant. Since no effort was made to show a warrant, or even to bring it, the Davidians had every right to refuse entry.
"It is written."
They are absolutely chilling.
Could you expand on that please?
Unless you're a former US Attorney who worked in the criminal division I doubt that you know enough about the US Code's statute and case law affecting entry, search and seizure to speak about the subject intelligently.
Oh please. Janet will never, never give up the Waco story. I nearly threw up when she said, "I accept full responsibility." Yeah we know how the Clinton administration "accepts responsibility."
(Even local law enforcement agencies have restrained themselves from such operations. In Texas, a county sheriff has not attempted a siege or assault of a farm inhabited by survivalists even though one of their number assaulted a state trooper and the local office of Child Protective Services has questioned their parenting practices.)
From a Constitutional standpoint, this is a positive development. The Second Amendment clearly guarantees the individual citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly prohibit the Federal government from encroaching upon the powers and rights of the states and the people. Federal firearms regulations, other than on properties used legitimately by the Federal government (e.g., military bases), flout the letter of the Constitution and the intent of its framers. The sole basis of these regulations is the notorious "interstate commerce" clause, which was originally intended to prevent the states from establishing quotas and tariffs.
That the Feds have not tried any more large scale raids had nothing to do with better Constitutional exegesis, but with public revulsion at the Branch Davidian fiasco. Keep in mind that since the assassination of President Kennedy, a significant minority of the public is almost automatically skeptical of the official line on events. Sometimes, the skepticism becomes the majority position. Even at the height of the dominance of the mainstream media, the 1970s, when almost all prominent public voices were liberal and dutifully parroted the "Oswald acted alone" mantra, a majority of Americans came to dispute the Warren Commission version of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963. With the advent of nationally syndicated talk radio in the early 1990s, the rise of the Internet as an alternative news source in the late 1990s, and the development of cable and satellite television fragmenting the once mass market for mainstream TV news, the old top-down "command and control" model of the mass media disseminating politically correct information to the public became increasingly ineffective.
Public revulsion was mainly focused on the Clinton Administration, whose first two years in office were marred not only by the Branch Davidian massacre, but by the widely unpopular national health care plan, the mysterious death of Vince Foster, and the generally high handed way a Democrat administration tilted toward the Ivy League and other liberal universities dealt with public issues. This revulsion resulted in a massive GOP victory in the Congressional elections of 1994, the largest shift from the Democrats to the Republicans since 1946. While during the 1990s, many Clinton associates died under mysterious circumstances, the only other high profile Federal assault during the Clinton Administration against the general public involved the 2000 kidnaping of Elian Gonzales from Miami to return him to Cuba. The ongoing anger in the Cuban-American community may well have cost Al Gore Florida's electoral votes and thus the Presidency.
At the cost of over 70 lives, the destruction of the Branch Davidians may have at least temporarily restrained the iron boot of the Leviathan State.
Rev.18 [11] And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more.
Lol. I also wonder why they couldn't have stoped him somewhere along the road. I mean Waco is not exactly NYC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.