William Cooper Shot dead by sheriffs office Showlow, Az

MOM | Nov 6 2001 | Carolyn

[Justin Thyme]

Can you think of a reason why they would set up a scenario designed to make him draw a weapon unless they planned to off him?

My only question is why, before all facts, including investigations are in, people are concluding that the purpose was to kill him.

But, yes, I can think of scenarios set up like that....and although the guy drawing a weapon is a possibility, it's also not the only possibility.

You want to arrest a guy...any guy. He has repeatedly refused to cooperate. You still have the arrest warrant that needs to be done. How do you do it? The warrant being served was for threatening a neighbor with a gun. That sets the stage for law enforcement to be wary of the suspect. Add to that his reportedly saying on his show "If they ever come to get my guns, I'll be waiting for them" (or something to that effect). Don't even think about his anti-government slant.

So I guess I'm answering your question with a question.....with a guy (any guy, not just Mr. Cooper) resisting arrest on a lawful warrant.....what method would you recommend that is less risky? Should they have forced the issue at his house, with family around? If he is in town daily, getting him there might be an option. I got the impression that he didn't travel into town regularly, especially when he knew warrants were out for him. Is there anyway in which this could have turned into an acceptable law enforcement maneuver, given what we know?

[bjs1779]

The ERA was sent to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982. No limbo about it, it's dead as a doornail. Any future attempts to pass it has to start from scratch.

Technically you are correct, but they are still trying to get it passed regardless of any deadline. Three more states need to ratify it and then it will be taken up in the House of wimps and then the Senate will approve.

Equal Rights Amendment MARCH 22, 2001

[Mat_Helm]

That was never rattified by all 50 states and is questionable at best.

[Mat_Helm]

My understanding is that this was never fully ratified by all 50 states.

[Ada Coddington]

My only question is why, before all facts, including investigations are in, people are concluding that the purpose was to kill him.

The strategy was to encourage him to draw his weapon. Why would you want to do that unless your wanted to kill him?

But, yes, I can think of scenarios set up like that....and although the guy drawing a weapon is a possibility, it's also not the only possibility.

As he seemed to be expecting an attack and wasn't all that stupid, the likely response to such a ploy would have been to ignore it. For all we know, he did.

You want to arrest a guy...any guy. He has repeatedly refused to cooperate. You still have the arrest warrant that needs to be done. How do you do it? The warrant being served was for threatening a neighbor with a gun. That sets the stage for law enforcement to be wary of the suspect. Add to that his reportedly saying on his show "If they ever come to get my guns, I'll be waiting for them" (or something to that effect). Don't even think about his anti-government slant.

Might be. I surely don't know.

So I guess I'm answering your question with a question.....with a guy (any guy, not just Mr. Cooper) resisting arrest on a lawful warrant.....what method would you recommend that is less risky? Should they have forced the issue at his house, with family around? If he is in town daily, getting him there might be an option. I got the impression that he didn't travel into town regularly, especially when he knew warrants were out for him. Is there anyway in which this could have turned into an acceptable law enforcement maneuver, given what we know?

There is a similar case in Texas where a man who refused to get a driver's license and allegedly (he denies it) pulled a gun on a deputy retired to his ranch with his wife, children and grandchildren. Now I suppose the sheriff's office could have tried a similar ploy and shot the fellow; but instead, the sherrif decided it wasn't worth it especially with the grandchildren around. So he left him alone for over a year now, basically under house arrest until he decides he no longer wants to be under house arrest. Keeping him isolated removes all danger to the neighbor and law enforcement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

BTTT

[Rick.Donaldson]

"rowdy teenagers" ??

Folks, is THIS ACCURATE?! Are you saying that deputies approached him disguised as "teenages"????? They didn't go talk to him like MEN?????

Like LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? Hmmmm

[Churchillspirit]

A puzzle....by mistake I hit your screenname instead of 'reply' and received the message "No current freeper of that name".

Do you exist??

[Non-Sequitur]

That was never rattified by all 50 states and is questionable at best.

It didn't need to be. Article V says that it needed ratification by 3/4 of the states. In 1912 that would have required 36.

[Justin Thyme]

I looked into the stuff at Cooper's site, and you're right. It appears that the ammendment providing for taxation may not have been fully and/or properly ratified by the required portion of states.

As a note...according the Cooper's own pleadings, ratification was not required by all states (48 at the time), but 2/3's.

[Justin Thyme]

The strategy was to encourage him to draw his weapon. Why would you want to do that unless your wanted to kill him?

I guess this is a point that we shall just differ over. Although Cooper drawing a weapon was a possible and foreseeable (although not necessarily saying probable) possibility, I don't know as though it's possible for any of us outside those involved to state authoritatively what the intent was behind the tactic. As I mentioned, there are other possible outcomes, and there is a semi-reasonable, at least, rationale behind the tactic.

There is a similar case in Texas where a man who refused to get a driver's license and allegedly (he denies it) pulled a gun on a deputy retired to his ranch with his wife, children and grandchildren. Now I suppose the sheriff's office could have tried a similar ploy and shot the fellow; but instead, the sherrif decided it wasn't worth it especially with the grandchildren around. So he left him alone for over a year now, basically under house arrest until he decides he no longer wants to be under house arrest. Keeping him isolated removes all danger to the neighbor and law enforcement.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make. But this tactic, as well as the one you mentioned above, both removed the suspect from others (wife, children, grand-children, etc.) prior to trying to apprehend him.

Do we selectively now decide which crimes we are going to prosecute based on how potentially violent the suspect is? Where do we draw the line in terms of what crimes we actively try to apprehend the suspect, and which ones we just forget about, and wait for the suspect to drop into our lap?

BTW, I'm not trying to say that law enforcement did everything the best way possible. Merely trying to say that I don't know, with the facts I have available to me now, that law enforcement went into this apprehension with the sole goal of killing the man, as it appears you are implying.

[slym]

If this doesn't happen, then one can imply Cooper's work was more accurate than many might believe.

Assuming that this (arrests, charges) does NOT happen, something that Cooper was writing or broadcasting about must have angered the powers that be...

[Cvengr]

If my memory serves me correctly, Cooper fell out of the limelight about a year ago immediately after Y2K. Some third parties commented about him in various chat rooms mid year indicating he had been approached and told to stay quiet or he'd become quiet. Somehow that seemed to tie into the MUFON conference. Squabbling amongst the UFO fringe populazi about who was misinforming, who was a shill, who was who, and all about lunatic fringe topics anyhow didn't seem to bolster credibility amongst observers.

Seems like about March of this year he began writing some other material as a segue to Pale Horse, but I forget the details. The topic seemed to have come from a chat room somewhere about that time, maybe CTRL, black vault or a handfull of other fringe sites. Rumor at the time was that Cooper had been pestered repeatedly by various parties under the guise of law enforcement, whether it was county zoning in a remote town, or gun ownership, or taxes, or providing identity to cops,...seemingly repetitive abrasive contrived conflicts. Also I believe he later wrote that he had decided to continue to write because he felt he had more security by becoming more vocal and public in his manifest exposure of conspiracy than in only revealing portions of his information. He also seemed to believe that if he cowtowed to threats, it would only be a sign of weakness and essentially merely a matter of time before the parties he was exposing would let their lust for power overcome their patience and remove him as any threat of exposure anyways.

In a remote town, where law enforcement probably hasn't been a party to various CINC command briefings and innerworkings of US government leadership positions, I'd suspect most rural LEOs would cast aside any abrasiveness for simply an opportunity to get to know the fellow with trust and confidence. If Cooper wasn't the type to respond in kind, most LEOs have sufficient wherewithal not to feel intimidated then by a has-been or wannabe dabbling in lunatic fringe or conspiracy theories.

For these reasons the situation sounds more like a contrived justification for premeditated murder than a simple arrest gone bad.

[Ada Coddington]

I guess this is a point that we shall just differ over. Although Cooper drawing a weapon was a possible and foreseeable (although not necessarily saying probable) possibility, I don't know as though it's possible for any of us outside those involved to state authoritatively what the intent was behind the tactic. As I mentioned, there are other possible outcomes, and there is a semi-reasonable, at least, rationale behind the tactic.

When the ATF wanted to arrest Randy Weaver they stopped their car on the road and used a female agent pretending to be a damsel in distress. Naturally the Weavers stopped to help without any thought of bringing their guns with them. OTOH if they had pretended to be skinheads attacking a woman, both Weavers would have come out of their car armed. If they had wanted to kill them then, that's how they could have accomplished it and later claimed that the Weavers had pointed guns at them, which would have been technically true. To me it appears the SWAT team wanted Cooper to draw a gun so that they could kill him.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make. But this tactic, as well as the one you mentioned above, both removed the suspect from others (wife, children, grand-children, etc.) prior to trying to apprehend him.

They tried it once when the fellow got a ticket for not having a license and registration. They got a buddy of his to be a Judas goat and lure him into his car away from the house. (Remember the only charge at this point was civil.) On schedule the police pulled them over and the police then claim that our suspect resisted arrest and pointed a gun at them. As I said, suspect denies doing it.

Do we selectively now decide which crimes we are going to prosecute based on how potentially violent the suspect is? Where do we draw the line in terms of what crimes we actively try to apprehend the suspect, and which ones we just forget about, and wait for the suspect to drop into our lap?

In this case I suspect the sherrif believes the suspect and suspects that he was set up by his deputy.

BTW, I'm not trying to say that law enforcement did everything the best way possible. Merely trying to say that I don't know, with the facts I have available to me now, that law enforcement went into this apprehension with the sole goal of killing the man, as it appears you are implying.

What other conclusion can you draw from the scenario as presented? They knew if their ploy was successful, the suspect would be agitated and draw a gun. They also knew of his assertion that he would resist to the death any attempt to arrest him. They had good reason to believe his death would occur and elected to proceed.

[Justin Thyme]

To me it appears the SWAT team wanted Cooper to draw a gun so that they could kill him.

From what I understand, SWAT was not involved in the Cooper incident at all, merely sheriffs deputies.

Like I said, the "intent" behind law enforcement action we will likely just have to disagree on, until I see something more definitive. You've been able to determine in your mind that there was specific murderous intent on the part of law enforcement, and with the facts I know of, I don't see it yet.

For example, if you are driving your car in a residential area, and you take your eyes off the road to change radio stations, pick up a drink or something similiar, and someone steps out into the street, and due to your distration, you can't respond in time and hit them. You may be negligent, and show poor judgement, but you did not have specific criminal or murderous intent.

Anyway, I guess neither of us are likely to get the other to see our viewpoint on this.

[Justin Thyme]

BTW, if you go the his website,

http://www.williamcooper.com/

They now have an update. Using the report that they claim as the "official" and "true" report, it clearly states that prior to any shots being fired, all deputies had properly identified themselves and announced he was under arrest (repeatedly). Cooper then tried to flee. At one point, he got out of his car, and after being notified that the people there were police, and that he was under arrest (again), he ran for his house and fired the first shots.

And that's the version endorsed on his website.

It also states that Cooper had repeatedly used his radio show to threaten to kill law enforcement personnel.

[Ada Coddington]

It also states that Cooper had repeatedly used his radio show to threaten to kill law enforcement personnel.

The police would not likely give him a chance to do that, wouild they?

[Justin Thyme]

The police would not likely give him a chance to do that, wouild they?

To do what? Allow him to use his radio show to threaten them? According to his own website, it's agreed that he did do this....repeatedly.

Are you implying that LEO's wouldn't "let him get away with it"? That's a bit tougher. You're right, the possibility certainly exists that LEO's might not take this well. Many other possibilities exist as well.

Ultimately, I guess I have no idea why we are continuing this line of thought. Cooper's representatives state on his website that Cooper evaded a fully marked police car, did not heed warnings to stop, and FIRED FIRST! If Cooper's own people are saying this, and admitting that he fired first at known police officers, why are you continuing to hold the belief that he was ambushed or murdered? Unless you have some facts which contradict Cooper's organization's claims as I've justed stated them, not sure I see a point in continuing the discussion....I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[Ada Coddington]

Cooper's representatives state on his website that Cooper evaded a fully marked police car, did not heed warnings to stop, and FIRED FIRST!

Who was present at the shootout other than Cooper and the LEOs?