In <3pb7h7$...@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:
>: Unfortunately, I do not have the same version of the Weaver facts that >: you do, as your quote had unidentified men shooting, unprovoked, at >: Weaver. That is not the facts that I have seen.
>: If we are discussing armed men attacking a home, not identified in any >: way, shape or form, as LEOs, you may have a point. I don't believe that >: is what happened in the Weaver case though.
>Two federal marshalls came onto the Weaver property without a >search warrant. They shot one of the Weavers' dogs which caused >Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris to investigate. A gunfight ensued >in which one of the federal marshalls and Sammy Weaver were killed, >Sammy being shot in the back. How the gunfight started remains >one of those great mysteries as both sides relate it differently.
Exactly.
>The operative question now becomes, why were the federal marshalls >trespassing on the Weavers' property and why did they kill one of >the Weavers' dogs? This is how the entire battle started - the >Feds screwed the pooch (actually shot the pooch) and then a major >seige ensued.
>Sounds like a pretty egregious set of circumstances to me and a >jury of Weaver's and Harris's peers felt the same way.
And I haven't seen anyone disagree that it was an egregious set of circumstances. I too agree with that assessment. I entered this thread to express my outrage over the gleefullness that some participants were expressing that an LEO was killed during the raid.
Advocating the killing of LEOs demeans the entire incident, and forces the reader of such messages to believe that the author is a right wing kook, who intends to destroy and undermine the government. THAT was my point.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> In article <3p8goq$1...@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> newsh...@charlie.rchland.ibm.com (Robert Newshutz) writes: >> I must have missed the levers to remove bureaucrats.
>> Hey, man, Congress could abolish the BATF with the stroke of a pen. >> If it wanted to.
>We have been asking, no begging, them to for two years now, they still >have not done it.
Perhaps the majority of Americans, or Congress, don't agree with you. Turn down the hyperbole a few notches, and you may be able to convince more people, and Congress, that the BATF is an out of control agency.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> No one said anything of the kind. What we said was that being happy and >> pleased about an LEO being killed in the line of duty was scary, and >> hateful. There is a process in civilized society to deal with LEOs who >> act illegally, and that process does not include KILLING an LEO, or >> cheering same, because you believe he was wrong.
>But that method of dealing with LEO's who get out of line seems to be >giving them promotions rather than putting them on trial.
So the answer is to KILL them? Sorry John, but you are not going to convince me of that!
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >STANDARD as any other citizen would be if they murdered someone.
>> Right! Correct! That means a trial, in court. Not at the end of a gun.
>> You guys are amazing! You purport to advocate the constitution, but >> think nothing of killing LEOs who are performing a constitutional >> function. Sure they screw up, and when they do, they should be >> punished, but advocating the shooting of LEOs because you don't believe >> they are doing the "right" thing is not the answer.
>> You guys would be doing your cause a whole lot more good to be focusing >> on the Weaver story itself, and not get into this "we oughta kill the >> LEOs" attack.
>Mark: The way the people who botched Waco were dealt with was that a >letter of reprimand was put in their file. Then the man in charge of it >all was promoted to a higher position.
>I guess if you screw up enough, they kick you upstairs.
Usually upstairs and out of the way, where you can't cause further harm. Granted, that is not the correct solution, but it is something.
While I don't agree that Waco was the conspiracy that a small segment of our society does, I do agree that it was outrageous, and that someone, somewhere, should be held accountable. But the more that people scream about conspiracies, and kill the LEOs, the less inclined people are to support inquiries and punishment, for fear of being identifies as just another kook.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
In <3pbobs$...@dub-news-svc-4.compuserve.com> 76275,3...@compuserve.com writes:
>I think that it's interesting that in a recent CNN pole, that 49% of the public >does *not* trust the Gov't! The *most* mistrusted agencies are; BATF, IRS, >FBI, & the CIA. We're at a crossroads now that has *never* occured before, >and how firm we stand in our resolve to make Gov't *our* slave instead of >the other way around, will determine our future.
If you go back in history, I believe you will find that a near majority of Americans NEVER trusted the government....you can probably trace that feeling back to 1776.
So, nothing new there, no crossroads, and certainly no attempt by the government to make us slaves.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
In <D8oG1y.1...@austin.ibm.com> mbr...@austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes:
>> astar...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Astarita) writes: >>hateful. There is a process in civilized society to deal with LEOs who >>act illegally, and that process does not include KILLING an LEO, or >>cheering same, because you believe he was wrong.
>Mark, Dale, most of us on here are not extremists - me, I don't to see >anyone die, even though I support the death penalty.
>Must gun owners don't think that there should be a death penalty for >breaking and entering, or bank robbery, or for tresspassing.
No one suggested that the majority of gun owners thought otherwise. The point is, and was, that the majority of gun owners, if that is who we are talking about, better start speaking up. Right now, all America is hearing are the kooks, those who think it is just dandy that an LEO doing is "job" got shot and killed. THAT is what people are hearing, together with full page ads calling American Law Enforcement Officers nazis, by the NRA.
The kooks are screaming, and the main stream are remaining silent. When you let the extremes of your "group" take over public discussion, you have lost your cause, and that is true regardless of what the cause is, right, left, abortion, choice, guns, etc.
>HOWEVER - what do *you* propose doing to keep youself and your family >alive when people who don't identify themselves, wear dark clothes with >no identifying marks, and come on your property (or into your house via >the broken-down door or windows) start aiming deadly weapons at you (or >shooting your animals)?
This is almost funny. What would I do if masked men came on my property and shot my dog? I would call the police. The mere suggestion that my response to that should be to pull out my gun and shoot the men is simply outrageous, and advocating a lawless society. You can't shoot a mere trespasser, and I don't care WHO it is, Charles Manson, or Bob Dole, you simply cannot shoot a trespasser!
I believe the example you want to use is the one of these masked men breaking into the house, (which to my understanding is not the Weaver incident),an incident which I think we would agree is rare, though even if it happens once, that is too often.
That said, what would I do? Fortunately, I don't have a gun, so I wouldn't do much, and I would call the police. Then again, I would assume that it was the police. You see, I don't have a concern that armed terrorists are going to break into my house and kill me. Then again, I am not paranoid.
And here is the real kicker, which I believe you are missing. Most people, if they were awakened by a group of masked men, aiming deadly weapons at them, screaming to "stay down" "put your hands up" (giving your example the benefit of the doubt that they did not identify themselves as police, which I have a hard time believing happens), most peoplewould believe it was the police! Sorry, but the rest of the country is not paranoid, nor an extremeist, or do they ascribe to the conspiracy theories that some here do.
So, what would I do? In the time that it would take me to get my gun and start shooting them, I could dial 911. My LOCAL police would arrive, and the situation would be resolved.
But that is not what happened to Weaver, is it. There was no one standing over him with a gun in his face while he slept, was he. They shot his dog.
>Me, I intend to do whatever I think necessary to repel them, since I >feel that surrendering to unknown assailants puts me at greater risk.
As is your right, I suppose. You then run the risk that you were wrong, that they were in fact LEOs, that they were in fact acting lawfully, and that you in fact committed murder. But that is a risk you are aware of, and one you are willing to take.
>If someone acts like a criminal, they should expect people to respond as >if they are a criminal. I don't like it that people on either side died >in the Weaver thing - but the death of the LEO doesn't earn any *extra* >sympathy from me.
>Now, people wearing police uniforms, identifying themselves as police >and demanding entry - that's a different story. I may call 911 to >confirm, but I'll be letting them in as I do so.
Having gotten to this paragraph, we agree.
Nice to see a level head in this discussion. <g>. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
In <3pdaq9$...@wanda.pond.com> russo...@wanda.pond.com writes:
>Funny that these LEOs never seem to end up as defendants in court. >But no, at the time the Marshall was shot he had not identified >himself as an LEO.
That is one version of the event. But now you guys have me very confused. When was the kid shot in the back? Before or after the dog, and before or after the LEOs were fired upon for killing the dog?
As to your first point, I guess you don't get out much. I keep seeing LEOs who use excessive force being arrested, tried, and often convicted. You are aware of a man named Rodney King, aren't you? Of of the variety of officers in New York who have been convicted of excessive force? Or of the two officers in New Jersey who were tried for killing a suspect? I am quite sure that there are other instances.
>}Don't misunderstand me. The Weaver situation is a serious problem, but >}advocating the killing of LEOs is NOT the solution to that problem.
>Since the system will not punish its own, what IS the solution?
If you close your eyes to the punishment, there is not much more to talk about. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> You do realize that this is not the first time in our 200 years that >> this sort of thing has happened, right?
>The head of the BATF (I forget his name) said on Nightline last night that >of the 10,000 or so incidents the BATF has been involved in in the last 15 >years (I believe it was that many years), 237 have had "problems." >Considering the type of work they have to do, I really don't think that is >a terribly high number.
And of the 237, there are three that are outrageous. 3 out of 10,000. Sure, even one is bad, but for the hysteria this is generating.....
>Remember it is the public outcry about drugs and the Republican pressure >to "get tough on crime" that has created this situation in the first >place. It was the "get tough" people who wanted the BATF to have the right >to do midnight raids, etc. As the saying goes, "watch out what you wish >for, you just might get it."
Isn't it fascinating. The right thought it was just dandy that these raids were going on for all of these years, busting drug suspects. Now that the right is the subject of such excesses, the world is coming to an end.
And the left was screaming against censorship in the 60's. Now they are screaming FOR censorship in the 90s.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
In <3pdj6h$...@wanda.pond.com> russo...@wanda.pond.com writes:
>In article <3pddfo$...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, >Mark Astarita <astar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >}In <3paj6r$...@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> >}newsh...@charlie.rchland.ibm.com (Robert Newshutz) writes: >} >}> >}>But now it is the Feds that are abusing civil rights. Who is supposed >}to stop >}>the Feds? (And why are they not doing it?) >} >}"The Feds" aren't abusing civil rights, a select few within the federal >}government are.
>With the approval of their superiors, including their ultimate >superior, President Clinton (and his predecessors)
Oh please, give us a break.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Hey, man, Congress could abolish the BATF with the stroke of a pen. >> > If it wanted to.
>> We have been asking, no begging, them to for two years now, they still >> have not done it.
>> Well, probably not enough voters agree with you on the issue, then.
>> On the other hand, it points out a way you might effectively push >> Congress on the issue: Do a publicity campaign to educate the public >> on why the BATF is a Bad Idea.
>The NRA did.
The key word from the quote was "effectively". The NRA calling federal agents Nazis is not an effective means of getting people on your side.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Funny that these LEOs never seem to end up as defendants in court. >>But no, at the time the Marshall was shot he had not identified >>himself as an LEO.
>That is one version of the event. But now you guys have me very >confused. When was the kid shot in the back? Before or after the dog, >and before or after the LEOs were fired upon for killing the dog?
One version? Can you present another one? With cited source? Our version, per the trial transcripts:
1. Marshall shoots dog.
2. Boy shoots at marshall.
3. Boy starts running back to cabin.
4. Marshall shoots boy in back, killing him.
5. Man shoots marshall.
At *no point* in this sequence did the Feds identify themselves.
>As to your first point, I guess you don't get out much. I keep seeing >LEOs who use excessive force being arrested, tried, and often >convicted. You are aware of a man named Rodney King, aren't you? Of of >the variety of officers in New York who have been convicted of >excessive force? Or of the two officers in New Jersey who were tried >for killing a suspect? I am quite sure that there are other instances.
You're totally missing the point. The incidents that have provoked all of this outrage have been perpetrated by Federal officers, not local cops, so your two examples above are irrelevant. What's causing the outrage is that there seems to be a pattern where if Federal agents *do* commit some such action, either nothing happens, or the people in question get (at most) a token slap on the wrist. And any attempts to pursue the issue(s) in greater depth are met with stonewalling, lies and obfuscation on the part of the government. And it goes on and on.
>>}Don't misunderstand me. The Weaver situation is a serious problem, >but >>}advocating the killing of LEOs is NOT the solution to that problem.
>>Since the system will not punish its own, what IS the solution?
>If you close your eyes to the punishment, there is not much more to >talk about.
I keep seeing statements about the demography of the Militia movement. I have to wonder where these folks get their facts about the make-up of the (many) militias in this country. By watching "60 minutes"? They have obviously never been to a Militia drill weekend, or they would quickly realize that they are blowing hot air. There are Black men in leadership positions within the militia, as well as in the ranks. Also Jewish, Hispanic, Asian men, and Women. Some of them have a good deal of money, and most of them are middle-class folks.
Where is all this talk of "disaffected, economically-depressed white males" coming from?
>> "The Feds" aren't abusing civil rights, a select few within the federal >> government are.
>And the rest of them, by their inaction and their selected apologists, >including you, condone them.
You obviously aren't paying attention to this thread. I hardly condone the abuse of civil rights. I just don't ascribe to these conspiracy theories that seem to float around the net.
>> Who will stop them? The same people who stopped them from violating >> civil rights in the 50s and 60s - the rest of the federal government, >> and the people, by lawful and nonviolent means.
>> You do realize that this is not the first time in our 200 years that >> this sort of thing has happened, right?
>Yeah, right. What this liberal pacifist conveniently forgets is that his >hero, Martin Luther King, Jr., was successful because there were two other >organizations ready and willing to count coup if he wasn't successful. *THAT* >is what finally galvanized the change, not guilt.
Who said anything about guilt causing the change? The point was that the civil rights violations are not new, and the answer to the question that was posed is that the rest of the government will rein in the extremists in the goverment.
You really aren't paying attention, are you. Calling me a liberal pacifist is a real hoot, but demonstrative of your inability to discuss this, except by name calling. You put me in the wrong little box guy.
>Why don't you learn from history, instead of trying to rewrite it to suit your >prejudices
Wow. Interesting comment, given the source. I think you should get out a history book, and say this sentence out loud a few times, for that was my EXACT point. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <3p9602$...@masala.cc.uh.edu> salzb...@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) writes: >>> "Federal Marshall" and "FBI Agent" are not the same thing.
>>It does make a comment about how well-informed the participants in this >>discussion are.
>Nice try. The facts presented here have been mostly accurate, and >based on such things as the trial transcripts. The fact that someone >gets a little confused at the alphabet soup of federal agents who >were involved in the case (BATF, federal marshalls, and the FBI were >all involved) says less about how well-informed people are than it >does about the number of federal agencies playing musical chairs and >how easy it is to say one when you mean the other.
I will now admit to being totally confused as to some of the Weaver details.
Can someone please answer two simple questions for me?
What was the name of the agent who was shot during the raid.
What was the name of the agent whose death was the subject of Weaver's trial? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> In <3p5ktb$...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <c...@gte.com> writes:
>>> >salzb...@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) wrote:
>[snip]
>>> What's really sad about this is normal Americans like me are getting >this >>> sudden urge to go out and buy guns so that we can protect ourselves from >>> people like Carl here. :(
>>Please tell me what you saw in the remark I made here that causes you >>to fear me? I merely said that Vicky Weaver was an innocent victim >>and that the FBI agent killed deserved it. The court transcripts >>from Randy Weaver's trial support my assertion. Do you have some >>evidence otherwise?
>The fact that you are apparently pleased that an LEO was shot and
killed.
I fail to see how you can determine how Carl is supposedly pleased about the death.
-- Mark.O.Wil...@AtlantaGa.ncr.com It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money. Just because your mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it legitimate. Gun control means hitting your target.
>Let's step back and ask a more interesting question... In all of >these threads, there's a definite, but not clearly explained, worry >that The Government is about to do something horrible to the writer, >and the writer needs a lot of firepower to defend himself against this.
Let us ask ourselves a simple question concerning gun owners vs. what might be asked of those who announce the news: "When was the last time the FCC launched an investigation by throwing grenades while wearing ski masks and holding automatic weapons?"
I doubt even Rush Limbaugh or Gordon Liddy spares a second to think about Federal officers jumping out of cattle trailers next to the studio, storming the facility, and seizing the transmitter as evidence for a case that might come to court within a year or five.
On the other hand, we have Lawmaster, Waco, Weaver, and a host of others that show gun owners that such behavior is acceptable.
Now if you were a radio station employee, would you fear the FCC? If you were the owner of an AR-15, would you fear the ATF, FBI, or Marshalls?
I strongly doubt that the press understands what fears the average, law-abiding, gun-owning American has of his own government. I called into a local radio talk show last week and mentioned this to the host. "Tom? You make statements which might be construed as inflammatory. Are you worried about the FCC issuing a search warrant for your show transcripts?" Tom answered in a tone meant to invoke Lou Costello by saying something along the lines of "Lemme at 'em! I'll murdalize the bums! Lemme at 'em!" Clearly Tom was joking.
I then calmly mentioned that the ATF served search warrants without knocking, using hand grenades and carrying automatic weapons. In the case of Weaver, it was for sawing a shotgun barrel less than 1/4" too short. In the case of Lawmaster, it was for owning guns. In the case of the Davidians, it was for possibly owning a gun that hadn't had the $200 tax paid on it yet which hasn't been found. There are other examples, of course, which we all know about.
In short, be legal and law-abiding and your government will screw you high and hard with a left-hand twist if your crime is owning a gun. If you own a radio station at least you aren't in fear for your life should an investigation begin or a search warrant be served.
Tom? His answer: "You have a point." I'd suggest that few people worry about the FDA nailing them for bringing Tynelol III's in from Canada. Few worry about the IRS measuring their home office to the 10th of an inch to verify that tax deduction. Few even worry about being shot or having their house ransacked while Federal agents investigate Food Stamp fraud.
On the other hand, if you own a firearm such worries are only fueled by media reports and the appearance of no accountability on the part of our Federal government.
With that being said, I must ask: why *shouldn't* I assume the Federal government and its agencies harbor ill will towards me? The evidence to date gives no reason for a presumption of civility.
-- * Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066, Cereal Killer, z1...@exnet.iastate.edu * * Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. * * The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need * * those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
> YOU don't get to decide whether the LEO is commiting a crime. THAT is the > problem, and the point that you are overlooking. If that were the case, we > would have complete anarchy. > Did they identify themselves as law enforcement officers? Whether they had a > warrant or not, the object of their search, and the purpose of same, is not > for WEAVER to decide, it is for a court to decide.
> Don't misunderstand me. The Weaver situation is a serious problem, but > advocating the killing of LEOs is NOT the solution to that problem.
Mark: The LEOs at Ruby Ridge did not have a search warrant at all, not just not in their possession. They did not identify themselves as LEOs. They were illegally trespassing on Weavers property, while illegally shooting his livestock. They were wearing FULL jungle camoflage of the type that you could almost step on them withour seeing them. This is known as criminal trespass.
A 14 year old boy saw the familys working dog shot for no apparent reason by an unidenitified man.
He fired his single shot rifle at the trespassers and turned to run. As he was running away, he was shot in the back. This is known as murder, as it is not lawful to shoot a fleeing person, even by LEOs.
Kevin Harris shot at the man who appeared to have fired at Sammy Weaver. and supposedly killed him. He was shooting at a man who had just murdered a 14 year old boy. He shot a felon.
The felon got what what he deserved, just as any armed felon should get when caught during the commission of a crime and is shooting at you.
> There is no capital punishment in this country for trespass.
But when looking at all of the happenings of the first day in Ruby Ridge it comes down to more than just criminal trespass. The US Marshall had killed a working dog (not just a pet). He had shot a 14 year old boy in the back.
> And folks wonder who is encouraging the killing of LEOS.
In a two words, I AM. In a broader answer we have to look at the events after the standoff ended. Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris went to trial for the death of the US Marshall. They were found innocent, as it was ruled self-defense.
NOBODY HAS GONE TO TRIAL FOR KILLING SAMMY WEAVER. Nor, have they gone to trial for killing Vickie Weaver. Until such time as someone goes to trial to these two killings, then the only way to exact justice is in the hands of the citizens.
Sure, you could sue. But just how much is a young son worth? How much is a wife and mother of the remaining children worth? How much of a price do you put on your mother? How much of a price do you put on your wife? How much of a price do you put on your children?
10,000,000 dollars? Why so cheap? 100,000,000 dollars? Why so cheap?
Even at a billion dollars, I would have to ask, "Why so cheap?".
Justice has a price. The dead US Marshall paid his. There are other agents how have yet to pay for their crimes. In which instance is there justice?
In article <3pfmjg$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> astar...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Astarita) writes: >>The head of the BATF (I forget his name) said on Nightline last night that >>of the 10,000 or so incidents the BATF has been involved in in the last 15 >>years (I believe it was that many years), 237 have had "problems." >>Considering the type of work they have to do, I really don't think that is >>a terribly high number.
>And of the 237, there are three that are outrageous. 3 out of 10,000. Sure, >even one is bad, but for the hysteria this is generating.....
Ted Koppel called McGaw's bluff on that. McGaw referred to cases which had been adjudicated by the court. He deliberately failed to refer to cases which were settled out of court. When asked about that, he hemmed and hawed and couldn't come up with a number.
: ... those friendly BATF agents came a'callin'. : Try anticipating and hiding from this...
: JANICE HART : PORTLAND, OREGON : FEBRUARY 1993 : Janice Hart pulled up to her house from grocery shopping : with her daughters to find her house being ransacked by ATF : agents who had kicked in the door. Agents searched her home, : throwing dishes, pulling clothing from hangers and emptying : drawers on the floor (she photographed the damage). Some eight : ATF agents interrogated her in the basement for an hour before : reading her her rights. She asked to call an attorney and the : agents refused. When they finally asked her if she was Janice : Marie Harrell, she told them no, that she was Janice Hart. ATF : agents mocked her, accused her of selling firearms and cocaine, : then arrested her. The Portland Police, who she commended for : their professional demeanor, took her downtown for booking and, : within thirty seconds of fingerprinting her, realized ATF had the : wrong person.
And as such, she has a very good case for suing the Federal government for all damages encoured as a result of her misidentification and false arrest. Again, redress wins over stupid attacks on the government. ___________________________________________________________________________ Frank A. Adrian ancar technology Object Analysis, fra...@europa.com PO Box 1624 Design, Portland, OR 97207 Implementation, Voice: (503) 281-0724 and Training... FAX: (503) 335-8976
In article <3pd2di$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Gary L. Dare <g...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>Exactly ... as if the same nation with SAC watching for ICBMs or any >other attacks by air, and that was able to send a Tomahawk down the >chimney of Iraq's Internal Security Ministry building, is totally >oblivious to an alliance of everyone else on the face of the Earth >massing on the Canadian border and off the coast of California ...
Oh, come on! That "big, scary UNO" hasn't been able to subdue the Serbs, or the Lebanese. Do you really believe it could threaten the USA in any effective way? Because, if you think there can be "an alliance of everyone else on the face of the Earth", I can quote a very good price on a wonderful bridge over Tacoma Narrows ...
Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Sero; j...@halcyon.com; Seattle, WA 98155-2940, USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is our duty to make the best of our misfortunes, and not to suffer passion to interfere with our interest and public good. George Washington
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
newsh...@charlie.rchland.ibm.com (Robert Newshutz) writes: >I am worried that our freedoms are being slowly eroded in the name of >security until we have none left.
So is everyone else.
>I am worried that I will not be able to send private messages over a
common carrier, because government mandated holes in the only legal encryption will
>be compromized (and you can be sure they will).
So is everyone else.
>I am worried about being killed in the dead of night, because the BATF got >the wrong address on the warrant.
Has this ever happened? Why are you worried about this?
>I am worried that the law is getting too complicated. It is getting to the >point where common sense and morality is not sufficient to be safe. >I may do something illegal and be thrown in jail, because some >nonsensical regulation was added by some faceless bureaucrat.
So is everyone else, but you should keep in mind that this situation has existed for about 200 years, and exists in most other countries too. So, while it is something to worry about, it is, on some level, a fact of life.
>I am worried that the federal government has become so large that it cannot be >effectively controlled by our elected representatives.
Some people worry about this, but there is an easy fix. As others have pointed out, Congress can wipe out a federal agency, or all of the federal agencies, any time it wants. The trick is to get congresscritters elected who will do that. Not an easy task, nor should it be, but it can be done.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>: >>> My mommy taught me to shoot at ANYBODY who shoots at me first. I >: >>> guess that makes me a whacko too, eh?
>: >>Yes, and a dangerous one.
>: >Is not the person who would shoot at him first the dangerous one?
>: Those who continue to get themselves into situations where dangerous ones >: are shooting at them are foolish ones. My mommy taught me to keep out of >: trouble and to try to turn the other cheek and walk away.
>So what would you tell Janice Hart of Portland, Oregon? Just minding >her own business when those friendly BATF agents came a'callin'. >Try anticipating and hiding from this...
So, what is the problem? Sure, the agents made a mistake, and from the woman's perspective, a very serious one, but one that was, by the account you posted, corrected the instant they discovered her mistake.
And they didn't shoot her. Probably because she didn't pull a gun on them. She probably has a great lawsuit for damages, no one is dead, and you proved that law enforcement officers make mistakes. Was that supposed to be earthshattering?
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Astarita astar...@ix.netcom.com This is not legal advice, but merely my opinion and general thoughts. If you want legal advice, see an attorney who can deal with your specific situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------
>Here's my perception of the facts. Tell me which ones I'mwrong about: >1. The federal government has conducted several military-style assaults >on citizens of the U.S. These assaults have often been conducted >for questionable reasons, and the tactics used have been more >appropriate to an assault on a military organization.
The Fed government has conducted these assaults against groups of people who have armed themselves in a military-style. Therefore, I believe that a military-style assault might be proper.
These "questionable reasons" are not so questionable to the majority of people in America.
>2. When confronted with these facts, the attorney general of the U.S. >admits that there were several high-quality fuckups, which left >innocent citizens dead at the hands of federal agents. She refuses to >conduct an investigation, and then promotes an individual who played >a key role in two of the more egregious abuses.
Regarding WACO, the AG of the USA admitted no high-quality fuckups. She said that if she had known exactly what would happen, she would have done differently. However, given what they knew and what they could best estimate could possibly happen, they did the best they could do. The police (local, state, or federal) are not perfect. In Waco, they had a hard job to do which was made almost impossible by David Koresh.
>3. The president of the U.S., a confirmed draft dodger and (when >convenient) pacifist, cooperates with the A.G., and openly condemns >anyone who has a grievance with his policies.
What does opposition to the Vietnam War have to do with this? Is cooperation between the President and Attorney General some sign of evil? Is the President not supposed to "openly condemn" things that he feels are very bad for the country? Is he supposed to only silently condemn people who openly condemn him?
>4. The president also uses a tragedy perpetrated by an appraently >delusional and psychotic person with a truckload of fertilizer as >an example of why the public must be stripped of the right to bear >arms. (Somehow, the truckload of fertilizer is an astonishingly >appropriate metaphor for this sad excuse for a chief executive. Were >it not for the good taste of most people, I'm sure this one would have >generated a good bit of traffic on rec.humor.funny.)
I don't get it. Does all this mean that Bill Clinton is the problem? What happened to the threat from the Iraqis and the Chinese and the UN?
>Keep in mind now that the president has already defined any disagreement >with the policies of himself or his wife as "violent extremism", and >you'll see why people who may be out on the fringes of political >discourse feel that the government may be more of a threat than a benefit >to them.
Do you really expect anyone with any sense to believe that the President defines any disagreement with him as "violent extremism"? The mess in OK City was violent extremism.
________________________| The opinions are my own | ________________________|
>>> astar...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Astarita) writes: >>>hateful. There is a process in civilized society to deal with LEOs who >>>act illegally, and that process does not include KILLING an LEO, or >>>cheering same, because you believe he was wrong.
>>Mark, Dale, most of us on here are not extremists - me, I don't to see >>anyone die, even though I support the death penalty.
>>Must gun owners don't think that there should be a death penalty for >>breaking and entering, or bank robbery, or for tresspassing. >No one suggested that the majority of gun owners thought otherwise. The >point is, and was, that the majority of gun owners, if that is who we are >talking about, better start speaking up. Right now, all America is hearing >are the kooks, those who think it is just dandy that an LEO doing is "job" >got shot and killed. THAT is what people are hearing, together with full >page ads calling American Law Enforcement Officers nazis, by the NRA.
BATF is a tax collecting agency run amok. Some of it's members look like they pledged tri-kappa in college and were turned down because they were *too* sadistic.
>The kooks are screaming, and the main stream are remaining silent. When you >let the extremes of your "group" take over public discussion, you have lost >your cause, and that is true regardless of what the cause is, right, left, >abortion, choice, guns, etc.
>>HOWEVER - what do *you* propose doing to keep youself and your family >>alive when people who don't identify themselves, wear dark clothes with >>no identifying marks, and come on your property (or into your house via >>the broken-down door or windows) start aiming deadly weapons at you (or >>shooting your animals)? >This is almost funny. What would I do if masked men came on my property and >shot my dog? I would call the police. The mere suggestion that my response >to that should be to pull out my gun and shoot the men is simply outrageous, >and advocating a lawless society. You can't shoot a mere trespasser, and I >don't care WHO it is, Charles Manson, or Bob Dole, you simply cannot shoot a >trespasser!
If men in white sheets burned a cross on your front lawn, shot your dog and started breaking down your door AND shooting your loved ones you'd just sit tight for the police, right?
>I believe the example you want to use is the one of these masked men >breaking into the house, (which to my understanding is not the Weaver >incident),an incident which I think we would agree is rare, though even if >it happens once, that is too often. >That said, what would I do? Fortunately, I don't have a gun, so I wouldn't >do much, and I would call the police. Then again, I would assume that it was >the police. You see, I don't have a concern that armed terrorists are going >to break into my house and kill me. Then again, I am not paranoid.
You're just a sheep. To each his place. But you know, there's nothing worse than a bothersome sheep. So please bleat quietly.
>And here is the real kicker, which I believe you are missing. Most people, >if they were awakened by a group of masked men, aiming deadly weapons at >them, screaming to "stay down" "put your hands up" (giving your example the >benefit of the doubt that they did not identify themselves as police, which >I have a hard time believing happens), most peoplewould believe it was the >police! Sorry, but the rest of the country is not paranoid, nor an >extremeist, or do they ascribe to the conspiracy theories that some here do.
I guess you've never been robbed or had your life threatned. Bad guys sound just like supposedly good guys.
>So, what would I do? In the time that it would take me to get my gun and >start shooting them, I could dial 911. My LOCAL police would arrive, and the >situation would be resolved.
You've watched one too many episodes of the Jetsons. For a top level emergency it takes around 5 minutes for the cops to arrive at my place. And I live in the heart of a major urban area. That's because they can't just send one car and have one officer waltz in. They like to get a team together.
And I have no doubt that if you were to dial 911, as you say you could in a split instant: the perp would either disconnect the line or bust your jaw and thus `hint' that you should hang-up the phone. Under that scenario the 911 operator will assume the call is a possible prank... it certainly won't be given top priority.
In my city that means a 15-20 minute wait.
Did you know there are some rural areas where it can take 30 minutes to an hour even for the highest order emergency response?
There are probably places where you don't even have the option of calling the cops for help.
>But that is not what happened to Weaver, is it. There was no one >standing over him with a gun in his face while he slept, was he. They >shot his dog.
They shot his dog at the same time they shot his son IN THE BACK. Later they shot his unarmed wife in the head, as she cradled their infant in her arms, killing her.
A FBI sharp shooter shot her. And he knew she was unarmed.
>>Me, I intend to do whatever I think necessary to repel them, since I >>feel that surrendering to unknown assailants puts me at greater risk. >As is your right, I suppose. You then run the risk that you were wrong, >that they were in fact LEOs, that they were in fact acting lawfully, >and that you in fact committed murder. But that is a risk you are aware >of, and one you are willing to take.
No, it would be self-defense if anyone burst into my house without properly ID'ing themselves OR even if I know they're cops and I see them trying to kill people without justification.
It's up to a jury to decide after the smoke clears. Not you.
>>If someone acts like a criminal, they should expect people to respond >as >>if they are a criminal. I don't like it that people on either side >died >>in the Weaver thing - but the death of the LEO doesn't earn any >*extra* >>sympathy from me.
>>Now, people wearing police uniforms, identifying themselves as police >>and demanding entry - that's a different story. I may call 911 to >>confirm, but I'll be letting them in as I do so. >Having gotten to this paragraph, we agree. >Nice to see a level head in this discussion. <g>.
