GIVE TRUTH A CHANCE
GeraldM485
not get the satellite coverage they needed, and it appears that the
Columbians were aware of the bugs and worked around them. Since Hoover
the FBI is :the gand that can't shoot straight:.
Gerald McDougall
Defender of the Citizen Accused
GeraldM485
own front door and was under no expectation of risk. Any LEO is under the
expectation of risk and death every time he goes to work.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> "ALL WE ARE ASKING IS, GIVE TRUTH A CHANCE"
>
>1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho. A Mother holding an infant in her arms is shot
>to death after her son and his dog are both shot to death. An agent also
>dies.
A woman is "shot to death", but an "agent also dies".
Of what did the agent die? Cancer? Pneumonia? A particularly bad hangnail?
Steve Sheldon
>P.S. Congress seems to be saying to the American public that the internet
>is filled with hate mongers and that it needs to be controlled. If this
>campaign is successful they will end up praising the internet for finally
>bringing all of the people together to fight a battle that if won will save
>innocent people from slaughter.
Unfortunately with people like you posting to the internet, it would appear
that Congress is right. :(
Steve
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions] '95 Dodge Neon
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day '85 Honda Spree
she...@iastate.edu ProMap by night '91 Bridgestone MB5
BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) wrote:
>Columbians were aware of the bugs and worked around them. Since Hoover
>the FBI is :the gand that can't shoot straight:.
>Gerald McDougall
>Defender of the Citizen Accused
Aw, Gerald, tell us what you think of government-supported artists.
Dale R Worley
1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho. A Mother holding an infant in her arms is shot
1993 Waco, Texas. Eighty men, women and children die in a fiery holocaust.
[...]
1995 Oklahoma City. One hundred sixty seven innocent men, women and
[...]
HAVE YOU HEARD ENOUGH. ITS ALL TRUE AND DOCUMENTED AND IF
YOU ASK YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL HE OR SHE WILL VERIFY IT. BUT WILL
HE OR SHE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
You say this like it's bad.
But really, whackos who get into armed standoffs with the cops die.
What do you expect? Didn't your mother teach you to not shoot at
cops?
If you don't like it, vote for candidates that promise to modify how
the cops operate. If you didn't vote in the last election, award
yourself a big "Duh!"
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
There's no prob with "Bob"!
The Ranger
>
> "ALL WE ARE ASKING IS, GIVE TRUTH A CHANCE"
THEN REMEMBER THIS SIMPLE AXIOM--PUT YOURSELF
IN HARM'S WAY AND SOONER OR LATER YOU WILL BE
HARMED. This applies to whether you choose route that is
lawless or drive the freeways of Austin. The more instances
of lawless behaviour the authorities have to deal with, the
more instances of error will inevitably creep in. To fault all
law enforcement for errors made in enforcing the laws of our
society is to beg for more--not less--violence.
sjoh...@gears.efn.org
1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho. A Mother holding an infant in her arms is shot
to death after her son and his dog are both shot to death. An agent also
dies. FBI and BATF defend actions as NEUTRALIZING suspects. Later they
admit in federal court in Idaho that they set the whole thing up. Its a
matter of public court record. For three years the public doesn't seem to
care.
1993 Waco, Texas. Eighty men, women and children die in a fiery holocaust.
Federal agents also die. Later, local law officials admit they were
on good terms with David Koresh and could have easily prevented the
massacre. The public still doesn't seem to care.
1995 Oklahoma City. One hundred sixty seven innocent men, women and
children die at the hands of psychopathic terrorists. The bombing
occurs on the anniversary of the Waco holocaust and the son of one of
the terrorist goes on national T.V and states, "Dad didn't like what
happened at Waco." Janet Reno calls the idea of tying the OKC bombing
to the events at Waco, "Dispicable".
1988-1994 Over a six year period the FBI sold 45 first class twin engine
airplanes to the cocaine cartels in Columbia at one million apeice so the
animals could better ship their poison to America's children. The FBI even
bragged that they made a profit. Not one arrest was made due to these
transactions and the FBI has yet to account for all the profits.
HAVE YOU HEARD ENOUGH. ITS ALL TRUE AND DOCUMENTED AND IF
YOU ASK YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL HE OR SHE WILL VERIFY IT. BUT WILL
HE OR SHE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
We here at the "Give Truth A Chance" Foundation have been in contact with
network executives and congress and it may sound sick but they challenge the
American public to show them that they care and guarantee that a
congressional investigation will take place if the American people support
such an investigation.
What can you do? Contact your elected official in congress or the senate
and demand that an investigation take place immediately and that the persons
responsible for the carnage at Ruby Ridge and Waco be held responsible for
their actions and that this investigation is to take place publicly on the
floor of the house and senate.
This is a campaign for all Americans, regardless of your political views,
race, religion, gender or philosophical viewpoint. Tell everyone you know
to get involved. The United States Department of Justice is out of control.
Stop the wargames and carnage. You can do it. When you contact your
elected official be firm. Demand action now and you may want to tell him or
her that you belong to "Give Truth A Chance". A foundation of the people,
by the people and for the people.
P.S. Congress seems to be saying to the American public that the internet
is filled with hate mongers and that it needs to be controlled. If this
campaign is successful they will end up praising the internet for finally
bringing all of the people together to fight a battle that if won will save
innocent people from slaughter.
"Give Truth A Chance"
P.O. Box 1575,
Sutherlin, Or. 97479
Joseph Edward Nemec
> 1988-1994 Over a six year period the FBI sold 45 first class twin engine
> airplanes to the cocaine cartels in Columbia at one million apeice so the
> animals could better ship their poison to America's children. The FBI even
> bragged that they made a profit. Not one arrest was made due to these
> transactions and the FBI has yet to account for all the profits.
They sold these planes with tracking devices installed so that they could
learn about the operations of the drug smugglers, especially where and how
contacts were made. It's called an investigation.
vaw...@ibm.net
>Of what did the agent die? Cancer? Pneumonia? A particularly bad hangnail?
Kinda proves the point that the public doesn't care, doesn't it? That you don't know.
Well, so that you don't stay awake 'worrying', he was shot.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
CFO Metadigm, Inc.
Vice-Chair Orange County Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/lp/
vaw...@ibm.net
>But really, whackos who get into armed standoffs with the cops die.
>What do you expect? Didn't your mother teach you to not shoot at
>cops?
My mommy taught me to shoot at ANYBODY who shoots at me
first. I guess that makes me a whacko too, eh? Why don't you get some facts before
you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
>On <3p26mf$7...@masala.cc.uh.edu>, salz...@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E.
Salzberg) writes:
>>Of what did the agent die? Cancer? Pneumonia? A particularly bad
hangnail?
>
>Kinda proves the point that the public doesn't care, doesn't it? That you
don't know.
>Well, so that you don't stay awake 'worrying', he was shot.
My point, in case you missed it, was that the language of the original post
was heavily loaded; according to the poster, Randy Weaver's wife was "shot"
but a federal agent "died".
GeraldM485
whores of the art world - if they had even a modicum of talent they
wouldn't need the support and if they had a minin of pride they wouldn't
accept it. Art, qua art has a right it exist - even if it is feces spread
on cracker dough wiht a spatula by a spastik poodle. But not at
government expense - and that particularly goes for the "preforming arts"
if the actors, writers etc were any good, they would be able to get enough
public support without the government - if they cannt survive without
government money then they are not needed. The ONLY criteria for
expenditure of government funds is a generalized need that cannot be met
otherwise, NOT some feel-good elitist dream that every twit who calls
himself/herself/itself an "artist" deserves financial support simply
because the "artist" wants to be an artist, talent notwithstanding.
Any yes, I do claim to be able to tell good art from bad at least so far
as where my tax dollars go.
GeraldM485
government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) wrote:
>You KNOW me. As far as I'm concerned government supported artists are the
>whores of the art world - if they had even a modicum of talent they
>wouldn't need the support and if they had a minin of pride they wouldn't
>accept it.
Ah, yes. Incompetent whores such as Shakespeare, Bach, Michaelangelo....
>Any yes, I do claim to be able to tell good art from bad
I've seen many people claim abilities that they don't have.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) wrote:
>Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
>government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
If you'd quote even a little of the message to which you're replying, it might
be easier for us to know what you're talking about.
..then again, maybe not....
Duff Johnson
>
>In <WORLEY.95M...@world.std.com>, wor...@world.std.com (Dale R
Worley) writes:
>>But really, whackos who get into armed standoffs with the cops die.
>>What do you expect? Didn't your mother teach you to not shoot at
>>cops?
>
>My mommy taught me to shoot at ANYBODY who shoots at me
>first. I guess that makes me a whacko too, eh? Why don't you get some
facts before
>you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
>
The only "fool" here is the one who would join a bunch of facile lunatics
like the Orange Co. Libertarians.
--
Regards,
Duff Johnson.
-------------------------------------
E-mail:du...@planetcom.com
William R. Discipio Jr
: The only "fool" here is the one who would join a bunch of facile lunatics
: like the Orange Co. Libertarians.
Hee Haw Hee Haw Hee Haw
: --
: Regards,
: Duff Johnson.
: -------------------------------------
: E-mail:du...@planetcom.com
--
"Your problem is, there are 260 million Americans who think the way I
[Lynn Wallace] do." -- Lynn Wallace 4/23/95
The NRA's Second Amendment is an empty cereal box in the market place
of ideas. -- Charles "Cereal Killer" Schumer 4/5/95
Mitch Cobb
>
>Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
>government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
>Defender of the Citizen Accused
... "After all ... we were just following orders."
Line of defense *rejected* by Allied (including US)
prosecutors at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials following WWII.
- Mitch
Crankin' Carl
>
> My point, in case you missed it, was that the language of the original post
> was heavily loaded; according to the poster, Randy Weaver's wife was "shot"
> but a federal agent "died".
Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
Steve Sheldon
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. :(
Crankin' Carl
>
> In <3p5ktb$6...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>
> >salz...@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) wrote:
> >> My point, in case you missed it, was that the language of the original post
> >> was heavily loaded; according to the poster, Randy Weaver's wife was "shot"
> >> but a federal agent "died".
>
> >Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
> >shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
> >committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>
> 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?
I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
Ridge.
You claim to be a "normal" American and insinuate that I'm not. Let
me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
a clean life. The only time you need fear me is when you present
yourself to me as a clear and present danger to my life.
I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
for your hateful remark.
Frank Kleinburg
>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?
>
>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>Ridge.
>
>You claim to be a "normal" American and insinuate that I'm not. Let
>me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
>statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
>a clean life.
[snip]
When I watch the Network's Sunday talk shows, and I see people
similar to you tell them "the agent FBI agent killed deserved it" or
some other seemingly anti-social statement, it scares me to death..
People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
gun owners) disadvantage..
I don't know how a degree or professional success equates to normal..
No the last thing I consider myself as is 'Normal".. Only _American_,
and yes I did "sign here, press hard 4 copies"!!
Lastly, consider this statistic, if all of the registered Democrates had voted
last November, the Tom Foley would still have a job..
FLK kk
Steve Sheldon
>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>>
>> In <3p5ktb$6...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>
>> >Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
>> >shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
>> >committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>>
>> 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 hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being justified.
>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>Ridge.
Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
job.
>You claim to be a "normal" American and insinuate that I'm not. Let
>me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
>statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
>a clean life. The only time you need fear me is when you present
>yourself to me as a clear and present danger to my life.
Yes, a "normal" American does not condone the killing of law enforcement
agents. Us "normal" American's take our grievances to the authorities when
we see corruption or excessive abuse of the system.
Us "normal" Americans don't just decide to start shooting at federal
agents, or driving Ryder trucks up to Federal buildings loaded with
explosives.
How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
bomb out in my car after work some night?
>I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
>for your hateful remark.
No, you owe America an apology.
Richard Wojcik
>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>> ...
>> >Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
>> >shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
>> >committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>>
>> 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?
Steve will speak for himself, but let me explain why I find your remark
troubling. It had nothing to do with Vicky Weaver's role or her innocence.
It had to do with your condoning the death of a federal agent who was doing
his job. He may or may not have been responsible for some of the errors
made with Weaver. That isn't the point. You think he deserved to die for
those errors. That is the point.
>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>Ridge.
You think that you support the role of law enforcement, yet you condone the
death of an agent in the line of duty. What happened to Weaver's wife was
a terrible tragedy. But that agent's death was no less a tragedy. What do
you know about him or his loved ones? How dare you use glib language like
"accountability" to justify his death.
--
Rick Wojcik ri...@eskimo.com Seattle (for locals: Bellevue), WA
http://www.eskimo.com/~rickw/
Crankin' Carl
>
> When I watch the Network's Sunday talk shows, and I see people
> similar to you tell them "the agent FBI agent killed deserved it" or
> some other seemingly anti-social statement, it scares me to death..
Randy Weaver shot and killed that agent. Randy Weaver was tried and
*ACQUITTED* of murder for that. The court found that the shooting
was justifiable self defense. My agreeing with that verdict is anti-
social? Your fear is wholly irrational and isn't warranted...
> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
> gun owners) disadvantage..
You're reading way too much into this...
> I don't know how a degree or professional success equates to normal..
My boast was intended to show that I live and work in society as most
others do. That's normal.
> No the last thing I consider myself as is 'Normal".. Only _American_,
> and yes I did "sign here, press hard 4 copies"!!
>
> Lastly, consider this statistic, if all of the registered Democrates had voted
> last November, the Tom Foley would still have a job..
Perhaps, but how is that germain to this thread?
Aldo Tartaglini
>In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>>>
>>> In <3p5ktb$6...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>>
>>> >Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
>>> >shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
>>> >committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>>>
>>> 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 hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being justified.
EMFBI, but I fail to see what's so hateful about Carl's comment. But
then, maybe you are one of those enlightened folks who thinks that no one
in a uniform is capable of committing a crime. Seems there were a lot
of people like you in Germany about 60 years ago.
>>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>Ridge.
> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
>if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
>for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
If one is peaceful and law-abiding, and someone - anyone - presents a
clear and present threat to one's life, the assailant is fair game for
whatever level of force is required to remove the threat. Again, are you
one of those folks who thinks people in uniform are incapable of
committing a crime?
> I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
>make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
>job.
Ah yes, they were only following orders, so they could do no wrong....
>>You claim to be a "normal" American and insinuate that I'm not. Let
>>me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
>>statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
>>a clean life. The only time you need fear me is when you present
>>yourself to me as a clear and present danger to my life.
> Yes, a "normal" American does not condone the killing of law enforcement
>agents. Us "normal" American's take our grievances to the authorities when
>we see corruption or excessive abuse of the system.
Such niceties are not always feasible, particularly when one is unjustly
confronted with an immediate threat to one's survival.
> Us "normal" Americans don't just decide to start shooting at federal
>agents, or driving Ryder trucks up to Federal buildings loaded with
>explosives.
Agreed. Please tell me, who committed these vicious crimes?
> How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
>somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
>bomb out in my car after work some night?
Right. And here I was, thinking I was addressing someone with at
least a modicum of intelligence and rationality.
>>I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
>>for your hateful remark.
> No, you owe America an apology.
I think you owe Carl and the rest of the decent Americans who post here
an apology. But I won't hold my breath.
*********************A.T.<lib...@panix.com>*********************
*"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of*
*ordinary Americans... When personal freedom's being abused, you*
*have to move to limit it." -Core beliefs of William J. Clinton,*
******President and sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution******
*****************************************************************
David L. Cathey
> In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>Ridge.
>
> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
So law enforcement officers are held to different standards in your
eyes? Cops can kill citizens and it's okay? You are not allowed to defend
yourself if your assailant has a badge? Carl isn't declaring open season on
officers, but if a cop murders a citizen, they should be held to the SAME
STANDARD as any other citizen would be if they murdered someone.
> I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
> make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
> job.
But that is appearently the point - the officer *wasn't* doing their
job, and had seriously overstepped their bounds by killing a citizen.
> Yes, a "normal" American does not condone the killing of law enforcement
> agents. Us "normal" American's take our grievances to the authorities when
> we see corruption or excessive abuse of the system.
When you're at gunpoint, there may not be time or opportunity for
the authorities (who incidently, were holding the gun at the time) to correct
the corruption and abuses of the system. Also, will corrupt authorities
police themselves? This is exactly why Bush wanted independent investigation
of the BATF.
> Us "normal" Americans don't just decide to start shooting at federal
> agents, or driving Ryder trucks up to Federal buildings loaded with
> explosives.
I never read support of McVeigh in Carl's post. He was talking about
the authorities being held accountable to the citizens.
> How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
> somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
> bomb out in my car after work some night?
Then take your grievances to the authorities and have the 2nd
Ammendment repealed. Then there will be no more 2nd Ammendment support
for those who you fear.
>>I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
>>for your hateful remark.
>
> No, you owe America an apology.
Not from where I sit. The badge does not grant you diplomatic
immunity. A police officer is _still_ a citizen and is _still_ under oath
to support the Constitution of the United States. A badge is not a license
to kill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
Kevin Langston
>Probably "friendly fire" and what is the comparison?
Didn't it come out in Weaver's trial that Dugan walked in front of his
cohort's suppressed weapon because he couldn't hear the shots? Up until
the trial, the "official" report was that Harris or Samual Weaver killed
him in response to Dugan and company shooting the dog.
Vicki Weaver was killed because she fit the profile of Weaver's driving
force, and the FBI decided that changing the rules from only killing
when life was in immediate danger to "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
Imagine if the press were to proceed beyond "What a horrible things these
horrible NRA types say" and try to find out why LaPierre said some
agents behave like jackbooted thugs...
Isn't that kinda like their job? Let's see, they track down Stephen
Colbern's high school teachers, but drop the ball when the NRA gets
the short end of the stick...
--
Kevin Langston
lang...@frontier.lonestar.org
"Envy is a powerful tool in the hand of a tyrant."
Charles Eicher
everyone a favor and keep your texas gunslinging in your own newsgroups.
don't bother to follow up or flame, i edited us.state.iowa out of the crosspost.
------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@netins.net
------------------
Dudley R. Snyder
<1995May14.1...@frontier.lonestar.org>, said...
> Imagine if the press were to proceed beyond "What a horrible things these
> horrible NRA types say" and try to find out why LaPierre said some
> agents behave like jackbooted thugs...
>
> Isn't that kinda like their job? Let's see, they track down Stephen
> Colbern's high school teachers, but drop the ball when the NRA gets
> the short end of the stick...
I thought their job was to promot their own liberal agenda. At least, from all
outward appearances, that sure looks like their job.
---------------------------------
Dudley R. Snyder
dudley...@mail.utexas.edu
---------------------------------
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ma...@dvorak.amd.com (Marty Pflum) wrote:
>or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
>gun registration proceeded gun confiscation.
Could you cite specific instances?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Kevin Langston <lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> wrote:
>geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
> Vicki Weaver was killed because she fit the profile of Weaver's driving
> force, and the FBI decided that changing the rules from only killing
> when life was in immediate danger to "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em
> out".
What documentation do you have for this claim?
Crankin' Carl
>
> The hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being justified.
It was justified. That is how the court ruled in the Weaver case.
> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
No double standard at all. It *is* ok for police to kill, when it's
justifiable (it wasn't in the Weaver case - it was no accident). It's
also ok for civilians to kill in self defense as Randy Weaver did.
> I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
> make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
> job.
The point is that they weren't doing their job! They were way over
the top on this one! Read the court transcripts. The FBI, in
addition to the killings, suppressed and fabricated evidence! Not
to mention the entrapment which started the whole affair!
> Yes, a "normal" American does not condone the killing of law enforcement
> agents. Us "normal" American's take our grievances to the authorities when
> we see corruption or excessive abuse of the system.
Law officers are humans just like us. Sometimes they commit crimes.
Their badge doesn't garner them any currency when they do step over
the line.
> Us "normal" Americans don't just decide to start shooting at federal
> agents, or driving Ryder trucks up to Federal buildings loaded with
> explosives.
I do believe in working through the system. But the system has
failed. We defend our freedoms with four boxes (in order): the
soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box...
> How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
> somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
> bomb out in my car after work some night?
You're grasping at straws. Working in support of GC laws does not
*directly* threaten me, so I wouldn't bother with you.
> >I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
> >for your hateful remark.
>
> No, you owe America an apology.
For what? I've done nothing wrong. I simply speak the truth.
Crankin' Carl
>
> Steve will speak for himself, but let me explain why I find your remark
> troubling. It had nothing to do with Vicky Weaver's role or her innocence.
> It had to do with your condoning the death of a federal agent who was doing
> his job. He may or may not have been responsible for some of the errors
> made with Weaver. That isn't the point. You think he deserved to die for
> those errors. That is the point.
He wasn't doing his job. *That* is the point. He, and the others,
were went over the top.
> You think that you support the role of law enforcement, yet you condone the
> death of an agent in the line of duty. What happened to Weaver's wife was
> a terrible tragedy. But that agent's death was no less a tragedy. What do
> you know about him or his loved ones? How dare you use glib language like
> "accountability" to justify his death.
What sort of defense could he have used? "Just following orders"
didn't work at the Nuremburg trials...
Marty Pflum
>In article <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com>, ca...@gte.com says...
>
>>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?
>>
>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>Ridge.
>>
>>me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
>>statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
>>a clean life.
>
>
>When I watch the Network's Sunday talk shows, and I see people
>similar to you tell them "the agent FBI agent killed deserved it" or
>some other seemingly anti-social statement, it scares me to death..
>and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
>his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
>mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
>public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
>gun owners) disadvantage..
>
>and yes I did "sign here, press hard 4 copies"!!
>
>Lastly, consider this statistic, if all of the registered Democrates had voted
>last November, the Tom Foley would still have a job..
I think it is fantastic that Tom Foley is out of a job. America is in much
better shape because of that. By the way last November's election was a
statement on the poor performance of Democrats and on the desire of everyday
Americans to restore the Bill of Rights.
--Marty
>
>FLK kk
>
Marty Pflum
Steve Sheldon <she...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>
>>>
>>> In <3p5ktb$6...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>>
>
> How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
>somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
>bomb out in my car after work some night?
Steve,
I take offense at you anti-gun people protraying anyone who wants to hunt
or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
gun registration proceeded gun confiscation. The point of not having gun
registration is that guns do not go out and commit crimes. Criminals commit
crimes and the liberal justice system avoids punishing criminals whenever
they can. The justice system needs to be changed to have truth in sentencing.
The people involved in the Oklahoma city bombing need to have a fair trial and
if found guilty should be sent to the electric chair. This should not be a
15 or 20 year trial process for the laywers to get rich off of and then just
set the guy free. Figure out why the Democrats lost so bad last November.
It's because normal Americans want the government to be of the people and to
serve the people. We don't want the people to be 2nd class citizens whose
primary purpose is to be taken advantage of by the government. Vote for
more Republicans and clean up the mess the Democrats have made of government.
--Marty
>
>>I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
>>for your hateful remark.
>
> No, you owe America an apology.
Steve Sheldon
>Steve,
>I take offense at you anti-gun people protraying anyone who wants to hunt
>or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
First of all, I am not anti-gun.
>gun registration proceeded gun confiscation. The point of not having gun
>registration is that guns do not go out and commit crimes. Criminals commit
>crimes and the liberal justice system avoids punishing criminals whenever
>they can. The justice system needs to be changed to have truth in sentencing.
Great, I agree with that. However, that's not the point.
>The people involved in the Oklahoma city bombing need to have a fair trial and
>if found guilty should be sent to the electric chair. This should not be a
>15 or 20 year trial process for the laywers to get rich off of and then just
>set the guy free. Figure out why the Democrats lost so bad last November.
Agreed.
>It's because normal Americans want the government to be of the people and to
>serve the people. We don't want the people to be 2nd class citizens whose
>primary purpose is to be taken advantage of by the government. Vote for
>more Republicans and clean up the mess the Democrats have made of government.
Umm... I hate to rain on your parade but Joe McCarthy was a Republican.
J. Edgar Hoover was as well, and if you want to talk about governmental
excesses, all you need do is go back 40 years before this supposed Democrat
reign of power.
Our government has problems right now. To sit there and accuse the
Democrats of being the sole cause of these problems is ludicrous and
diminishes the importance of this problem.
If you'd like I can spend some time in the library pulling out examples of
FBI, DEA and ATF excesses which occured during the Reagan/Bush
administrations. I recall at least one kidnapping of a Mexican citizen
during the Bush administration.
But of course it's all the Democrats fault, isn't it?
Isn't another part of the Republican rhetoric something about taking
"personal responsibility for our actions"? Or does this only apply to
minorities and pregnant teenagers?
I personally think that as a nation we need to all sit down and question
the purpose of some of our federal agencies. Do we really need a CIA, ATF,
DEA, NSA, DOD, etc.? And if we do, do these agencies need to be as large as
they currently are?
Why does this issue need to be addressed in such a partisan fashion? All
over the airwaves and internet all one ever hears is rhetoric about those
evil liberals. Do you people really want to make changes? Or do you yearn
for those simpler days when you had Joe McCarthy to rally around?
It'd be interesting to go back and see the campaign material from '52 and
see how it compares to the campaign material from '94.
Steve
Dale R Worley
We here at the "Give Truth A Chance" Foundation have been in
contact with network executives and congress and it may sound sick
but they challenge the American public to show them that they care
and guarantee that a congressional investigation will take place if
the American people support such an investigation.
To back off from ideology and get back to practical politics... This
is a good call to action, but you've forgotten to motivate the reader.
As you yourself note, the American people collectively aren't exactly
electrified by these events, and there seems to be no evidence that
they aren't aware of the "facts", at least in outline. So to make
your call more effective, it would probably help if you explained to
the reader (who presumably hasn't taken any action up to now), why he
really *should* take action.
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or cat are not the
better for it. -- Abraham Lincoln
Dale R Worley
writes:
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.
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
The REAPER raised his sythe to a great viper. "Is this gratitude,"
cried the viper, "to turn on me, who hath delivered so many unto you?"
"Many thanks," replied the Reaper, and smote him to the dust.
Moral: Business is business.
-- A Moral AlphaBet of Vice & Folly by Stan Washburn
Dale R Worley
Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
Hmmm.... Did you vote in the last election? If you don't like what
the government is doing, there's a lever in the voting booth to change
it.
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
UseNet: The 24-hour a day, 7 day a week tragedy of the commons.
GeraldM485
is claiming to have fired "by accident" - not a particularly credible
claim from a trained sniper.
But, what the hell, OBEY or ELSE.
Next come the camps for ??? whoever the majority wants to dispose of.
The first rule of any government seems to be "Survive at All Costs"
The second seems to be"Expand at all costs"
Thomas Paine - where are you when we need you.
Mark Astarita
>>>
>>> My point, in case you missed it, was that the language of the
original post
>>> was heavily loaded; according to the poster, Randy Weaver's wife
was "shot"
>>> but a federal agent "died".
>
>>shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
>>committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>
>
> 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. :(
Amen to that. <sigh>.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J. Astarita asta...@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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Astarita
>
>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >salz...@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 support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>Ridge.
We all want accountability. You apparently want a bit more. Death to
the LEOs. THAT is what scares the hell out of us.
Mark Astarita
>
>fkl...@bga.com (Frank Kleinburg) wrote:
>> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
>> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
>> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
>> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
>> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
>> gun owners) disadvantage..
>
>You're reading way too much into this...
No, you aren't thinking enough about what you are writing. I don't give
a rat's behind whether Weaver was convicted or not convicted of killing
the LEO. The fact that you are apparently quite HAPPY that and LEO was
KILLED while performing his job (correctly or incorrectly) is what has
us upset.
Mark Astarita
>
>In <sheldon....@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu> she...@iastate.edu
(Steve Sheldon) writes:
>> The hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being
justified.
>
>EMFBI, but I fail to see what's so hateful about Carl's comment. But
>then, maybe you are one of those enlightened folks who thinks that no
one >in a uniform is capable of committing a crime. Seems there were a
lot
>of people like you in Germany about 60 years ago.
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.
Mark Astarita
>
>ri...@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) wrote:
>>
>> Steve will speak for himself, but let me explain why I find your remark
>> troubling. It had nothing to do with Vicky Weaver's role or her
innocence.
>> It had to do with your condoning the death of a federal agent who was
doing
>> his job. He may or may not have been responsible for some of the errors
>> made with Weaver. That isn't the point. You think he deserved to die
for
>> those errors. That is the point.
>
>He wasn't doing his job. *That* is the point. He, and the others,
>were went over the top.
So it's OK to KILL him?
>What sort of defense could he have used? "Just following orders"
>didn't work at the Nuremburg trials...
Assume he HAD no defense...KILLING him on the spot is the answer? The
object of his "orders" has the right to decide, at that moment in time,
whether the LEO is acting lawfully?
Mark Astarita
Cathey) writes:
>
>In article <sheldon....@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu>,
she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>>>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>>Ridge.
>>
ok
>> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS
OK
>> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
>
>eyes? Cops can kill citizens and it's okay? You are not allowed to
defend
>yourself if your assailant has a badge? Carl isn't declaring open season
on
>officers, but if a cop murders a citizen, they should be held to the
SAME
>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.
Steve Sheldon
>In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>Ridge.
>We all want accountability. You apparently want a bit more. Death to
>the LEOs. THAT is what scares the hell out of us.
Amen to that!
James Shapleigh Cochrane
#In <3p65e3$a...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
#>
#>fkl...@bga.com (Frank Kleinburg) wrote:
#>> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
#>> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
#>> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
#>> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
#>> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
#>> gun owners) disadvantage..
#>
#>You're reading way too much into this...
#No, you aren't thinking enough about what you are writing. I don't give
#a rat's behind whether Weaver was convicted or not convicted of killing
#the LEO. The fact that you are apparently quite HAPPY that and LEO was
#KILLED while performing his job (correctly or incorrectly) is what has
#us upset.
The law enforcement officer was killed in SELF-DEFENSE after he unlawfully
initiated the use of lethal force. He never identified himself, there was no
reason to believe he was an LEO in the performance of his duties, and even if he
HAD identified himself, his initiating lethal force FORFEITED his claim to
"performance of his duties", unless his duty was to commit murder.
I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes and
killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and punishing
them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of law. I
also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government to attack
them with lethal force and not resist.
James
#--
#----------------------------------------------------------------
#Mark J. Astarita asta...@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.
#----------------------------------------------------------------
#
--
-James Shapleigh Cochrane (lone...@cc.gatech.edu)
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> >> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
> >> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
> >> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
> >> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
> >> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
> >> gun owners) disadvantage..
> >
> >You're reading way too much into this...
>
> No, you aren't thinking enough about what you are writing. I don't give
> a rat's behind whether Weaver was convicted or not convicted of killing
> the LEO. The fact that you are apparently quite HAPPY that and LEO was
> KILLED while performing his job (correctly or incorrectly) is what has
> us upset.
If a LEO is committing a crime, he is no longer a LEO and cannot legally claim
the protection of being a LEO. This was stated in Supreme Court decision a
while back.
The Federal Marshal who was killed at Ruby Ridge, ID, did not have a search or
arrest warrant in his posession. Neither did any other LEO in that group.
Thus they *already* were guilty of criminal trespass while armed. Once they
opened fire, anyone in the line of fire was justified in using deadly force in
self-defense.
If self-defense scares you, then we have no basis for communication or
understanding.
---
Frank Ney EMT-A N4ZHG LPVa NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E'
Don't Tread On Me
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for
rule by brute force, where the biggest, strongest animals among men were
always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a
hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
- L. Neil Smith, _The Probability Broach_
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> > So law enforcement officers are held to different standards in your
> >eyes? Cops can kill citizens and it's okay? You are not allowed to
> defend
> >yourself if your assailant has a badge? Carl isn't declaring open season
> on
> >officers, but if a cop murders a citizen, they should be held to the
> SAME
> >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.
It's kind of hard to prefer charges against a LEO if you are dead.
Frank Kleinburg
>I think it is fantastic that Tom Foley is out of a job. America is in much
>better shape because of that. By the way last November's election was a
>statement on the poor performance of Democrats and on the desire of everyday
>Americans to restore the Bill of Rights.
>
>--Marty
>
From your posting, and others, it is clear that I must have mis-commun-
icated the point I was attempting to make about Foley.. I to am quite
happy he is gone (mostly because it means that the Democrates are no
longer in control).. I voted to help assure the next speaker of the house
was Republican.. But this all can change in 2 years.. I was commenting
that we must vote in '96 to assure that the gun grabbers remain in the
minority.. FLK kk
Andrew Hall
Kevin> geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
>> Probably "friendly fire" and what is the comparison?
Kevin> Imagine if the press were to proceed beyond "What a horrible things these
Kevin> horrible NRA types say" and try to find out why LaPierre said some
Kevin> agents behave like jackbooted thugs...
As a point of order, LaPierre did not use the word
"SOME". That is why so many are outraged at him.
ah
ah
Keith Marchington
: In article <3p5099$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
: Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
: government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
: Hmmm.... Did you vote in the last election? If you don't like what
: the government is doing, there's a lever in the voting booth to change
: it.
Please tell me when Louis Freeh is coming up for election. I
can't wait!
--
Keith
Marty Pflum
Mark Astarita <asta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <1995May14.192707.20323@montagar> dav...@montagar.com (David L.
>Cathey) writes:
>>
>>In article <sheldon....@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu>,
>>> In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>>>>I support the role of law enforcement in our society. But I expect
>>>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>>>Ridge.
>>>
>ok
>>> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS
>OK
>>> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
>>
>>eyes? Cops can kill citizens and it's okay? You are not allowed to
>defend
>>yourself if your assailant has a badge? Carl isn't declaring open season
>on
>>officers, but if a cop murders a citizen, they should be held to the
>SAME
>>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.
>
>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 J. Astarita asta...@ix.netcom.com
I just came up with an interesting way for the authorities to perform
raids and minimize the loss of life. The problem is that late at night
the special tactics officers (storm troopers, agents, etc.) kick down
the door and charge into a house (hopefully the right one), and the
resident thinks crooks have come to do him harm. The resident grabs
his gun and points it at the indistinquishable shadowy figure behind
the bright flashlight to protect himself from the criminal. The
authority of course begins firing and the resident fires back until
someone usually the resident stops firing.
So here is the idea: Take a specially trained french poodle with a
neon sign on its back that reads "police, don't shoot". Kick down
the door and send in the poodle with the agents about 5 steps behind
the poodle. The resident will immediately point his gun at the
poodle and then either read the sign and put down his gun or shoot
the poodle. If the poodle gets shot, the police can fire back and
stop the resident from shooting anymore. The key is that human life
is worth more than a poodle, and the resident gets a chance to see
who is in his house and put down his gun without being automatically
shot by the agents. It also means that the agents will not have
the resident pointing his gun at them while he wakes up enough to
figure out what is going on. The poodle would be a better choice
than a german shepherd because the resident might feel threatened
by a large dog but not by the poodle. The authorities might at first
have trouble adopting the poodle as a criminal fighting tool, but
special body armor and a big spiked collar could give the poodle an
air of authority.
--Marty
P.S. Sorry animal rights guys, but I do think there needs to be a
better method of saving life during police raids. Especially if
they mistakenly go to the wrong house and begin shooting up an
innocent resident. I do not believe the statement "mistakes were
Frank Kleinburg
>
>fkl...@bga.com (Frank Kleinburg) wrote:
>>
>> When I watch the Network's Sunday talk shows, and I see people
>> similar to you tell them "the agent FBI agent killed deserved it" or
>> some other seemingly anti-social statement, it scares me to death..
>
>*ACQUITTED* of murder for that. The court found that the shooting
>was justifiable self defense. My agreeing with that verdict is anti-
>social? Your fear is wholly irrational and isn't warranted...
>
>> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
>> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
>> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
>> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
>> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
>> gun owners) disadvantage..
>
>You're reading way too much into this...
>
My fear is irrational?? I am reading way to much into it?? Obisouly you
must isolate yourself from the rest of the world.. I watch the news
reports from the gun grabbing networks.. I see how they protray those
of us that want to maintain the RKBA.. I also see how my liberal co-
workers react to it.. These are professional degreed liberals that
are scarred enought to contribute to HCI (et. al.) and even worse to
vote.. They believe Sam Donaldson, or Connie Chung, etc.. And when they
hear the likes of you exclaim the "LEO deserved to..." you can see the
shivers run up their yellow spines.. Even if the LEO was acting unlaw
fully, you need to tone down what you say in the PUBLIC FORUM.. Please
don't confuse this with my saying that you should stay silent, FOR I AM
NOT!! Write your congress person, and vote. This iis how we will have
issues like Randy Weaver, Waco, and the scores of other abuses addressed..
But when you mouth off in the public forum, you are hurting the cause,
not helping it.. You claim to be a professionsal, then use the God
given brains I am hopping you have.. Chill on the tone in public.. flk k
Robert Newshutz
|> In article <3p5099$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
|> Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
|> government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
|>
|> Hmmm.... Did you vote in the last election? If you don't like what
|> the government is doing, there's a lever in the voting booth to change
|> it.
|>
|>
|> Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
|> --
|> UseNet: The 24-hour a day, 7 day a week tragedy of the commons.
I must have missed the levers to remove bureaucrats.
Frank Kleinburg
>
>In article <D8LIJ...@txnews.amd.com>,
> ma...@dvorak.amd.com (Marty Pflum) wrote:
>
>>or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
>
Lets see.. Canada and England come to mind first off (notice I didn't
need to mention Germany of the 1930's). Say it can't happen here?? Well
tell that to legal owners of the infamous street sweepers.. They were
reclassified as a destructive device by the ATF (note no congressional
law or presidential order) and owners of record (registered owners) were
told to turn it in if class III registration was either not allowed in
the state they live in, or not allowed by the paperwork being sat on..
FLK kk
GM...@neosoft.com
>> 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. :(
>Amen to that. <sigh>.
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark J. Astarita asta...@ix.netcom.com
Crazy Carl and Crazy Chris should worry less about being put in concentration
camps by the government, and more about being institutionalized by family.
GM...@neosoft.com
>I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes and
>killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and punishing
>them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of law. I
>also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government to attack
>them with lethal force and not resist.
>James
When that "liberal media" showed television clips in 1963 of non-violent
protesters in Alabama and Arkansas getting the snot beat out of them by
local goevernment... it only took hours for the outrage at the footage to
bring in the Feds to clean up this atrocity against mankind.
STATES RIGHTS MY ASS!@ We'd still have that crap in 5 states otherwise.
David L. Cathey
> I just came up with an interesting way for the authorities to perform
> raids and minimize the loss of life. The problem is that late at night
> the special tactics officers (storm troopers, agents, etc.) kick down
> the door and charge into a house (hopefully the right one), and the
> resident thinks crooks have come to do him harm.
Actually, I think we could probably reduce the number of no-knock
raids, and that would reduce loss of life. Did teenagers wielding keyboards
_really_ need to be raided by special tactics officers during Operation
Sundevil?
And if you are going to raid a house, GREAT CARE needs to be performed
to insure it's the right one. After all, if you come bursting in to soem house
wearing black and carrying big guns, it's no wonder that _someone_ is going to
fire the first round.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
Nosy
< she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
< >
< It was justified. That is how the court ruled in the Weaver case.
Wrong. NO FBI AGENTS WERE KILLED AT RUBY RIDGE.
Weaver was accused of killing a US Federal Marshall.
"Federal Marshall" and "FBI Agent" are not the same thing.
I suggests all concerned make a note of this.
Kevin Langston
>> Isn't that kinda like their job? Let's see, they track down Stephen
>> Colbern's high school teachers, but drop the ball when the NRA gets
>> the short end of the stick...
>
>I thought their job was to promot their own liberal agenda. At least, from all
>outward appearances, that sure looks like their job.
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. 20 years ago when
I studied journalism, one of the major things we were taught was to
keep ourselves out of the story and be objective. Editorials are where
personal beliefs can shine, not in the news itself.
Of course, we were known then as reporters, not journalists...
--
Kevin Langston
lang...@frontier.lonestar.org
"Envy is a powerful tool in the hand of a tyrant."
Kevin Langston
I didn't read the letter myself. Did he really say ALL of them were
behaving that way?
Kevin Langston
>>EMFBI, but I fail to see what's so hateful about Carl's comment. But
>>then, maybe you are one of those enlightened folks who thinks that no
>one >in a uniform is capable of committing a crime. Seems there were a
>lot
>>of people like you in Germany about 60 years ago.
>
>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.
Oh, I get it, acknowledging that Weaver was acquitted of murder
is the same as being happy and pleased about Dugan's death.
Okay. For a minute there I thought you were just out to lunch.
Kevin Langston
>>He wasn't doing his job. *That* is the point. He, and the others,
>>were went over the top.
>
>So it's OK to KILL him?
>
>>What sort of defense could he have used? "Just following orders"
>>didn't work at the Nuremburg trials...
>
>Assume he HAD no defense...KILLING him on the spot is the answer? The
>object of his "orders" has the right to decide, at that moment in time,
>whether the LEO is acting lawfully?
Boy, wouldn't you be embarassed if one of Dugan's own men actually
killed him...
john litteken
>
> fkl...@bga.com (Frank Kleinburg) wrote:
> >
> > When I watch the Network's Sunday talk shows, and I see people
> > similar to you tell them "the agent FBI agent killed deserved it" or
> > some other seemingly anti-social statement, it scares me to death..
>
> Randy Weaver shot and killed that agent. Randy Weaver was tried and
> *ACQUITTED* of murder for that. The court found that the shooting
> was justifiable self defense. My agreeing with that verdict is anti-
> social? Your fear is wholly irrational and isn't warranted...
I really do hate to butt in here, but Randy Weaver shot nobody.
The US Marshall who was killed on the first day was shot by Kevin Harris.
This was in retaliation for the shooting of Randy's 14 year old son.
In the trial, not one shot was traced to Randy Weaver.
And I do agree with you. The US Marshall needed killing. He was on
private property without a warrant, and he was killing Randy Weavers
livestock (dog).
>
> > People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
> > and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
> > his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
> > mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
> > public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
> > gun owners) disadvantage..
Actually, it is people like the guy you who wrote the above who is
our own worst enemy. You see, we have been writing and calling our
congressmen for three years in the Randy Weaver case. We have still not
had any hearings on it. It is time to enflame Americans and get them
to question why what happened happened.
This will encourage them to find the facts for themselves and to get
them to write and call their congressmen.
The best way to kill anti-government talk is to have an honest and
open government.
John
D.K. Anderson
>
>So it's OK to KILL him?
>
>>What sort of defense could he have used? "Just following orders"
>>didn't work at the Nuremburg trials...
>
>Assume he HAD no defense...KILLING him on the spot is the answer? The
>object of his "orders" has the right to decide, at that moment in time,
>whether the LEO is acting lawfully?
grounds to assume his/her life is in danger from that possibly illegal act,
he/she most certainly DOES have the right, moral and legal, to employ deadly
force against that LEO. It is unreasonable to ask the potential victim of
such an act to assume that he/she will survive to excercise less violent options.
john litteken
>
> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
>
> make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
> job.
You obviously do not know much about the story of Randy Weaver.
The US Marshalls service was on Randy Weavers property without a warrant
of ANY kind. A US Marshall shot and killed Randy Weavers dog. A 14 year
old boy did not know that they were police officers and he shot at them
and turned to run ( he just had a single shot ). Other US Marshalls shot
the boy in the back. Kevin Harris, a family friend returned fire at the
only US Marshall he could see and killed him with a shot to the chest.
Now, the US Marshalls service was trespassing on Randy Weavers property,
wearing full jungle camoflage. They killed his livestock for no reason
other than to silence the dogs barking so that he would not give away
their position.
I would shoot US Marshalls all day long if they did that on my property.
They were breaking the law, regardless of the badge they wear. They were
no more than any other person committing felony trespass.
In essence the man deserved to die, just like a bank robber shot during
a crime deserves to die.
John
Dale R Worley
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.
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
A lot of women I know are somewhat attracted by the idea of being a
raunchy, omnipotent sex goddess who could use, and enjoy using, sexual
power without guilt or reservation (the fact that we don't feel
comfortable acting on that fantasy probably explains our ambivalence
about women such as Madonna and Camille Paglia).
-- Caroline Knapp
Dale R Worley
: Hmmm.... Did you vote in the last election? If you don't like what
: the government is doing, there's a lever in the voting booth to change
: it.
Please tell me when Louis Freeh is coming up for election. I
can't wait!
The catch with voting is, of course, that the people you want to see
elected don't necessarily get elected, or even run for office. So one
"sometimes" lives under governments whose laws one disagrees with.
But that's the problem with democracy -- unless you're totally
statistically average, it doesn't give you exactly the government you
want. On the other hand, voting almost always gives you the chance to
nudge the government in the direction you'd like -- there are almost
always candidates running who are *worse* than the status quo.
But that's about all that one can ask for living in a civilized
society. We are necessarily constrained to deal with other humans,
and unless society is to be a tyranny with *me* as boss, I'm going to
have to adapt myself in ways *I don't like* to other humans. The
constructs of democracy are the best known way of balancing that
bitter necessity among all the people with reasonable fairness.
And it's hardly surprising that each of us feels that our deep,
God-given rights are being infringed by one dumb-ass law or another
supported by the ignorant majority. The difficulty being that
everybody has *different* deep, God-given rights and they all
conflict. For instance, the lefties that are now hollering to call
out the Army (things have changed since the 60's, haven't they?) think
the current laws violate *their* rights, but of course, they want to
move things a different direction than the militias do.
As for Constitutional rights, the NRA, ACLU, and other bodies of
professional whiners seem to specialize in taking things to extremes.
There are probably a dozen legal limitations to "freedom of speech",
and I suspect that almost everybody agrees with three or more of them,
even the ACLU. Similarly, the NRA says gun-ownership rights should be
absolute, but I haven't heard them lobby that convicted felons should
have the right to own machine guns. Every right has to have
common-sense limitations, the only debate is where those limitations
are to be placed.
As for the US as a whole, there are a lot of complaints, but it's
still the freest country in the industrialized world. We've got the
lowest taxes, the freest economy, and the broadest protection of many
personal liberties, including speech and gun ownership. Most
importantly, we have a philosophy that the individual has a right to
do whatever he wants until it can be shown that he's causing harm. In
most countries, that isn't so ... and suspicious organizations (e.g.,
the private militias) would simply be shut down by government fiat as
a preventitive measure.
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
A FAUN, idly toying with the mechanism of a switch, was the
inadvertent agent of a terrible disaster. Mortified, he was quite
pensive for the rest of the day, but in the evening he felt better, and
composed a pavane in honor of the slain. It was much admired, and made
his fortune.
Moral: Waste nothing.
-- A Moral AlphaBet of Vice & Folly by Stan Washburn
David Ramsey
: In <3p9kik$k...@pulitzer.eng.sematech.org> john litteken
: <john.l...@SEMATECH.Org> writes:
: >
: There is no capital punishment in this country for trespass.
You need to get the facts, not some bleeding heart liberal crap handed
out on NBC or ABC. The facts are that Kevin Harris RETURNED FIRE on
UNIDENTIFIED MEN who had JUST SHOT 14 year old Samuel Weaver IN THE
BACK. Kevin had shot at the UNIDENTIFIED MEN who had just shot
Samuel's beloved pet dog who was doing nothing more than BARKING at
the UNIDENTIFIED MEN who were HIDING IN THE BUSHES wearing CAMOFLAGE
CLOTHING.
You just don't get it (and don't appear to want to get it either). The
Marshall's were FIRST engaged in felony trespass. They were next
engaged in killing of livestock. They next engaged in FELONY MURDER of
a 14 year old BOY.
Then, and only then, did the adults in the Weaver group return
fire. It is important to note that both Weaver and Harris were
ACQUITTED of murder charges (accused of murdering the marshall). The
federal marshall was NEVER brought to trial. Neither was the FBI
sniper who deliberately shot UNARMED Vicki Weaver through the face
while she held her infant child in her arms.
The Weaver's were strange people and no one, including Gerry Spence,
the attorney who defended them in court, is defneding their strange
religious and racist beliefs. BUT NO LEO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO KILL
WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. That is the single simple most important issue in
this and many, many other cases throughout the United States. Either
the police are held to the same standards of law that the rest of us
are or we live in a police state where arbitrary police powers could
kill YOU next.
: And folks wonder who is encouraging the killing of LEOS.
: --
: ----------------------------------------------------------------
: Mark J. Astarita asta...@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.
: ----------------------------------------------------------------
:
--
***********************************************************************
* dra...@neosoft.com * If you love wealth better than liberty, the *
************************ tranquility of servitude better than the *
* animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not *
* your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed *
* you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget *
* that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, 1776 *
***********************************************************************
Andrew Hall
When you change the followups, please notify. I cannot
post to tx.politics as we do not have that group here.
I added t.p.m as that is where I am reading this.
Kevin> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) writes:
>>>>>>> Kevin Langston writes:
>>
Kevin> geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
>> >> Probably "friendly fire" and what is the comparison?
>>
>>
Kevin> Imagine if the press were to proceed beyond "What a horrible things these
Kevin> horrible NRA types say" and try to find out why LaPierre said some
Kevin> agents behave like jackbooted thugs...
>>
>> As a point of order, LaPierre did not use the word
>> "SOME". That is why so many are outraged at him.
Kevin> I didn't read the letter myself. Did he really say ALL of them were
Kevin> behaving that way?
He used no qualifiers --- no "all" either, but many of us take
it as a blanket smear.
ah
Roy Beasley
>>I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes and
>>killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and
punishing
>>them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of law. I
>>also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government to
attack
>>them with lethal force and not resist.
>>James
>When that "liberal media" showed television clips in 1963 of non-violent
>protesters in Alabama and Arkansas getting the snot beat out of them by
>local goevernment... it only took hours for the outrage at the footage to
>bring in the Feds to clean up this atrocity against mankind.
>STATES RIGHTS MY ASS!@ We'd still have that crap in 5 states otherwise.
I agree with this but why do you say ONLY 5 states?
________________________|
The opinions are my own |
________________________|
Roy Beasley
>: >>or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
>: >>gun registration proceeded gun confiscation.
>: >Could you cite specific instances?
>
>
>: Lets see.. Canada and England come to mind first off (notice I didn't
>: need to mention Germany of the 1930's). Say it can't happen here?? Well
>: tell that to legal owners of the infamous street sweepers.. They were
>: reclassified as a destructive device by the ATF (note no congressional
>: law or presidential order) and owners of record (registered owners) were
>: told to turn it in if class III registration was either not allowed in
>: the state they live in, or not allowed by the paperwork being sat on..
>: FLK kk
>
>Also, NY City, California, NJ, Cleveland OH.
>
>Is that enough or would you like more?
It is obvious that registration would proceed confiscation in many instances
-- but what proceeded both the registration and confiscation? I really
doubt that registration causes confiscation. Surely the gun lovers should
understand the argument "registration doesn't confiscate guns, people
confiscate guns". What usually proceeds requirements for registration and,
unfortuneately even eventually results in confiscation, is illegal, insane,
ridiculous behavior on the part of SOME people or groups of people using
guns. I dont mean everyone . . .. so don't scream.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <3pan5k$9...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> asta...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >If a LEO is committing a crime, he is no longer a LEO and cannot legally
> claim
> >the protection of being a LEO. This was stated in Supreme Court decision a
> >while back.
>
> 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.
Wrong answer. If a LEO is trying to kill you, without cause, whether he
identifies himself or not, we have the right of self-defense. That is what
*YOU* are overlooking.
As I have said before, it's hard to press charges when you are dead. And you
are advocating handing them the vaseline as they bend us over.
> >The Federal Marshal who was killed at Ruby Ridge, ID, did not have a search
> or
> >arrest warrant in his posession. Neither did any other LEO in that group.
>
> 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.
Wrong again. They did not ID themselves before firing, and even if they did,
without a warrant or something resembling probable cause, they had no business
being on private property. Another thing you conveniently overlook.
> Don't misunderstand me. The Weaver situation is a serious problem, but
> advocating the killing of LEOs is NOT the solution to that problem.
More 'hand them the vaseline like a good sheep' rhetoric.
You just don't get it, do you.
*Plonk.*
Keith Marchington
: In <3p89ob$8...@felix.cc.gatech.edu> lone...@cc.gatech.edu (James Shapleigh
: Cochrane) writes:
: >I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes
: and
: >killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and
: punishing
: >them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of
: law. I
: >also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government
: to attack
: >them with lethal force and not resist.
: >
: Unfortunately, I do not have the same version of the Weaver facts that
: you do, as your quote had unidentified men shooting, unprovoked, at
: Weaver. That is not the facts that I have seen.
: If we are discussing armed men attacking a home, not identified in any
: way, shape or form, as LEOs, you may have a point. I don't believe that
: is what happened in the Weaver case though.
Two federal marshalls came onto the Weaver property without a
search warrant. They shot one of the Weavers' dogs which caused
Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris to investigate. A gunfight ensued
in which one of the federal marshalls and Sammy Weaver were killed,
Sammy being shot in the back. How the gunfight started remains
one of those great mysteries as both sides relate it differently.
The operative question now becomes, why were the federal marshalls
trespassing on the Weavers' property and why did they kill one of
the Weavers' dogs? This is how the entire battle started - the
Feds screwed the pooch (actually shot the pooch) and then a major
seige ensued.
Sounds like a pretty egregious set of circumstances to me and a
jury of Weaver's and Harris's peers felt the same way.
--
Keith
David Feustel
: In article <3p7g0n$g...@masala.cc.uh.edu>, salz...@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) says:
: >
: >In article <D8LIJ...@txnews.amd.com>,
: > ma...@dvorak.amd.com (Marty Pflum) wrote:
: >>or shoot in sporting events as a bunch of crazies. All through out history
: >>gun registration proceeded gun confiscation.
: >
: >Could you cite specific instances?
: Lets see.. Canada and England come to mind first off (notice I didn't
: need to mention Germany of the 1930's). Say it can't happen here?? Well
: tell that to legal owners of the infamous street sweepers.. They were
: reclassified as a destructive device by the ATF (note no congressional
: law or presidential order) and owners of record (registered owners) were
: told to turn it in if class III registration was either not allowed in
: the state they live in, or not allowed by the paperwork being sat on..
: FLK kk
Also, NY City, California, NJ, Cleveland OH.
Is that enough or would you like more?
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet: <feu...@netcom.com>
219-483-1857 Compuserve: <73532,1747>
Finger feu...@netcom.com for PGP public key
ASCII PGP encrypted mail welcome
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
ata...@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wrote:
>< > The hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being
justified.
>
>< It was justified. That is how the court ruled in the Weaver case.
>
> Wrong. NO FBI AGENTS WERE KILLED AT RUBY RIDGE.
>
> Weaver was accused of killing a US Federal Marshall.
>
> "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.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <1995May15.195909.20325@montagar> dav...@montagar.com writes:
> Actually, I think we could probably reduce the number of no-knock
> raids, and that would reduce loss of life. Did teenagers wielding keyboards
> _really_ need to be raided by special tactics officers during Operation
> Sundevil?
Of course not. Fear and Intimidation were the primary motivating factors.
> And if you are going to raid a house, GREAT CARE needs to be
> performed to insure it's the right one. After all, if you come bursting in
> to soem house wearing black and carrying big guns, it's no wonder that
> _someone_ is going to fire the first round.
Usually the innocent homeowner, who is later acquitted by a jury of the
capitol murder charges the stormtroopers press on the same principle as being
charged with resisting arrest when the arrest is bogus.
As much as it pains me to say it, we will not see the end of bogus no-knock
raids until we see more cops injured and perhaps killed, with jury vindication
of the resident. We will not see the end until cops start thinking to
themselves "they don't pay me enough for this shit" and mean it. Civil
lawsuits just don't have the impact of a dead uniform.
Robert Newshutz
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: scooter-slip-bb.neosoft.com
|> X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]
|> Xref: locutus.rchland.ibm.com talk.politics.guns:203129 talk.politics.libertarian:21446 talk.politics.misc:273569 tx.general:5092 tx.guns:2165 tx.politics:28744 us.legal:797 us.state.iowa:97 wa.politics:860 wa.test:98 wash.general:873
|>
|> In article <3p89ob$8...@felix.cc.gatech.edu> lone...@cc.gatech.edu (James Shapleigh Cochrane) writes:
|>
|>
|> >I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes and
|> >killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and punishing
|> >them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of law. I
|> >also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government to attack
|> >them with lethal force and not resist.
|>
|>
|> When that "liberal media" showed television clips in 1963 of non-violent
|> protesters in Alabama and Arkansas getting the snot beat out of them by
|> local goevernment... it only took hours for the outrage at the footage to
|> bring in the Feds to clean up this atrocity against mankind.
|>
|> STATES RIGHTS MY ASS!@ We'd still have that crap in 5 states otherwise.
|>
|>
the Feds? (And why are they not doing it?)
Mark Astarita
Cochrane) writes:
>I do not advocate hunting down agents/officers who have committed crimes
and
>killing them. I DO advocate holding them to the standard of law, and
punishing
>them when a court of law convicts them of violating that standard of
law. I
>also hold that NOBODY has an obligation to allow the police/government
to attack
>them with lethal force and not resist.
>
Unfortunately, I do not have the same version of the Weaver facts that
you do, as your quote had unidentified men shooting, unprovoked, at
Weaver. That is not the facts that I have seen.
If we are discussing armed men attacking a home, not identified in any
way, shape or form, as LEOs, you may have a point. I don't believe that
is what happened in the Weaver case though.
Mark Astarita
writes:
>
>
>In article <3p8030$j...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> asta...@ix.netcom.com
writes:
>
>> >> People like you are our worst ememy..The media takes talk like that
>> >> and stirs up the national hysteria.. If you feel the agent deserved
>> >> his rewards, then write your congress person and tell them you are
>> >> mad as hell about it.. Please don't put words of hate out in the
>> >> public form.. It will only work to our (the Law abiding and voting
>> >> gun owners) disadvantage..
>> >
>>
>> No, you aren't thinking enough about what you are writing. I don't give
>> a rat's behind whether Weaver was convicted or not convicted of killing
>> the LEO. The fact that you are apparently quite HAPPY that and LEO was
>> KILLED while performing his job (correctly or incorrectly) is what has
>> us upset.
>
>If a LEO is committing a crime, he is no longer a LEO and cannot legally
claim
>the protection of being a LEO. This was stated in Supreme Court decision a
>while back.
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.
>
>The Federal Marshal who was killed at Ruby Ridge, ID, did not have a search
or
>arrest warrant in his posession. Neither did any other LEO in that group.
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 Astarita
Oh, I suspect they are informed well enough. Sort of like citing Miller
as holding gun laws are unconsitutional, or Moylan as saying that
juries can decide the law, or the other case whose name escapes me,
that you don't have to pay taxes on income.
Mark Astarita
<lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> writes:
>
>asta...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Astarita) writes:
>>>EMFBI, but I fail to see what's so hateful about Carl's comment. But
>>>then, maybe you are one of those enlightened folks who thinks that no
>>one >in a uniform is capable of committing a crime. Seems there were a
>>lot
>>>of people like you in Germany about 60 years ago.
>>
>>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.
>
> Oh, I get it, acknowledging that Weaver was acquitted of murder
> is the same as being happy and pleased about Dugan's death.
Then you obviously missed the gleeful part of the thread, and the fact
that you are incorrect as to who was found not guilty of what.
>
> Okay. For a minute there I thought you were just out to lunch.
<sigh>. Do you curse at me next? Save the flames for the kiddie
newsgroup.
Mark Astarita
<john.l...@SEMATECH.Org> writes:
>
>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not
ok
>> if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS
OK
>> for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
>> make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing
their
>> job.
>
>You obviously do not know much about the story of Randy Weaver.
>
>The US Marshalls service was on Randy Weavers property without a warrant
>of ANY kind. A US Marshall shot and killed Randy Weavers dog. A 14 year
>old boy did not know that they were police officers and he shot at them
>and turned to run ( he just had a single shot ). Other US Marshalls shot
>the boy in the back. Kevin Harris, a family friend returned fire at the
>only US Marshall he could see and killed him with a shot to the chest.
>
>Now, the US Marshalls service was trespassing on Randy Weavers property,
>their position.
>
>I would shoot US Marshalls all day long if they did that on my
property.
>They were breaking the law, regardless of the badge they wear. They
were
>no more than any other person committing felony trespass.
>
>In essence the man deserved to die, just like a bank robber shot
during
>a crime deserves to die.
There is no capital punishment in this country for trespass.
And folks wonder who is encouraging the killing of LEOS.
Griff Miller
>In article <3p4bbf$1d...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> vaw...@ibm.net
>writes:
>> 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?
--
Griff Miller | Amiga A2000, AmigaUUCP 1.17b4, WB2.1
Sysop, Final Approach BBS | Aviation Files & Discussion
(713)463-2960 | UUCP: texsys.com!finlapp!griff.miller
Mark Brown
>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.
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)?
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.
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.
cheers,
mark
--
Mark Brown | AIX Architecture | Civil Liberty
(512) 838-3926 | 11400 Burnet Rd M/S 9582 | Through
T/L 678-3926 | Austin, TX 78758 | Complex Mathematics!
mbr...@austin.ibm.com -or- MBROWN at AUSVM6 |
76275
>
>In <sheldon....@esoteric.agron.iastate.edu> she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>
>>In <3p5u6n$8...@ceylon.gte.com> Crankin' Carl <ca...@gte.com> writes:
>
>>>she...@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Yes. Vicky Weaver was murdered (i.e. there was no justification for
>>>> >shooting her whatsoever). The FBI agent was killed while he was
>>>> >committing a crime - thus his death was justified.
>>>>
>>>> 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 hateful remark up there about the FBI agent's death being justified.
>
>then, maybe you are one of those enlightened folks who thinks that no one
>in a uniform is capable of committing a crime. Seems there were a lot
>of people like you in Germany about 60 years ago.
>
>>>there to be accountability when they screw up as they did at Ruby
>>>Ridge.
>
>> Hmm, your living by a double standard here. You seem to think it's not ok
>>if law enforcement accidentally or purposefull kill citizens, but it IS OK
>>for citizens to kill law enforcement officers?
>
>clear and present threat to one's life, the assailant is fair game for
>whatever level of force is required to remove the threat. Again, are you
>one of those folks who thinks people in uniform are incapable of
>committing a crime?
>> I'm sorry, but while I think someone fucked up, I'm not so stupid as to
>>make assertions that someone "deserved to die" because they were doing their
>>job.
>
>
>>>You claim to be a "normal" American and insinuate that I'm not. Let
>>>me tell you about me. I have a BS in engineering and an MS in
>>>statistics from Iowa State. I am a successful professonal, and I live
>>>a clean life. The only time you need fear me is when you present
>>>yourself to me as a clear and present danger to my life.
>
>> Yes, a "normal" American does not condone the killing of law enforcement
>>agents. Us "normal" American's take our grievances to the authorities when
>>we see corruption or excessive abuse of the system.
>
>Such niceties are not always feasible, particularly when one is unjustly
>confronted with an immediate threat to one's survival.
>
>> Us "normal" Americans don't just decide to start shooting at federal
>>agents, or driving Ryder trucks up to Federal buildings loaded with
>>explosives.
>
>Agreed. Please tell me, who committed these vicious crimes?
>
>> How am I to know that my supporting of a hand gun registration law doesn't
>>somehow present a clear and present danger to your way of life, and I find a
>>bomb out in my car after work some night?
>
>Right. And here I was, thinking I was addressing someone with at
>least a modicum of intelligence and rationality.
>
>>>I think you owe me, and real normal Americans like me, an apology
>>>for your hateful remark.
>
>> No, you owe America an apology.
>
>I think you owe Carl and the rest of the decent Americans who post here
>an apology. But I won't hold my breath.
>
> *********************A.T.<lib...@panix.com>*********************
> *"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of*
> *ordinary Americans... When personal freedom's being abused, you*
> *have to move to limit it." -Core beliefs of William J. Clinton,*
> ******President and sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution******
> *****************************************************************
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.
john litteken
>
> In article <3p4bbf$1d...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> vaw...@ibm.net
> writes:
> 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.
>
Why is he the dangerous person? Why not the person shooting at him?
Are you saying that we should not return fire to a drive-by-shooting?
Getting the license number off of the stolen car that was envolved does
no good, as the police probably already have that number.
Should we meekly stand there while someone shoots at us? A lot of
Jews did that in Germany and it got them absolutely nothing, but dead.
Please, tell us what we should do?
John
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
76275,3...@compuserve.com wrote:
>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.
Was it really necessary to include 3 screens of quoted text with your
one-paragraph comment?
Steve Sheldon
>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.
Actually what I find is fascinating is that every time I see that poll
quoted the numbers change.
I've seen anywhere from 41%-59% depending on what point someone is trying
to make.
Anyway, I would have to agree, and would certainly respond in the positive
to that poll.
However, that doesn't mean that I believe that the United Nations had
500,000 troops stationed here in the US ready to take over, and they're
using the new road signs the DOT put up to help find their way around.
I just don't particularly care for the IRS and CIA is all. :)
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions] '95 Dodge Neon
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day '85 Honda Spree
she...@iastate.edu ProMap by night '91 Bridgestone MB5
BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
Kevin Langston
> Kevin Langston <lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>geral...@aol.com (GeraldM485) writes:
>
>> Vicki Weaver was killed because she fit the profile of Weaver's driving
>> force, and the FBI decided that changing the rules from only killing
>> when life was in immediate danger to "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em
>> out".
>
>
>What documentation do you have for this claim?
I'll quote two specific sources here. "weaver-trial" is a chronology
found on many rkba-related ftp sites. "NY Times" refers to an article
in the November 25, 1993 New York Times, entitled "F.B.I. Shaken by
Inquiry Into Idaho Siege". These are two I happen to have on-line.
One out of the American Rifleman is better reading, but isn't quoted
here. As always, I'll be happy to send any of these in reply to
polite requests. They range in size from 15K to 160K.
Something to keep in mind, the US Marshals had had Weaver and family
under surveillance for over 16 months before the shooting started, and
never attempted to knock on the door to talk.
My comments like this [KL: ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: weaver-trial]
Wednesday, June 2, 1993 was the thirty-first day of the trial.
[KL: The modified "rules of engagement" decided on by FBI's HRT during
the flight to Idaho, as entered into the court record]
"If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon
after the surrender announcement is made deadly force can and
should be employed to neutralize the individual.
"If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the
announcement deadly force can and should be employed if the shot
can be taken without endangering the children.
"If compromised by any dog the dog can be taken out."
"Any subjects other than R(andy Weaver), V(icki Weaver) &
K(evin Harris) presenting threat of death or grievous bodily harm
FBI rules of Deadly Force apply."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: NY Times]
The standard policy for virtually all law-enforcement agencies permits
law enforcement officials to use deadly force only if an agent or
someone else is facing imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
But as one F.B.I. sniper later put it, the change in the rules for
Idaho gave agents the green light to kill any armed adult male they
encountered on the mountain, even if he posed no immediate threat to
anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: weaver-trial]
Michael Weland, then-reporter for the _Bonners Ferry Herald_,
interviewed Randy Weaver in May, 1992. Weland, now a reporter
for the _Kootenai Valley Times_, said that Randy Weaver believed
he and his family were being persecuted for their religious
beliefs. Said Weland, "He [Randy Weaver] felt he was being
persecuted by a government that he felt was sinful and controlled
by Freemasons and Jews." According to Weland, Weaver also
revealed that he had considered surrendering to federal agents,
but that his family objected. Weland recalled Vicki Weaver
saying, "We won't let him go down."
After coming away from the cabin, Weland discussed his
impressions to an FBI agent developing a psychological profile of
the Weaver family. Weland told the agent that he believed Vicki
Weaver was the strongest member of the family. Presumably, this
means that she held the deciding factor in family decisions, but
this was not made explicit in the reports. Vicki Weaver was
killed by an FBI sniper the very next day - although the sniper
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[KL: something's wrong with this timeline]
later told a grand jury that he had been aiming at an armed man
running into the house and didn't see her standing behind an open
door when he fired. Defense attorney Gerry Spence then asked
Weland, "Did you anticipate that they [the federal government]
would separate them by killing Vicki?" Weland responded that he
didn't, but U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen objected immediately and
the objection was sustained. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
ordered the jury to ignore the question and the answer. Spence's
obvious implication was that killing Vicki Weaver might have been
a government strategy to eliminate the leader of the Weaver
family.
Weland, a Reserve Officer for the Idaho State Police, also told
the Marshal's Service about the Weavers and their beliefs of
persecution. When Weland suggested that they try and negotiate
with Weaver, Weland recalled being told by one agent, "We'll do
this in our own time, in our own place and in our own way. We're
the government, and we'll decide." [Incredible quote].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: NY Times]
On the cold, drizzling afternoon of Saturday Aug. 22 as agents
surrounded the Weaver cabin, 11 snipers took up positions.
Lon T. Horiuchi, a veteran agent, headed one of the highly trained
sniper teams. Mr. Horiuchi, a West Point graduate who is regarded as
one of the best shots in the F.B.I., testified that at about 6 P.M. he
saw three people leave the cabin, two adult men and one young woman. At
the time, no effort had been made by the F.B.I. to talk to Mr. Weaver,
a point that later left negotiators complaining bitterly.
[...],
Mr. Horiuchi testified that he had seen a man in his telescopic sight
approach a nearby shed and fired a single shot, striking Mr. Weaver.
He testified that he believed the man was going to shoot at the
helicopter. But defense lawyers disputed that account primarily on
forensic evidence that showed that the bullet had hit Mr. Weaver in the
back of his shoulder, a position that made it unlikely he was trying to
shoot at the helicopter. The lawyers said Mr. Weaver had simply been
going into the shed to see his dead son.
After the first shot, Mr. Horiuchi said, he saw the three run back to
the cabin. He followed another man through his telescopic sight as the
man sprinted toward the door. The sniper aimed his rifle slightly ahead
of his target so the man would, in effect, run into the bullet. He
fired as the man rushed through the cabin's opened door. "I decided to
neutralize that male and his rifle," Mr. Horiuchi later recalled.
The Weaver's teen-age daughter screamed, but the agents said they did
not know whether the shot had hit its target. In fact, the second shot
crashed through a door window through the skull of Mrs. Weaver, who was
standing behind it holding her young daughter. The bullet killed Mrs.
Weaver instantly, its fragments wounding Mr. Harris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: weaver-trial]
Thursday, June 3, 1993 was the thirty-second day of the trial.
Horiuchi, a four year veteran of the crack FBI sniper team, was
next to testify. Horiuchi, a former member of the U.S. military,
addressed both prosecution and defense attorneys as "sir." In
simplest terms, Horiuchi said that he did not mean to kill Vicki
Weaver and that her death was an accident. Horiuchi had taken up
a position about 200 feet from the cabin [this is the Statesman's
number - the video on KTVB showed the distance to be much
greater than this, perhaps more like 200 yards]. Horiuchi went
on to say that he believed that Kevin Harris was threatening a
helicopter carrying federal agents when he decided to fire. Just
as he fired, Horiuchi said that, "it looked like he [Kevin
Harris] was trying to jump through the doorway...I saw him react[
like he got punched in the side. He fell into the door."
Immediately after the shot, Horiuchi heard a woman screaming, a
scream that did not subside for about 20 seconds, after which it
abruptly stopped. Only later did he find that he had killed
Vicki Weaver. Horiuchi testified that via his rifle scope he
could see the open door of the cabin, but he could not see
through the window on the door because of the curtain.
KTVB carried some footage of a few photographs taken at the
scene. It is true that the cabin door had a curtain. However,
the curtains were pulled back and covered, at the time the photo
was taken, perhaps only half of the window area. Furthermore,
the curtains were sheer, and it seems difficult to believe that a
sniper could not have seen someone behind the doorway. Finally,
and perhaps most remarkably, the bullet passed through an area of
the window that was not covered by curtains at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[KL: NY Times]
[...]
In retrospect, several F.B.I. officials said in interviews, they
ultimately came to regard Mr. Weaver as a hapless malcontent who armed
his family and frightened his neighbors, but had withdrawn from
mainstream society rather than confront it. Despite his belligerent
talk, there is no evidence that he initiated any illegal conduct even
after his wife and son had been killed.
--
Kevin Langston
lang...@frontier.lonestar.org
"Envy is a powerful tool in the hand of a tyrant."
Kevin Langston
>He used no qualifiers --- no "all" either, but many of us take
>it as a blanket smear.
Then, logically, LaPierre is correct if ANY agents are acting as
he claims.
Doesn't it make more sense regarding an honest debate to weigh his
intentions than mere assumption?
Kevin Langston
><lang...@frontier.lonestar.org> writes:
>>
>> Oh, I get it, acknowledging that Weaver was acquitted of murder
>> is the same as being happy and pleased about Dugan's death.
>
>Then you obviously missed the gleeful part of the thread, and the fact
>that you are incorrect as to who was found not guilty of what.
Really? I just went back through the thread again, just on the off
chance I missed the gleeful part of it, and all I could find was
a reference to Degan's death being justified because he was committing
a crime. Given that the jury arrived at the same conclusion, specifically
that Harris had killed Degan in self-defense, and since you have already
announced elsewhere that you aren't playing with a full set of facts in
this case, perhaps you should investigate a little further before
digging yourself any deeper.
Fact: Harris's rifle was shown to be the rifle ballistically matching
the bullet which killed Degan.
Fact: Harris was acquitted of all charges.
Fact: Weaver was found guilty of failure to appear and violating bail.
That's all. Period. He was acquitted of the other charges.
So where exactly am I wrong?
john litteken
> Simplest solution, En? Shut up and obey - even if you think or know the
> government is wrong. Sieg Heil!! and all tht.
>
> Hmmm.... Did you vote in the last election? If you don't like what
> the government is doing, there's a lever in the voting booth to change
> it.
I have yet to see "None of the above" on any ballot. But I do vote for
the lesser of two evils.
John
john litteken
> 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.
John
john litteken
>
>
> 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
> 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.
John
john litteken
>
> >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.
John