Printable View
Here is a controversial topic for you guys. Was the wrong approach taken in siezing the Waco compound and in trying to arrest the Weaver family in Ruby Ridge. A recap of the Waco texas incident and Ruby ridge here are some links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
I remember both incidents quite clearly, but I'll read summaries just to refresh.
-back-
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it seems evident that the approaches chosen in these instances were ineffective, inefficient, and dangerous. Bear in mind, I do not speak here of the specific laws enforced; as well, I offer no new comments on gun control or the freedom of religion. Instead, I wish to focus on the effectiveness with which the law was attempted to be enforced.
Ideally, a law enforcement officer will not attempt to confront a suspect who is armed and appears willing to employ violent means to resist arrest. Instead, efforts should be made to catch the subject off-guard, unarmed, perhaps even asleep or unconscious. The exception to this is when public safety is at risk; at that time, an officer of the law is justifiable in placing himself and others at risk in an attempt to protect other members of the public.
In neither case was there sufficient justification for blockade or assault. There was no measurable threat to the public; innocents were not in immediate danger.
A more appropriate solution in the case of Randy Weaver would have been to send a pair of officers directly to the cabin; if the charges against him had merit, this would have been the appropriate course of action, and if they did not, there would have been no appreciable danger.
The Branch Davidian compound is another story. Allegations of child abuse, statutory rape, and weapons violations were serious matters, and it could be argued that there was an ongoing danger to the residents. However, as the leaders of the group were frequently absent from the compound, it would have been wiser to apprehend them at that time and execute the search warrent while the group was leaderless. Of course, this would have created some interesting legal problems with the evidence thus collected; however, it would have been worth some additional preparation to ensure the strict legality of both actions.
Several courts have ruled in favor of Randy Weaver and his family. In the situation in Waco, the residents seem to have violated several laws during the opening minutes of the standoff and subsequent use of force by law enforcement officers was arguably justifiable. Even so, the situations have in common that the plans for the apprehension of suspects were poorly conceived and executed.
I agree i think the casualty rate in the Waco Incident was too high. Many woman and children were killed that i would say were "Innoccent" and then Randy Weaver's daughter was shot. Were those avoidable i believe so especialy the death of the daughter at Ruby Ridge. Waco is harder to know. Using Armored vehicles seem a little excesive...
What happened?
Read the articles on Wikipedia. Incidentally, I think it was Weaver's son that got shot.
oh and it was his wife too
"As the three ran back to the house, Horiuchi fired again at Kevin Harris as he ran away, but this time hit Weaver's wife Vicki in the head as she held their 10-month-old daughter Elishiba at the door"
"In August 1995, the federal government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver."
Scary.
I'd like to take a moment to mention that I don't think the Weavers responded in the best possible way to the law enforcement officers. This being said, there are few people who would be in a similar situation that would respond in any better way; many of us would do far worse.
Law enforcement operations in general should be better planned and executed. In specific, of course, I'd like to propose that laws against "permissive" crimes are intrinsically flawed and ought not be enforced at all -- and, in general, that a lot of trouble can be avoided by full and open communication at the outset. In this instance, a simple letter would have avoided the whole problem.
I agree better communication needs to be addressed. In the weaver family case they told Randy the wrong court date. When Randy failed to appear a bench warrant was issued. The judge became aware of that the letter had the wrong date and still refused to reschuldue and pull the bench warrant. There were many blunders on both parties side that could have been avoided and the final outcome might have been diffrent.
Oddly, I was reading about both yesterday. I believe that the police response in both is justified.
It is easy for us to sit around and play arm-chair general (or in this case, sniper, or policeman). And whine on about how deadly the methods used by the police were.
A cop does not know if they will make it out of a situation alive. Remember, even a simple traffic stop can turn deadly. What really sickens me is that these people were effectively paid for killing a United States Marshal (or other member of the police force).
~John
I disagree the Weavers did not kill the Marshal it was the weavers friend Harris who fired the shots. And what would you do if an armed man dressed in camoflauge popped out of the bushes? They were paid for the death of Sammy Weaver and Vicki. They were also found NOT GUILTY and the rest were thrown out. The whole incident started with a land dispute with his nieghbor. The nieghbor lost and called the FBI, ATF, and police making allegations that proved to be false. It was a huge blunder for law enforcement.
I think more restraint by law enforcement/governemnt could have been show in both cases. It's not like there was some huge and immediate threat in both cases. It could have been taken much much slower in both cases and I feel that if it was then things would not have escalated the way they did. Ruby Ridge and Waco are hot topics among gun activists in the USA. Since I was an avid gun owner when I was in the states I have herd many many sides and arguments to both cases. But my opinion remains unchanged. And that is: There was no real immediate threat, thus law enforcement/government could have moved much much slower in both cases which would have helped things not to escalate the way they did.
Mr. Adams did make a good point - it's easy enough for us to tell them what they should have done.
In the Weaver case, though... it has become a teaching tool for the "how not to do it". Those who learn from it will not repeat the same mistakes. I'm told Waco has also been adapted in similar fashion, but I'm not absolutely certain.
Judges, however, will always be merely human. That's actually the goal of how they get put where they are in many countries - to be fallible and human. Justice is an artificial invention and has no intrinsic moral or ethical mandate; mercy is a real virtue and stands against justice - and that's a good thing. That's why judges are human. Alas, there's a price to that - they're also prey to the failures of humanity.
I was once tried and found guilty whilst I was in hospital, even though I had pleaded not guilty and written to the court asking for the case to be rescheduled.
I have also had a police officer pull his pistol and point it at my head from 6'' away. In that case, it was totally a mistaken identity. Then just to prove what a big man he was, he had his mates rip the interior out of my camper-van and scatter it on the ground to try and find something they could charge me for. (meanwhile, an armed robber was still on the loose and still is as far as I know)
The trouble with the police force, or the military, or any other "force" is that they attract the type of person who likes to have power over others and would rather use force than their brain. The term hired goon comes to mind whenever I see a uniform these days. The more disturbing trend is for the police or some other "force" to interfere with people who are not committing any crime, not suspected of committing any crime and probably never even contemplated committing any crime.
I believe that every police officer is at heart a murderous bully who itches for the day that they can pull the trigger and get away with it, just as every soldier thinks that killing is cool (psychopathic) and every petty bureaucrat is a reincarnation of Attila the Hun. Politicians lie to our faces as they steal our money and give themselves awards for not cleaning out the entire treasury. Sorry but my opinions on officialdom are quite jaded these days.
Topics like these are just inherently controversial, there isn't much of a middle ground. Yeah, the U.S. paramilitary forces committed murder. But the Weavers were not good people. You can't really justify Randy by saying, "Oh, he was just a freedom fighting member of the white supremacist movement that ran a little illegal gun modification shop." And Koresh, "he was a pretty cool guy, just had a little problem with raping preteen girls and pretending to be Jesus." I don't think the U.S. gov't feels any remorse for the way either situation played out. Both parties were given weeks to comply, and the rest of the world was left with the message: "It's perfectly fine to be crazy, but when you barricade yourself in and stockpile automatic weapons...that's just not cool."
I know a couple of good people that happen to also be cops. I also know a lot of true and utter inhuman brutes that happen to be cops.
As well, I'd observe that insanity can be a survival trait and is not to be underrated. Some of the best people are completely mad.
He wasnt a member of the white supremacist movement and the shotgun that was sold was legal. And even if the gun was was illegal and he was a member of a white supremacist group that does not justify killing a kid and Randy's wife. Remember this whole incident started with false information from Randy's neighbor who lost a 3,000 dollar land dispute and was ****ed off so he called the cops and made allegations.
Remember that The weaver's were found Not Guilty for all serious crimes and then aquited for the rest.
Waco is a diffrent story but i believe they could have done it in a way that would have minimized casualties. Many woman and children died in waco.
I disagree rodri i believe that some military an police officers have joined because they believe in helping protect a nation and help other people.(whether they are right or wrong or mislead.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
Bitter experience has taught me to distrust the police and I am a law abiding citizen! The thing is, I am not wealthy, so the police are not there to protect me. They are there to protect the rich from me and so in every interaction I have with police I know that I am a potential suspect, even if I am reporting a crime commited against me. I have heard police officers lie under oath to secure a conviction and I have heard police officers exagerate the facts of a case while giving evidence, to secure a harsher sentence because they think they have a right to do so.
The USA is a dangerous place because everyone is considered armed and dangerous by the police and that makes the police very dangerous if you run afoul of them. (this is not a gun control rant, it's just the facts) So people get shot by police and sometimes for no good reason. They even shoot people here sometimes. We used to joke about how the Victorian police would go Bang Bang - "Stop or I'll shoot!"
It never was a very funny joke.
We need some sort of law enforcement but I don't think we need a bunch of steroid pumped bully-boys running around with guns and a sense of impunity because they wear a badge.
No one said anything surrounding that situation justified killing his child and wife. I think you might have glazed over the part where I clearly said the U.S. paramilitary forces committed murder. It wasn't homicide, it wasn't manslaughter. It wasn't protecting and defending the citizens of the United States. It was murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
He may not have currently been a card carrying member of any such organization, but he had been in contact with an undercover gov't agent at activities held by such organizations in regards to performing illegal shotgun modifications, which he agreed to do before going into seculsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
No judgement was made by me on their guilt/innocence in regards to the breaking of any law, save for weapons modifications. The reason Randy was approached by the undercover agent was because he was known to be proficient at this activity. I simply said they were not good people. I find it very hard to come to the defense of someone that acts and thinks in the manner that this man, and as a result, his family did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
The gov't most definitely overreacted, but did so on purpose as a message to others like Randy.
I think it is generally agreed that the gov't forces initiated the gun fight, the initial evidence found on the front door was so damning that it had to be "accidentily misplaced". But the fire itself, the cause of the majority of the deaths, appears to have been started from inside the compound by members of the sect a la Jonestown. The crazed cult leader's control over his followers was about to be dealt a devestating blow by outside authority, the leader's last option to retain power was through the cleansing act of suicide. Of course, it's not suicide if you are forced at gun point to drink kool-aid or forcibly held down while a large fire is lit in a room you are barricaded inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
After the initial gun fire at Waco, I don't think much else could have been done in the way of getting Koresh to release his captives. Koresh personally knew several of the undercover agents, he KNEW they were agents, and had gone target practice shooting with them several times, the last being just days before the trouble escalated. They were in contact with him via phone after the lockdown of Mount Carmel, and Koresh was not going to give them what they wanted. Art Bell, from Coast to Coast AM (a show Koresh was known to listen to almost every night), had religious scholars on his radio program for days trying to communicate with Koresh and change his interpretation of certain passages of the Bible that Koresh believed told him that a) He was Jesus. b) He should lock himself and his followers away from the outside world, and c) When they finally come for him, they will all give their mortal bodies to the Lord.
But again, the gov't overreacted and the way they acted was intended as a message. Like I said in the post you responded to, these are just inherently controversial topics. In both situations, all parties involved were in the wrong. Unfortunately, in both situations, one of those parties was immensely better equipped and more powerful.
I'm not convinced that the unfortunate part was the solid equipment and power of the police.
There were human beings making dumb decisions involved. In general, I'd like to say that there's too much brainless and idiotic activity in law enforcement. People get hurt that don't need to. Laws are enforced that shouldn't be. Courts have the power to compel the presence of individuals and they use it without regard to the freedom and well-being of those individuals.
But... that's the legal system. And, overall, it's one of the better ones in history. It has the Roman republic beat, at least.
Well, yeah. Everything about both situations is unfortunate. I should have chosen my words a little more carefully, I was just trying to imply, like....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
If Randy and Koresh had platoons of trained mercenaries on their side, maybe the gov't forces wouldn't have been such big bullies or even had a message sent back to them through the death of a bunch of ATF guys and cops.
@Rodri I was going to mention it in my earlier post, but had to run. I have had the pleasure once of just destroying a police officer's credibility while under oath. ~2 years ago I was charged with a crime as a result of my vehicle being searched while the engine was not running and I was 50+ feet away. The officer wrote in his report, and later testified in court, that I had handed him my wallet. He claimed that while he was taking out my driver's license he found a "half-rolled marijuana cigarette," which he used as reasonable cause to search my car. Inside the trunk, he found more of the substance and charged with me 3 misdemeanors: possession, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under the influence.
I hired an attorney, who proved to be utterly useless. His suggestion was that I should agree to a plea with the prosecuting attorney which would reduce all three charges to citation for possession, lowering my fines from $2-3k to $250 and no risk of jail time. I had continually asked to view the video tape of the incident, and 4 times was sent blank CDs by the police department that they claimed had the video on it. On the day of my final court appearance, the prosecuting attorney personally walked over to offer me the plea before our case was heard before the judge. I say, "No. What the officer is saying is not true. When he asked for my ID I told him it was in the dashboard of my car, he opened my car door and took out the wallet without my permission."
My case was heard, I pleaded not guilty to the judge. The officer testified. I cited the recent Supreme Court case, Arizona v. Gant, and demanded that the video tape be shown in court. (My attorney, having done essentially nothing to help my case, had forced me to do my own research on search and seizure. Arizona v. Gant is a great read, Gant might be a scumbag but I highly recommend taking a look at it if you enjoy tales of the police overreacting and the common man fighting back and winning.) The prosecutor approached the bench, whispered to the judge, who said there would be a 5 minute break while he watched the video with the two attorneys in his chambers. 5 minutes later they returned, I was found not guilty and walked out of the courtroom with my head held high.
Illegally seized evidence can be returned, and I debated filing the paperwork to have mine given back to me. But since the evidence in this case is illegal in my state, I decided to not follow through since the police probably would have handed it back and then instantly arrested me.