NationStates Jolt Archive

If you live in white supremist compound, kill federal officers, and then use your family as a shield, you are a hero -- despite months of patience and many days of standoff.

If you are a Latino in LA, you and your kids are forfeit after a couple of hours.

Cops Shoot Baby Used As Shield (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355.shtml)

A toddler was shot and killed when her father used her as a shield in a gunbattle with police following an hours-long standoff, officials said. The man also died and an officer was wounded.

The man killed Sunday night after an hours-long standoff was identified as Jose Raul Lemos, and the girl, about 17 months old, was his daughter, police said. The SWAT officer, who was not identified, was shot in the shoulder and was expected to recover.

"He was using the baby as a shield," Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said.

Killing of Toddler Hostage in Shoot-Out Probed (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-071105toddler_lat,0,426545.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

ahh... but the real telling of the tale is what happens to that trigger happy SWAT officer.

It's sad when a doped up father uses his own child for a shield against police. :(

ahh... but the real telling of the tale is what happens to that trigger happy SWAT officer.

Have you read any of the news stories? They aren't even completely sure that it was a SWAT bullet and not one from the father's own gun that killed the child - they are still trying to find out. Meanwhile, protocol was followed by these police officers. The fact that a child got caught in the crossfire is entirely the fault of the father.

It's sad when a doped up father uses his own child for a shield against police. :(

Yes, it is. And it is even more sad when he does so, shoots at other people, gets his kid shot - and others try to blame the people being shot at for her death.

I'm going to assume you're kidding in trying to compare this situation to what happened at Ruby Ridge.

Under that assumption: sure, it sucks that the child died, but what could the police have done after the guy started shooting at them? Let him?

The only thing I blame the cops for is being pussies and not shooting him the first time he opened fire on them, before he got his baby and used it as a shield. As soon as he started firing they should have gone in and wasted his ass. Pussyfooting just gets people killed. Maybe that will teach those cops not to risk their lives and the lives of others for the sake of a criminal, especially one claimed to be neurotic by one that knew him.

If you live in white supremist compound, kill federal officers, and then use your family as a shield, you are a hero -- despite months of patience and many days of standoff.

1. Randy Weaver did not leave in a white supremacist compound. He lived alone with his family.

2. Randy Waver never killed even one federal officer. Kevin Harris killed one and was ruled innocent by the courts as he was acting in legitimate self-defense.

3.Randy Weaver never used his family as a shield.

4. The stand-off lasted ten days and began after Weaver's son and wife were murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver#Events

So yes, this situation is entirely different.

Have you read any of the news stories? They aren't even completely sure that it was a SWAT bullet and not one from the father's own gun that killed the child - they are still trying to find out. Meanwhile, protocol was followed by these police officers. The fact that a child got caught in the crossfire is entirely the fault of the father.



Yes, it is. And it is even more sad when he does so, shoots at other people, gets his kid shot - and others try to blame the people being shot at for her death.
Applogies, you are right, I didn't see the second link till after I posted. The first only reported that the child was shot in the shoulder.

While it doesn't state who shot the child, (tho it can be determined by the direction of the bullet, but I'll let them investigate first) I cannot blame the police entirely. after all, Pena (the father) was holding the child and randomly shooting his gun. (injuring one officer, and threatening others). that changes the situation entirely.

That's what I keep saying again and again and again: babies don't make good shields. To start with, they're small, so they won't even provide you with enough cover; on top of that they aren't very good at stoping or even deflecting bullets, so they're quite useless.

Now, a tree, a brick wall, a bunch of hostages, those make much better shields.

That's what I keep saying again and again and again: babies don't make good shields. To start with, they're small, so they won't even provide you with enough cover; on top of that they aren't very good at stoping or even deflecting bullets, so they're quite useless.

Now, a tree, a brick wall, a bunch of hostages, those make much better shields.

...I was going to combat this with some sort of witty reply, but I just can't find the words without being way too disgusting for this forum, not to mention losing all kinds of support for my thread series by suddenly upping myself ten notches on the asshole scale.

I am mixed on this issue, but it is stupidty on the father's part for using his own child as a shield.

Hmmm.... It seems the details aren't quite clear there. But from what i can tell, the situations were quite different;

The biggest initial difference I can see is that the articles you've posted imply that the suspect, Lopez, initiated the exchange of gunfire by firing on the police SWAT team.
At Ruby Ridge, the FBI initiated hostilities by firing unannounced on Weaver's son Sam, a family friend, and their dog, killing the son and dog. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi subsequently killed Weaver's unarmed wife under the FBI's "fire at will" rules of engagement.

If the LA SWAT team did indeed open fire unprovoved and when not in immediate danger, without announcing themselves. Furthermore, I doubt the LA SWAT team's rules of engagement were to "fire at will". If this was indeed a similar case, I would certainly be equally pissed off.

As it is, I will say the SWAT team certainly appears to have exercised bad judgement resulting in the death of an innocent. And that is, in and of itself, disgusting.

However, this appears to be, in my opinion, a stretch aimed at playing the "race" smear card. And that is also disgusting.

I see no purpose in making comparisons with Ruby Ridge and introducing social and political biases if they don't apply. The woman holding the baby at RR was unarmed in her doorway cradling the infant in her arms when it was shot.

I will reserve judgement on this until the facts are in - who shot the baby, for starters. If he was shot because he was a threat to the baby or others then it's a tough call, but one that has to be made by professionals.

Not every action ends well no matter how much they train. There will be an after-action report and unless there's reason to question it that should end it.

If I have any bias in this case it's toward the guy who put his baby and the police in this situation. They might not want me on the jury.

I see no purpose in making comparisons with Ruby Ridge and introducing social and political biases if they don't apply. The woman holding the baby at RR was unarmed in her doorway cradling the infant in her arms when it was shot.

I will reserve judgement on this until the facts are in - who shot the baby, for starters. If he was shot because he was a threat to the baby or others then it's a tough call, but one that has to be made by professionals.

Not every action ends well no matter how much they train. There will be an after-action report and unless there's reason to question it that should end it.

If I have any bias in this case it's toward the guy who put his baby and the police in this situation. They might not want me on the jury.
Thanks guys. As someone who was living in the area at the time of the trial and knowing some of the players involved (Gerry Spence for one, and the less looney locals anyway) I am glad you responded.

Yes, Randy was a nutburger, but Cat, being a nutburger hermit is no reason for the Feds to play Ninja. The two incidents aren't remotely comprable. Gerry put out a good book on the subject. It's called From Freedom to Slavery and is available on the Net HERE (http://www.ruby-ridge.com/gspence.htm). Note that Gerry didn't/doesn't even particularly like Randy or his brand of nuttyness... it is just obvious that he got royally screwed by an over zealous Fed operation.

That said, it looks like the LAPD corncobbed themselves again. We'll see.

Cat, you stepped on your (censored) with this one. You clearly Don't know the particulars of the Ruby Ridge case, and have let your own biases and agenda colour your perceptions.

Randy Weaver was a nutter, probably still is a nutter, but that doesn't excuse the Federal misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.

the difference here, is that the SWAT officers are likely to face disciplinary action, while the Feds at ruby Ridge did not, and will not.

... suddenly upping myself ten notches on the asshole scale.
Let me know if you need help doing this. I do it for myself quite well at times! :D

Well now, I don't know the particulars of Ruby Ridge, and as such can't comment. However, on this case, I'd like to speak up for the SWAT officers themselves, as it seems very few others will do so.

These men and women take decisions every day that may result in the death of a person, and they are trained to do so. They are put in extremely difficult situations that they must use their own judgement to deal with. Yes, it is a tragedy that the baby was killed, and I do not like it. However, we do not know the full details of what happened; perhaps we should do more to judge the father who used his own, innocent, child as a shield and hostage, and less the SWAT officer who was put in an extremely difficult situation and did his/her best.

Unless any of you have been a member of law enforcement/military, which I have not been, can you really judge this SWAT officer?

Let me know if you need help doing this. I do it for myself quite well at times! :D

Will do. ;)

If you live in white supremist compound, kill federal officers, and then use your family as a shield, you are a hero -- despite months of patience and many days of standoff.

If you are a Latino in LA, you and your kids are forfeit after a couple of hours.

Cops Shoot Baby Used As Shield (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355.shtml)



Killing of Toddler Hostage in Shoot-Out Probed (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-071105toddler_lat,0,426545.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
You're really working hard to find something controversial, huh? We're looking at some pretty big differences btw this and Ruby Ridge. When I get home and find some time, I'll make a better post of it.

its not ruby ridge because it was a drugged-out man having a bad day with the cops.




and because it only happened on sunday. it took years for ruby ridge to become RUBY RIDGE (or at least months)

Babies don't make that good of shields you know being less than half the size of a full grown man, you would think he couldve shot the guy somewhere else...

in comparing this shooting to Ruby Ridge.

There are obviously more differences than similarities between these situations. Vast differences and only surface similarities.

It did occur to me, however, that many would leap to the defense of law enforcement in this case (which I think is largely justified).

And that some of those same people go apeshit about Ruby Ridge (which is not justified).

My predictions have proved accurate.

No, going 'apeshit' over Ruby Ridge is perfectly justifed for the reasons I explained originally.

I'm going to assume you're kidding in trying to compare this situation to what happened at Ruby Ridge.

Under that assumption: sure, it sucks that the child died, but what could the police have done after the guy started shooting at them? Let him?

The only thing I blame the cops for is being pussies and not shooting him the first time he opened fire on them, before he got his baby and used it as a shield. As soon as he started firing they should have gone in and wasted his ass. Pussyfooting just gets people killed. Maybe that will teach those cops not to risk their lives and the lives of others for the sake of a criminal, especially one claimed to be neurotic by one that knew him.


You may be suprised that -- based on the available facts so far -- I pretty much agree with you.

But, part of the only reason I mentioned Ruby Ridge, is that I am curious as to if -- and why -- you would apply a different standard to that neurotic criminal that was threatening his neighbors and shooting at law enforcement.

Cat Tribe:

Randall Weaver never threatened any of his neighbors - nor did he shoot at any law enforcement. Thank you for participating.

You may be suprised that -- based on the available facts so far -- I pretty much agree with you.

But, part of the only reason I mentioned Ruby Ridge, is that I am curious as to if -- and why -- you would apply a different standard to that neurotic criminal that was threatening his neighbors and shooting at law enforcement.

maybe because one asshole was entrapped into being a criminal, didn't threaten his neighbors, and was fired upon by the police w/o them identifying themselves, then had his wife killed after the FBI commander issued orders against directive.
Copmpared to drugged up asshole opening fire on police initially and holding his baby while doing it.

I'm actually surprised the LA police were able to hit anything at all.

I love how people immediately form up in the lynch mob before having any sort of useful information to judge. Old habits die hard, I guess.

One of the news stories I saw yesterday seemed to imply that the SWAT team was moving into position at the back of the store when the suspect threw open the back door. This would have surprised both the team and the suspect, and it's clear the suspect responded by opening fire, and hitting one officer in the shoulder. If this is indeed the case, then the two groups would have been standing at fairly close quarters when the fit hit the shan, and at that range the suspect would have killed several officers had they not responded with lethal force.

IF THIS IS TRUE, then the officers responded the only way the possibly could have. There would simply be no time to take an aimed shot to miss the baby and incapacitate the suspect, even if such a shot were available. And in a situation that happens so quickly, officers will respond according to their training. When lethal force is necessary, that training is to aim for center of mass and kill.

Of course, we the public have only sketchy details at best, so we don't know how much truth the above scenario actually holds. Time will tell. I'm sure this story will get plenty of public scrutiny over the coming years, since it seems obvious that the family is intent on pursuing civil action against the city.

This is in no way the same as Ruby Ridge. CT Im actually suprised you would draw this parallel. It is clear in the story that the suspect engaged the police in a shootout several times. It is extremely sad that his daughter was killed. I am certain that they did not want to do this. Being one that has shot at another human being to try and kill them in a gun battle. I can say that even in a war situation if I would have killed a child I would be absolutely devastated. However I was fortunate enough not to be in that situation. Shooting at other tanks in the desert prevented that. But this is no comparison to Ruby Ridge at all.

And that some of those same people go apeshit about Ruby Ridge (which is not justified).

My predictions have proved accurate.

You drew a parallel between RR and this incident. The circumstances are clearly different. Then you accuse people of going "apeshit" when they dispute your inference with fact - not to mention veiled reference to "predictions". What gives?

in comparing this shooting to Ruby Ridge.

There are obviously more differences than similarities between these situations. Vast differences and only surface similarities.

It did occur to me, however, that many would leap to the defense of law enforcement in this case (which I think is largely justified).

And that some of those same people go apeshit about Ruby Ridge (which is not justified).

My predictions have proved accurate.
Alas, I seem to have squandered my chance to appear reactionary by staying late at work. Maybe I can redeem myself with a post based on my recollections, rather than hard facts.

If I recall, the Weaver family retreated to rural Idaho to escape civilization and wait for Armageddon. I think that's supposed to happen in Israel, but that just shows the weakness of a public school system separated from religion. Anyhow, the Weavers are happily living in Ruby Ridge, but Randy gets greedy or stupid. He sells some sawed off shotguns to an undercover BATF agent that he met at an Aryan Nations meeting. Idaho seems to attract a lot of weirdoes, doesn't it? Anyway, this BATF agent badgers Randy into selling the guns. And thus the indictment, the standoff, the murder, and so on, until Randy was acquitted of all charges except failure to appear in court.

Yes, I'd say there is a vast difference between what happened in Ruby Ridge and what happened in East LA. I think the only similarity is that a baby was killed in each case.

Bad day on the beach Cat?

Not defending the comparison between the two situations but:

1. Randy Weaver did not leave in a white supremacist compound. He lived alone with his family.

Weaver admitted membership to the Aryan Nation, attended three Aryan Nation "World Congress" meetings, sold allegedly illegal weapons at a Aryan Nations meeting, and was wearing an Aryan Nation belt buckle when originally arrested. His family was nothing but adamant white supremists who were actively resisting the government in their remote mountain house.

There is a difference, but the distinction is minimal.

2. Randy Waver never killed even one federal officer. Kevin Harris killed one and was ruled innocent by the courts as he was acting in legitimate self-defense.

Kevin Harris did, and he was aquitted more on the discovering of the prosecutions screw ups than on his own actions.

3.Randy Weaver never used his family as a shield.

Randy Weaver armed his family in an attempt to actively and violently fight the government. His wife and son were killed because of this.

4. The stand-off lasted ten days and began after Weaver's son and wife were murdered.

Sammy Weaver was killed while Randy Weaver was resisting an outstanding warrant, and Vicki Weaver was shot at the beginning of the actual stand-off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver#Events

That is a very biased and brief account of events.

sold allegedly illegal weapons at a Aryan Nations meeting,

I like "allegedly"



Kevin Harris did, and he was aquitted more on the discovering of the prosecutions screw ups than on his own actions.

According to you. According to even the Federal Marshals Service own after-action report, the Federal Marshals both opened fire first and did so in an illegitimate fashion. Kevin Harris was acting in self-defense.

Quote:
3.Randy Weaver never used his family as a shield.


Randy Weaver armed his family in an attempt to actively and violently fight the government. His wife and son were killed because of this.

Which is why I suppose his wife was unarmed and his son was armed with a .22LR rifle which is clearly not a weapon of any effectiveness.

Sammy Weaver was killed while Randy Weaver was resisting an outstanding warrant,
No, he was refusing to show up to court summons - later it turned out he was not notified of the proper date.

and Vicki Weaver was shot at the beginning of the actual stand-off.


Which is what I said.

Weaver admitted membership to the Aryan Nation, attended three Aryan Nation "World Congress" meetings, sold allegedly illegal weapons at a Aryan Nations meeting, and was wearing an Aryan Nation belt buckle when originally arrested. His family was nothing but adamant white supremists who were actively resisting the government in their remote mountain house.

There is a difference, but the distinction is minimal.

Quote:
2. Randy Waver never killed even one federal officer. Kevin Harris killed one and was ruled innocent by the courts as he was acting in legitimate self-defense.


Kevin Harris did, and he was aquitted more on the discovering of the prosecutions screw ups than on his own actions.

Quote:
3.Randy Weaver never used his family as a shield.


Randy Weaver armed his family in an attempt to actively and violently fight the government. His wife and son were killed because of this.

Quote:
4. The stand-off lasted ten days and began after Weaver's son and wife were murdered.


Sammy Weaver was killed while Randy Weaver was resisting an outstanding warrant, and Vicki Weaver was shot at the beginning of the actual stand-off.



That is a very biased and brief account of events.

You do realize that it was recommended at the time that the person who killed Ricky be prosecuted?

You may be suprised that -- based on the available facts so far -- I pretty much agree with you.

But, part of the only reason I mentioned Ruby Ridge, is that I am curious as to if -- and why -- you would apply a different standard to that neurotic criminal that was threatening his neighbors and shooting at law enforcement.
I was wondering why you were taking the stance it seemed you were taking. :D

Glad to see you didn't develop an "Ebil Twin" :D

I like "allegedly"

That is what it was, alleged. I don't know who sawed off the guns. However, Weaver never gave the courts the opportunity to decide.

According to you. According to even the Federal Marshals Service own after-action report, the Federal Marshals both opened fire first and did so in an illegitimate fashion. Kevin Harris was acting in self-defense.

I would like to see this because according to the DOJ report:

1. Marshall Cooper testified that the first shot was fired by Kevin Harris at Marshall Degan. All of them testified that a high caliber shot was fired first. Harris and Weaver were the only one's who had high caliber weapons.

2. All of the accounts, by Harris, Weaver, and the Marshalls state that the Sam Weaver fired the first shot at the Marshalls following the killing of the dog.

3. Harris's recounting of the events at the Y are disputed by physical evidence.

Which is why I suppose his wife was unarmed and his son was armed with a .22LR rifle which is clearly not a weapon of any effectiveness.

His wife was killed mistakenly when she was aiding Weaver, Harris, and Sara while they were all armed. And you are telling me that he sent his son out to the Y just so that he could be killed?

No, he was refusing to show up to court summons - later it turned out he was not notified of the proper date.

I don't even know if he ever got the notification. His lawyer made the typo and sent it to him in a note that requested returned contact. The lawyer did not hear from Weaver in response to that letter, nor did he make contact with Weaver from that letter on. The fact that Weaver made no attempt to contact his lawyer after he was araigned, and the opinion of several law enforcement officials that he planned to not show up for court leads me to believe that he had no intentions of showing up anyways.

And he was under a bench warrant for his arrest.

I'm going to assume you're kidding in trying to compare this situation to what happened at Ruby Ridge.

Under that assumption: sure, it sucks that the child died, but what could the police have done after the guy started shooting at them? Let him?

The only thing I blame the cops for is being pussies and not shooting him the first time he opened fire on them, before he got his baby and used it as a shield. As soon as he started firing they should have gone in and wasted his ass. Pussyfooting just gets people killed. Maybe that will teach those cops not to risk their lives and the lives of others for the sake of a criminal, especially one claimed to be neurotic by one that knew him.

Whilst I agree with everything else, I've never heard of neuroticism making anyone kill anyone. I've heard it blamed on schizophrenia, depression, and plenty of others, but never that.

Just a thought, why should Weaver's political views have anything to do with justifying the murders? Free society and all that.

If you like his views he's a martyr, if you don't he deserved what he got?

They tried to railroad this guy.

From the narrative linked below:

"The trial in 1993 clears Weaver of all serious charges, and the trial judge forcefully reprimands the FBI and BATF agents for their tactics. During the trial, FBI agent Greg Rampton, who had cooperated closely with the Texas GOP during the 1990 investigation of Democrat Jim Hightower, is found to have tampered with evidence at the scene -- Rampton placed a Ruger shell in Weaver's yard in an attempt to manufacture evidence against Weaver. Rampton was also forced to admit on the witness stand that he and other FBI agents had "recreated" the crime scene in photographs they had presented as evidence; agents had removed shell casings before cameras could record their placement, and later placed them in different positions more likely to prove Weaver's guilt and then shot photos. When this comes out towards the end of the trial, the FBI's case against Weaver, already shaky, collapses...
After the trial, defense lawyer Gerry Spence tells the press, "A jury today has said that you can't kill somebody just because you wear badges, then cover those homicides by prosecuting the innocent. What are we going to do now about the deaths of Vicki Weaver, a mother who was killed with a baby in her arms, and Sammy Weaver, a boy who was shot in the back?" Weaver will later win $3.1 million in civil damages from the government. A 1995 investigation by the Senate will be highly critical of the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a4EPwPHWueIJ:www.iraqtimeline.com/1992.html+sawed+off+randy+weaver+sold&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Just a thought, why should Weaver's political views have anything to do with justifying the murders? Free society and all that.

If you like his views he's a martyr, if you don't he deserved what he got?

They tried to railroad this guy.

It has nothing to do with his views, it has everything to do with the fact that he resisted the justice system at every step of the way.

If he wants to be a lunatic and put his entire family and jeopardy I have no sympathy for him.

It has nothing to do with his views, it has everything to do with the fact that he resisted the justice system at every step of the way.

If he wants to be a lunatic and put his entire family and jeopardy I have no sympathy for him.

Ok. But didn't the justice system clear him and award him $3.1 million? Despite his views, unpopular as they are? I'm thinking the system worked.

Ok. But didn't the justice system clear him and award him $3.1 million? Despite his views, unpopular as they are? I'm thinking the system worked.

I think that has more to do with the reactionary public that followed it. If the FBI and prosecution hadn't fucked up so much after the events of Ruby Ridge he wouldn't have gotten anything, and very likely would have been Spence's first losing big money case.

Thanks guys. As someone who was living in the area at the time of the trial and knowing some of the players involved (Gerry Spence for one, and the less looney locals anyway) I am glad you responded.

Yes, Randy was a nutburger, but Cat, being a nutburger hermit is no reason for the Feds to play Ninja. The two incidents aren't remotely comprable. Gerry put out a good book on the subject. It's called From Freedom to Slavery and is available on the Net HERE (http://www.ruby-ridge.com/gspence.htm). Note that Gerry didn't/doesn't even particularly like Randy or his brand of nuttyness... it is just obvious that he got royally screwed by an over zealous Fed operation.

That said, it looks like the LAPD corncobbed themselves again. We'll see.

I've made clear my reference to Ruby Ridge was semi-facetious and partly an experiment. I'll respond to that more later.

I'm impressed to learn you know Gerry Spence. He was a long-time hero of mine. I own copies of all but a couple of his books -- and I have read all of his books, including the couple I don't own. I have met him on a few occasions, we know a few people in common, and he spoke at my law school.

My copy of From Freedom to Slavery is on the shelf right next to me -- although it is the hardback copy and has only a very short portion re Randy Weaver. I read the additional chapters from the paperback edition you linked with interest.

Of course, despite my high regard for Mr. Spence, I also take his version with a grain of salt. Mr. Spence is an awesome defense attorney. The tale he spins of Randy Weaver is him at his best storytelling mode. Most of the "facts" he stakes are simply the defense's position -- some being merely one way of looking at the evidence and some being either completely unsupported by (or even contradicted by) the evidence.

I do find it interesting that people turn to Mr. Spence's version of events as if it were authoritative. Most of the time, people have utter contempt for defense attorney's. We had people here litterally celebrating the death of Johnny Cochran. I am more inclined to believe Mr. Spence that I think most people would be -- in any other case.

I am also curious as to the degree to which you agree with practically anything else Mr. Spence has written. Even just taking From Freedom to Slavery, I would think you would have strong objections to much of Mr. Spence's assertions.

Anyway, I am jealous that you know Mr. Spence. Give him a big kiss for me. ;)

Cat, you stepped on your (censored) with this one. You clearly Don't know the particulars of the Ruby Ridge case, and have let your own biases and agenda colour your perceptions.

Randy Weaver was a nutter, probably still is a nutter, but that doesn't excuse the Federal misconduct that resulted in the deaths of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.

the difference here, is that the SWAT officers are likely to face disciplinary action, while the Feds at ruby Ridge did not, and will not.

Meh.

The analogy to Ruby Ridge struck me when I was in an odd mood. In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Just to explain, I thought it likely that many that will easily dismiss this shooting and blame the criminal would also immediately jump to the defense of Mr. Weaver and his conduct. (And, probably, vice versa.) That amuses me.

To be honest, I know fuck-all about the recent shooting of the baby in LA other than what is contained in the two articles I linked.

BUT -- although I admit the analogy was a very facile one at best -- I do know a great deal about Ruby Ridge and what occurred there.

(All of the following is obviously unprovable. Take it for what you will.)

I was living within an hour or two of Ruby Ridge at the time of the events that occurred there.

Mr. Weaver and his exploits were a subject of reporting long before the shootout. Particularly given the closeness to where I was living and the Aryan Nations compound, I followed the story closely in both the local and national news.

I have met and talked about the matter with people that were at Ruby Ridge.

One of my relatives was on the Weaver jury. And I attended a couple days of the trial. I had the opportunity to briefly discuss the case with one of the defense team lawyers. I also discussed the case at length with someone who attended most of the trial and who discussed the case with some of the defense lawyers, including Mr. Spence.

I working for the federal appellate court system when the Lon Horiuchi appeals cames up.

I have read many accounts of the whole affair, including Mr. Spence's, the DOJ report, and the Senate Committee report.

Again, the comparison was mostly a joke and an experiment.

But, feel free to test my "ignorance" of Ruby Ridge. I do know a tad about it. (I have also been there.)

But, feel free to test my "ignorance" of Ruby Ridge. I do know a tad about it. (I have also been there.)

I'll take you at your word.
Since you asked for it... ;)
A simple one: Did the Weavers actually live at Ruby Ridge? :D
(Even if you weren't there, the answer'd show what you know about it - or are willing to look up. ;))

I've made clear my reference to Ruby Ridge was semi-facetious and partly an experiment. I'll respond to that more later.

I'm impressed to learn you know Gerry Spence. He was a long-time hero of mine. I own copies of all but a couple of his books -- and I have read all of his books, including the couple I don't own. I have met him on a few occasions, we know a few people in common, and he spoke at my law school.

My copy of From Freedom to Slavery is on the shelf right next to me -- although it is the hardback copy and has only a very short portion re Randy Weaver. I read the additional chapters from the paperback edition you linked with interest.

Of course, despite my high regard for Mr. Spence, I also take his version with a grain of salt. Mr. Spence is an awesome defense attorney. The tale he spins of Randy Weaver is him at his best storytelling mode. Most of the "facts" he stakes are simply the defense's position -- some being merely one way of looking at the evidence and some being either completely unsupported by (or even contradicted by) the evidence.

I do find it interesting that people turn to Mr. Spence's version of events as if it were authoritative. Most of the time, people have utter contempt for defense attorney's. We had people here litterally celebrating the death of Johnny Cochran. I am more inclined to believe Mr. Spence that I think most people would be -- in any other case.

I am also curious as to the degree to which you agree with practically anything else Mr. Spence has written. Even just taking From Freedom to Slavery, I would think you would have strong objections to much of Mr. Spence's assertions.

Anyway, I am jealous that you know Mr. Spence. Give him a big kiss for me. ;)It's been a long time - and it was mostly my family, so I guess "know" in this sense is a fairly loose term. I grew up in Wyoming (before Silkwood) and my father had occasion to consult with him (in 1978? IIRC). In a State with roughly 250,000 people you get to know/meet most everyone of prominence (and not a few unprominent ones... not too long ago I was in Mississippi and ran into a guy who turned out to be someone who grew up in Rock Springs (131 miles from my hometown) and remembered competing against me in HS sports...). Last time I emailed Gerry though (2003), he rememberd me.

There are many (many) things about Gerry's style and politics that I have issues with, but on the balance he knows which side of a prominent case (A) holds the high ground and (B) is winable.

My biggest problem with Gerry is the same problem I have with our suithappy culture in general (for which I partly blame him...) - multizillion dollar "jackpots" that are supposedly paid by the "deep pocket" defendant (like they have a personal bank account) but really come out of my pocket in the form of higher prices and/or taxes.

You were living in Spokane (or Cd'A)? Depending on your circle, we might have crossed paths. I lived there from 1995-2003.

Meh.

The analogy to Ruby Ridge struck me when I was in an odd mood. In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Just to explain, I thought it likely that many that will easily dismiss this shooting and blame the criminal would also immediately jump to the defense of Mr. Weaver and his conduct. (And, probably, vice versa.) That amuses me.

To be honest, I know fuck-all about the recent shooting of the baby in LA other than what is contained in the two articles I linked.

BUT -- although I admit the analogy was a very facile one at best -- I do know a great deal about Ruby Ridge and what occurred there.

(All of the following is obviously unprovable. Take it for what you will.)

I was living within an hour or two of Ruby Ridge at the time of the events that occurred there.

Mr. Weaver and his exploits were a subject of reporting long before the shootout. Particularly given the closeness to where I was living and the Aryan Nations compound, I followed the story closely in both the local and national news.

I have met and talked about the matter with people that were at Ruby Ridge.

One of my relatives was on the Weaver jury. And I attended a couple days of the trial. I had the opportunity to briefly discuss the case with one of the defense team lawyers. I also discussed the case at length with someone who attended most of the trial and who discussed the case with some of the defense lawyers, including Mr. Spence.

I working for the federal appellate court system when the Lon Horiuchi appeals cames up.

I have read many accounts of the whole affair, including Mr. Spence's, the DOJ report, and the Senate Committee report.

Again, the comparison was mostly a joke and an experiment.

But, feel free to test my "ignorance" of Ruby Ridge. I do know a tad about it. (I have also been there.)


;) Ah! I apologize, I didn't recognize a fishing expedition. (lack of sleep.)
It's not nice to make me doubt your sanity or Knowledge, Cat, even as a joke.
The Los-Angeles thing is ugly, but it's not "entrap-then-surround-with-full-Federal Power". The Federal Agents "announced" their presence by playing "Ninjas" and shooting a goddamned Dog. (NOT how you announce you're here to serve a warrant...) They then proceeded to discard ROE that have worked for decades in favour of playing cowboy.

I tend to believe Gerry Spence's version of events more than the Federal version for one reason: the Feds in the Ruby Ridge case admitted to tampering with Evidence and altering reports. (though I could also point out that the "Arsenal" displayed by ATF officers in press releases was pathetic for fighting people, but adequate for a subsistence-hunting lifestyle.)

Evidence tampering is something known as "Obstruction of Justice" when a non-Fed does it.

I think that has more to do with the reactionary public that followed it. If the FBI and prosecution hadn't fucked up so much after the events of Ruby Ridge he wouldn't have gotten anything, and very likely would have been Spence's first losing big money case.

The "Reactionary Public" that followed happened mainly because of Federal Misconduct. It was and is wholly appropriate. It also didn't save the ten or so surviviors of Waco from getting upwards of ten years apiece in Federal Pen. If the Charges were legit, the Feds wouldn't have lost the conviction at Ruby Ridge.

I think it's interesting that you make an odd distinction involving who fired first. The agent fired on the dog-where were Sammy and Kevin in relation to this? RIght nearby. Situationally, the thinking would rightly be that the dog was merely the first of three-someone in their situation would have to have superhuman powers of judgement to assume the dog was first, but they were not next. AFAIK, harris wasn't superhuman, and we saw what happened to sam.
IOW: Killing The Dog WAS the first shot!!! The Agents did NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES prior to opening fire. Instead, they killed the dog, which announced an attack by forces-as-yet-unknown. Kevin and Sammy responded appropriately by returning fire.
it was, after all, not hunting season, and none of the Agents were in Blaze-orange vests, so it couldn't even be covered as a hunting accident.

I'll take you at your word.
Since you asked for it... ;)
A simple one: Did the Weavers actually live at Ruby Ridge? :D
(Even if you weren't there, the answer'd show what you know about it - or are willing to look up. ;))

I certainly wasn't at Ruby Ridge itself at the time.

I was living in Moscow, Idaho which is about 150 miles from from Ruby Ridge. (Distance is much shorter as the crow flies, but we are talking winding mountain roads here and some major rivers. Nothing remotely close to a straight shot.)

Although I know there is information to the contrary on the web, the answer is: yes, the Weaver's lived "at Ruby Ridge."

I was born and raised in Idaho.

Let us be clear that the Weavers lived out in the middle of BFE. Rocky Mountain Wilderness. Not to far from the continental divide.

The Weaver's lived on a ridge near Ruby Creek near Naples, Idaho in Boundary County. The entire county is about 1300 square miles with a population of under 10,000 people. I'm not sure how many people lived in Naples at the time. Somewhere around 1,000, but that includes alot of the rural area. The nearest town is about 10 miles away at Bonner's Ferry, with about 2,500 people. About 22 miles away is the more substantial town of Sandpoint, with about 6-7,000 people.

Coeur D'Alene, with a current population of over 35,000, is the nearest significant Idaho city. (At the time, I think it was the 5th largest city in the state).

The nearest real city was Spokane, Washington. Spokane is about 100 miles from Naples and has/had a population of 150,000 - 200,000 people

I add all this for a few reasons:

1. Either I know a bit about Idaho geography or I looked it up.

2. The area is sparsely populated and the major papers in the region are based in Spokane, Moscow, and Coeur D'Alene. Any significant news for that entire region is well-reported in all three. I was subscribing to both the Spokane and Moscow papers at the time.

3. Because you are in a very sparsely populated mountainous area with tons of ridges, peaks, valleys, creeks, etc., placenames are not as rigid as you might think.

The area where the Weaver's lived was known as Ruby Ridge by locals long before the "Ruby Ridge" incident. It is near Ruby Creek and the Ruby Ridge official trail. What you might mean more precisely about "did the Weavers actually live at Ruby Ridge," I can only imagine.

By the way, I have seen more than one internet site claiming (a) there is no such place as Ruby Ridge, (b) that the Weaver's didn't live near Ruby Ridge, or (c) that the Weaver's actually lived on "Caribou Ridge." These are all utter bullshit.

<snip> I was living in Moscow, Idaho which is about 150 miles from from Ruby Ridge. (Distance is much shorter as the crow flies, but we are talking winding mountain roads here and some major rivers. Nothing remotely close to a straight shot.) <snip>
Oh well. Unless you happened to go to Summerstar in 2001 we probably never crossed paths then.

I apologize for the ill-thought parallel. Again, the parallel was meant primarily to provoke and was not particularly serious.

What I was thinking about was what I thought the difference in people's reactions to some publicly reported crimes/law enforcement incidents. I should have made that clear and I should have done so in a less inflammatory way.

I do find it interesting -- and consistent with what I expected -- that people jump to the defense of Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, et al even though they (a) normally accept police versions of events like the shooting to which I originally referred, (b) usually assume those who are arrested and villified in the media are guilty, and (c) even believe that many other high-profile people who are acquitted are still guilty. (Note: Randy Weaver was acquitted on the most serious charges, but was convicted on two counts and served time in prison).

(NOTE: I am using "people" and "they" in the absolute most generic sense possible. I am not even saying people in this thread.)

Having started a discussion of Randy Weaver, however, I will gladly discuss the topic.

1. Randy Weaver did not leave in a white supremacist compound. He lived alone with his family.

I was overgeneralizing and not strictly accurate, but your impression isn't either.

Depends on what you mean by compound. It was not an Aryan Nations or Waco type fortress.

He did live in a secluded cabin in the middle of BFE with his family and Kevin Harris. They were heavily armed. The family did actively guard the home and land from intruders -- including patrolling the road up the mountain that led not only to the Weaver's home, but to that of several neighbors.

Weaver et al were virulent apocalyptic white supremicists. He had many ties to white supremicist groups in the area -- particularly the Aryan Nations.

2. Randy Waver never killed even one federal officer. Kevin Harris killed one and was ruled innocent by the courts as he was acting in legitimate self-defense.

Again, you are correct that my off-the-statement was not strictly accurate.

Who shot who has never been very clearly determined. Harris was suspected of being the one who shot Deputy Marshall Degan.

Harris was acquitted of murder. (We had an interesting debate after the Michael Jackson trial with me being one of the only people arguing that an acquittal means you are innocent.) Although self-defense was one of several defense arguments, we do not know why the jury acquitted him.

Because he was acquitted, Harris is innocent of murder. It does seem most probable that he killed the officer.

Although some would blame the ATF, the whole situation was caused by Weaver and his activities.

Weaver certainly shot at law enforcement officers on several occasions.

He also threatened the lives of law enforcement officers on several occasions.

But he did not directly kill any federal agents. You are correct.

3.Randy Weaver never used his family as a shield.

In the literal hold-up-the-child-as-a-shield sense, no. He did not.

In the "I know there are warrants for my arrest but you will have to kill me and my family to arrest me" sense, yes. Yes, he did.

4. The stand-off lasted ten days and began after Weaver's son and wife were murdered.

The actual stand-off from the time of the shooting of Deputy Marshall Degan until the surrender of Mr. Weaver lasted from August 21, 1992 to August 30, 1992 -- about 10 days.

But that was far from the start of the matter.

Not even counting Mr. Weaver's run-ins with the FBI and local authorities during the 1980s, the first warrant for Mr. Weaver's arrest was issued in 1990.

Because of the public threats of Mr. Weaver and the encampment of his family, the ATF used great caution in trying to arrest Mr. Weaver. They finally tricked him by acting as stranded motorists and arrested him in January 1991.

Weaver was released with a February 19, 1991 trial date. He failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Between March 1991 and August 1992, the US Marshalls undertook a series of efforts to convince Weaver to surrender. They tried various intermediaries.
(They had an additional difficulty in that communications with Weaver should have been through his attorney, but Weaver refused to speak to him -- and even threatened him.)

When the shooting incident occurred in which Deputy Marshall Weaver, Sammy Weaver, and Striker (the dog) were killed, the marshalls were merely trying to conduct surveillance as part of trying to figure out how to arrest Weaver without endangering anyone else. That plan clearly failed -- to everyone's regret.

Regardless, the affair lasted a tad longer than 10 days. The authorities exercised months, even years, of patience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver#Events

Wikipedia is sometimes a useful, if limited source of information.

Sometimes its reports are terribly inaccurate.

That particular report is laughably ridiculous. It is extremely biased. Has some information flatly wrong and omits some information. Thank you for calling it to my attention. I will have to think about filing a complaint.

So yes, this situation is entirely different.

Agreed. As I said, the reference was not a good idea.

Again, what I was thinking about was what I thought the difference in people's reactions to some publicly reported crimes/law enforcement incidents. Although some of that can be attributed to concrete differences, some of that is based on personal prejudices and politics.

Oh well. Unless you happened to go to Summerstar in 2001 we probably never crossed paths then.

Nope.

I lived in Moscow from about 1987 to 1998. (Although I was gone some years and some summers during that time.)

I've been back to Moscow and Spokane a few times since then.

I did visit Spokane frequently, so we may have seen each other. Who knows?

The "Reactionary Public" that followed happened mainly because of Federal Misconduct. It was and is wholly appropriate. It also didn't save the ten or so surviviors of Waco from getting upwards of ten years apiece in Federal Pen. If the Charges were legit, the Feds wouldn't have lost the conviction at Ruby Ridge.

Weaver WAS convicted on the original charge that he was initially charged with. Weaver WAS planning on skipping his court date, as he refused to speak with his attorney, and made only one contact with his parole officer, all the while leaving addresses and phone numbers that he could not be reached at. The Weaver Family WAS a radical and violent anti-government family, who was well armed, and who expressed and followed through with their intent to die fighting the government.

The government was justified in using deadly force to apprehend Weaver, and I have no sympathy for Weaver, his son, or his wife as they got what they said they wanted.

I think it's interesting that you make an odd distinction involving who fired first. The agent fired on the dog-where were Sammy and Kevin in relation to this? RIght nearby. Situationally, the thinking would rightly be that the dog was merely the first of three-someone in their situation would have to have superhuman powers of judgement to assume the dog was first, but they were not next. AFAIK, harris wasn't superhuman, and we saw what happened to sam.
IOW: Killing The Dog WAS the first shot!!! The Agents did NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES prior to opening fire. Instead, they killed the dog, which announced an attack by forces-as-yet-unknown. Kevin and Sammy responded appropriately by returning fire.
it was, after all, not hunting season, and none of the Agents were in Blaze-orange vests, so it couldn't even be covered as a hunting accident.

Since when are people justified in killing a person who killed their pet? Try it if someone ever intentionally kills an animal of yours and see how far you get in court.

Also, all of these statements are the accounted for by the defense, who actually did not testify in court. The six federal agents who did testify had stories that contradict these points:

1. The agents say that they identified themselves as federal agents upon their first encounter with Harris and the younger Weaver. They say that, upon hearing the announcement Harris openned fire on Degan killing him.

Harris and R. Weaver, who, like I said, did not testify, had differing accounts on this point, with Weaver saying that one of the marshalls called out "Freeze, Randy", and Harris claiming they said nothing.

2. The agents also claim that the dog was not the first shot, that the shot killing Degan, and the resulting shots from Degan and Cooper were prior to Roderick's killing of the dog.

3. Randy said that, when he heard "Freeze Randy", that he thought it was a ZOG (the Jew controlled government that he hated) ambush. He yelled to Harris and Sam that it was a ZOG ambush. Harris also said that he assumed it was agents of ZOG. It would be ludicrous to assume that anyone so paranoid of the government and knowingly under such government pressure would assume otherwise.

1. The agents say that they identified themselves as federal agents upon their first encounter with Harris and the younger Weaver. They say that, upon hearing the announcement Harris openned fire on Degan killing him.
Which doesn't contradict that they shot the dog first. They could have shot the dog, and as they were identifying themselves, probably without a voice-amplifying device, harris and the younger Weaver started shooting. The fact that they opened fire first, is not disputed.

We can also assume that they were pointing their weapons at the two people in question at this point. If I hear a shot aimed near me, and then I see a bunch of people who aren't hunters pointing guns in my general direction, I'm probably going to return fire.

We can also assume that they were pointing their weapons at the two people in question at this point. If I hear a shot aimed near me, and then I see a bunch of people who aren't hunters pointing guns in my general direction, I'm probably going to return fire.

Even according to Harris's account, the agents did not turn to face Sammy until after Sammy had charged Agent Roderick with gun drawn, yelling "You killed my dog, you son of a bitch." Roderick subsequently turned to face Sammy, and upon his doing so, Sammy fired two shots at him. When this happened Roderick when for cover and Agent Cooper fired shots in the direction as he thought the shots were aimed at him.

I would like to know where LAPD's snipers were.....