Reno:"The finger was not on the trigger"......

R

Rick44

Retired Screen Name
I got this headline off of Drudge... Reno: "The finger was not on the trigger"...

I wonder how Reno herself would feel with an MP5 pointed at her head from a range of two feet?

I can only hope that the 11th Circut will send the U.S. Marshals after her so she can see what it feels like.

------------------
Guns cause crime like trailerparks cause tornados.
 
Rick. I saw the picture on a big screen TV. A 53 inch model. On the screen, the jack booted gestapo thugs really was not on the trigger. I could make out his fingnail quite clearly. I'm not standing up for Reno the butcher of Waco and Ruby Ridge, but it this case it was correct.
However don't get me going on how I feel about that raid. I consider what they did blatent child abuse, and endangerment.
Paul B.
 
Isn't one of the rules of firearm safety, don't point the muzzel at anything you are not willing to shoot?
 
The better version of the safety rule is "DO NOT POINT THE MUZZLE AT ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY!" I guess it's obvious that this kid is a thorn in Klinton/Renos side and they are willing to kill whoever dosn't agree with their agenda.

Let's hope all the sheeple remember this in November.
 
The ad that Bush (or ANYBODY) should be running is where they show the Elian photo with the voice of Al Gore saying, "... more of the same." The quote was from when Alberto was saying what people should expect if he's elected.

Gore's poll ratings would plummet. He's all for gun control so that people don't point handguns at children. Apparantly automatic rifles are okay.

IMO, if the government pulls a gun on an unarmed man, they're guilty of abuse and perhaps even assault. If I were to pull a gun on an ex-wife who was trying to abduct my child, I'd surely be brought up on gun charges.

[This message has been edited by Mikul (edited April 23, 2000).]
 
Another lame excuse from the administration directed at the ignorant.

"The finger was not on the trigger."

All that statement proves is that the agent in the photo was trained well enough to keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to engage a target.
The fact that he and other heavily armed representatives of our federal government were equipped to destroy every living thing on the premises is supposed to be overlooked.
Which begs the question, under what circumstances would the use of lethal force be allowed?
If some of the adults present tried to physically prevent this rescue, would blowing them away be acceptable?
If the level of resistance rose to a point where the safety of the invading agents was at risk, would that justify the use of lethal force? Even if the actions of the federal agents prompted strong resistance?
Whatever debatable crimes may or may not have occurred in this case, I still cannot see where the level of force approved for this operation was warranted!
 
I find it interesting that since the agents finger was not on the trigger - he posed no threat to anyone.

This is the same administration that seems to believe that guns very often just jump up and kill people all on their own. In fact, I thought that roving gangs of guns killed people all the time.

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
The correct safety rule is "Never point a gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot" The difference is intend vs. willing. Even if I am willing to shoot someone, I should never point a gun at them unless I intend to do so. **** happens. The child was at risk when that gun was pointed in his direction.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
So if your finger is not on the trigger it's OK to point your gun at someone? If that was a civilian pointing a machine gun at a LEO I think Janet Reno would have something else to say.
 
Well guys & gals have your head on straight in the whole episode. Sure the excuse of the finger is just that an excuse and diversion. Is a federal police force constitutional? Is that sort of commando raid legal? If you agree that it is not legal then the question becomes what are you/we going to do about it? What can we do about it? What have we done about Ruby Ridge/Waco? Can we do something better than gripe? Damn right we can and should. Vote third party come November. Nope, no excuses please. Republicans and democrats in elected office have not honored their oath in my lifetime (66 years) and there is no rational reason to believe they will change.

The truth in government/politics is the Constitution. Believe it, love it, sleep it, eat it, drink it, talk it, learn it or lose it.

It is We, the People, responsibility to see to that the elected honor their oath of office and we do that with the vote.

There is no legal authority to grant any power to any federal elected, agency or branch that is not articulated in the Constitution. No elected, appointed, or agency can legally nullify due process, or anything else, as articulated in the Constitution. Anything contrary to the Constitution is null and void.

I find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any federal police force, nor a commando style raid on citizen's homes.

Article of Amendment #4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* right (just or legal claim or title)
* people (the mass of ordinary persons; the populace)
* be secure (free from fear, care, doubt, or anxiety; not worried, troubled, or apprehensive)
* persons (living bodies of human beings)
* houses (places of residence)
* papers (collection of letters, diaries, and other writings, especially by one person. Commercial documents that represent value and can be transferred from owner to owner; negotiable instruments considered as a group.)
* effects (movable belongings; goods)
* unreasonable (not governed by reason)
* seizures (taken into custody; capture)
* violated (desecrated or defiled)
* Warrants (judicial writs authorizing an officer to make a search, a seizure, or an arrest or to execute a judgment)
* issue (go or come out)
* probable (likely to happen or to be true)
* cause (reason, ground for legal action)
* particularly (with particular reference or emphasis)

1.. The word definitions fully explain the intent of this amendment.
2.. Note: "John Doe" warrants and "Dynamic Entry" policies of federal, State, or local police agencies violate this Article of Amendment, as do seatbelt and sobriety checkpoints.
Prepared by Joanne Campbell

I have the entire Constitution as above and will send it to anyone who wants. I find Joanne did a good job and found nothing to disagree with in her work, ahampton@tcainternet.com
 
4V50 Gary,

I see a red dot visible above the selector, which I think would indicate that the weapon was not on safe.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

"Is your church BATF approved?"

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby.

http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
But why is anyone surprised? Isn't this consistant with Clinton, Reno and Co?

jcoyoung: I hope you're right and that EVERYONE remembers this in November. . .

The actual statements of the attorney general regarding "the beauty of television" and how we could all see that 'the finger was not on the trigger' etc. Stretch the bounds of irony
 
The real terror here is that the Administration acted unilaterally...there was no court order asking for custody to be turned over to the father...the INS decided the father should have custody and Janet Reno ordered an armed home invasion to seize the child...this might have been acceptable for a drug raid or a fugitive capture, but not in a house of law-abiding citizens...be afraid, be very afraid...if the government can seize this child without a court order or the will of Congress, it very well could happen to any of us.

BTW, whether the safety was on or not, was the use of this level of force for the transfer of the child to his father justified? I doubt I would have been looking at the safety with the barrel of an MP-5 pointed at my head.
 
The AP analyzed the photo and stated today that:

a. The muzzle of the weapon was not directed directly at Dalrymple but just to his left.

b. The finger was not on the trigger.

c. The selector was pointed to "S" for safe.

I find it interesting that while those here who decry the raid, myself included, also decry the proper safety being excercised by the agent. Isn't that what we all bitch and moan about constantly -- the unsafe handling of firearms that reflects on us and causes us to have to dance through new hoops?

I stated that I have reservations about the raid, and that is true. I don't believe they were wrong to take the kid. I dislike the use of automatic weapons in a single family home -- any home. Witness the Paz killing in L.A., the Denver killing last month, and the killing in central California that caused the disbandment of the city's SWAT team. I think they should have gone in with just handguns. They also should have done this months ago.

By the way, I want to congratulate Alan Diaz, the AP photog who snapped the now infamous photo, in advance on his impending Pulitzer prize.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 23, 2000).]
 
I can't understand why they had to go to this level of attack??? This is the response I would expect to "rescue" a kidnapped person that the BGs had said they would kill in 5 minutes. Has anyone told Reno that there are levels of force under a armed invasion???? Like have the father knock on the door and ask to see his son? Fire all the lawyers and kick out all the politicians. If they won't let him in "have a wireless mic on the father to a van with PA system so crowd knows it is the father asking to see his son. If they still refuse inform them "the relatives" that this will go against them in the court case. That he will not be taken from the house but a visit. If they don't open up .... THEN knock down the door and get the kid. It is easy to raise the level of force but darn hard to lower it. What if one resident of the house on seeing a black clad attacker break through the door at "about 5 am?" so he/she takes a kitchen knife and gets shot. Or even the camera man. He "shoots" the flash in the guys face temp blinding him and maybe he isn't properly trained and has his finger on the trigger and set on rock and roll..... So at the flash he tightens up and OH SHUCKS the gun fires a 3rd burst and kills the kid and the fisherman. What would Reno say??? "We had to act to protect the children???"
 
I'm not sure that the finger isn't on the trigger. The fact that the fingernail is visable at that angle does not mean that the finger pad isn't contacting the trigger.
Check it out with your own hand and your own firearm.

Why should we accept anything reno has to say?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I personally believe the Feds were attempting
to provoke a violent response from the family. This is complicated, guys, so stay
with me on this.
The Marxists in our government want normalized relations with Castro. The only
impediment to that is the Cuban exhile community here in Florida. If the Feds could
somehow cause an incident, the gov't could then paint the Cuban exhiles as "domestic terrorists with weapons" and the exhiles would lose all sympathy. The gov't could
then seek normalized relations with Castro.
Make no mistake, Klinton and the rest of the
good little Marxists want normalized relations with communist Cuba. This would
be Klinton's "legacy", and once done, would
be permanent.

------------------
Never do an enemy a minor injury. Machiavelli
"Stay alive with a 45"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top