Ruby Ridge question

1) The FBI sniper had two rifles with him--a bolt-action .308 with an S&B scope and an M14. He killed Vicki Weaver and attempted to kill Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver with the bolt gun.

2) This is an attempted state prosecution by the county prosecutor in Idaho. The U.S. Attorney refused to bring charges as "our brave agents did the best they could under the most difficult of circumstances."

3) The county prosecutor is attempting to bring manslaughter charges as manslaughter is "easier" (still must be proven BRD) to prove as it is dependent upon "recklessness" as its mens rea, not knowing or intentionally. Thus, it is easier to say the defendant was deviating from the accepted standard of conduct and acted in plain, conscious disregard of the danger to others than to say his conscious objective was to kill Vicki Weaver.

4) M1911 is correct. Many more are responsible and should be in prison with the FBI sniper. As a matter of politics they will not be prosecuted, nor will Horiuchi. Remember, the court will now conduct a summary hearing before any charges can be brought by the county prosecutor to see if the feds killing Vicki was "unwarranted." Gee, wonder how that will go?

5) No one forget that this incident was initiated by Mr. Weaver's alleged non-payment of a $5 tax on a AOW. To truly achieve justice, the NFA of 1934 should be repealed entirely so that Sammy and Vicki Weaver do not die in vain.

Ruby Ridge is tied to Waco which is tied to Oklahoma City. The feds do not understand our anger and think we should all be docile little sheep. Never forget, but use your anger for something productive such as abolition of the NFA!
 
KS. Abolition of NFA34 is not enough. We must abolish ALL gun control laws.
The funny part of all of this is, if all 80 million gun owners wrote their representatives, and voted their guns, it would happen.
The sad part is, they'll,probably never do it.
Too damned many people saying, "It'll never happen here.":(
Paul B.
 
Ahem...

I don't mean to be forward, but it seems none of you are thinking very long-term. One must consider, when judging the fate of a system, that sysytem's inherent capacity for error. I personally believe that our system, great though it might be, has too great a capacity for error to be allowed to continue as-is. Repeal of unjust laws is simply not enough. Repealing the NFA, or the Brady Law, or even removal of all gun-control laws entirely, will *not* fix a broken system. We must remember that the system allowed those laws to be created in the first place, and that unless we fix that system, it WILL happen again. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but eventually these same flaws will allow other injustices to take place. Gun-Control is merely a symptom, not the problem itself. FWIW, I think we need to start from the original slate - the U.S. Constitution itself, and the ideals it's framers intended it to uphold, and recreate the system from the ground up.

"We can rebuild him." :D

Ziggy
 
Constitution looks pretty good to me. Just dump the unconstitutional laws.......executive orders.........etc and we would be in good shape.

Hell of an unemployment problem but worth it.

Sam
 
Lon Horiuchi may have been a peon "following orders," but that defense didn't work at Nurenberg.

As I was taught in NCO leadership school, it is your DUTY to refuse an illegal order, and to take ANY STEPS NECESSARY to prevent them from being carried out, up to and including shooting your superiors.

Targeting a civilian woman with a baby, who is NOT holding a weapon in a clearly threatening fashion, is unacceptable. Accepting such an order is a violation of the laws of war.

Love to get that ratf@#k tried by a war tribunal, and hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

The fact that that order was given above, accepted below, and carried out against that particular target is a clear indication that the entire team on site should be tried, convicted, and NOT executed...
instead, toss them into the general prisoner population at a federal max-security pen.

Far cheaper than trying for a capital case.

Heard in the prison shower:
"Hey, guys, we gots a FED here...":D
 
I have a feeling that there are still many who believe he was aiming for Randy and simply "missed".

If a cop on the street was aiming for a bad guy, and simply "missed" and killed a woman with a baby, don't you think he would stand trial? I believe if he didn't, there would be riots on the streets.

So what makes this jerk any different?

A guy who can shoot a quarter sized group at 200 yards for breakfast, doesn't "miss".

I think in sniper school, aiming for the right eye and hitting the left is called a "miss". Aiming for Randy and hitting Vicky is called "on purpose".

Albert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top