(TX) Feds Ran Into More Resistance Than Expected at Waco

O

Oatka

New member
Why they don't want the peasants armed.

Interesting comment, ". . . agents had their blood types written on their necks with a marker . . ." - especially since they said they weren't expecting resistance.
http://chblue.com/Article.asp?ID=397

Feds Ran Into More Resistance Than Expected at Waco

By SHERRI CHUNN Associated Press Writer

WACO, Texas (AP) - A retired federal agent testified Friday that the Branch Davidians put up much stronger resistance than expected when he and other agents tried to serve warrants for cult leader David Koresh in 1993.

Kenneth King, formerly of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, was shot six times and four other agents were killed when gunfire erupted during the failed raid at the Davidian complex. That led to the 51-day standoff that ended with the compound going up in flames.

Survivors and relatives of the more than 80 Davidians who died in the raid and the fire are suing the government for $675 million. King was the last government witness to testify as the second week the trial came to a close Friday.

King described how agents climbed a ladder and smashed through an upper window to gain access to the compound in order to serve the warrants for suspected gun violations.

``We started receiving heavy gunfire from inside the room,'' King said. ``I could remember seeing holes in the walls.''

After King was shot he moved onto the roof for cover, but was shot two more times through the roof. He lay in a courtyard inside the compound for 2{ hours until a cease fire was reached and officers were able to drag him to safety.

He said he never pulled his gun from his holster, and hadn't expected anything more than a physical confrontation before the raid began. Other agents also testified they did not expect a gun battle.

``Not in our wildest dreams did we expect the resistance we got,'' King said.

Earlier, ATF agent Robert White testified that at most he expected ``fisticuff type of resistance.''

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Caddell, countered by asking whether he and other agents had their blood types written on their necks with a marker. White said yes.

The plaintiffs say the agents fired indiscriminately into the building. Government attorneys say the agents were ambushed by Davidians and were defending their lives.

But none of Friday's witnesses could say who fired first.

Under cross-examination by Caddell, King said he thought the first gunshots he heard came from agents shooting cult members' dogs, not from inside the building.

He also said his team didn't announce its entry into the upper-floor window because that was being handled by agents with warrants at the front door.

The government also called to the stand a former TV news reporter who witnessed most of the gun battle and said the shooting erupted as soon as he arrived.

``It just seemed to all start at once. I saw some of the law enforcement officers ... they were running for cover ... as they were running they appeared to be returning fire at the building,'' testified John McLemore, a former reporter for KWTX in Waco.

He also said he never heard anyone yell ``police'' or ``ATF'' until after the gunfire started.

U.S. District Judge Walter Smith recessed court at noon Friday for the holiday weekend. The trial will resume Wednesday morning.

A five-member jury will act only as an advisory panel to the judge, who will deliver the verdict. Separately, Smith will consider the question of whether agents shot at Davidians during the siege's fiery end.

© Copyright 2000 Associated Press.




------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
I commented on Glocktalk that a lot of the raids you see on the tube at least, don't seem to plan for any tactically sound resistance.

An LEO agreed that they usually expect the occupants of the house to fold.

Did the ATF consult with any behaviorial experts before the raid?
 
"King described how agents climbed a ladder and smashed through an upper window to gain access to the compound in order to serve the warrants for suspected gun violations." I'm tempted to make a crack about the door bell not working. If they wanted to be treated in a civilized manner, they should have actly in a civilized way.

"Under cross-examination by Caddell, King said he thought the first gunshots he heard came from agents shooting cult members' dogs, not from inside the building." JBT's should understand that shooting our dogs may well be considered the start of a gun fight. If I see my dog(s) go down, I'm not going to assume that they will be stopping there, and, why would I?


I will always feel this was a despicable raid by the BATF, and I will never have any empathy for the agents involved. They participated in murder. I expect nothing to come of this trial except final and brutal confirmation that my government(s) can do dam* near anything they choose ... and, literally get away with murder.

I will point out that if I felt the fed's had handled this matter honestly after the tragedy, then I could have accepted the idea that the handling of the raid was only gross, criminal negligence. But, their subsequent actions confirm their intent, IMHO.

Regards from AZ
 
I can never bring myself to believe that any warrant, much less a minor one like a gun licensing one, could ever justify and armed attack on 80 people.
Only a total idiot could believe that there would be no trouble in attempting such a thing.
Like Custer at the Little Big Horn, there will never be much sympathy for the men who carried out the Waco raid.
 
I read several times lately about this 5 or sometimes called 6 member "advisory jury" to assist the judge it in this case. This is something new to me.

Can someone explain this and is this common? Why does a District Judge need advice from these folks? Advice about what? What weight, if any, does their advice carry and where?

RKBA!
 
The cynic in me wonders if the 'jury' is simply intended to make it look more like a fair trial.

Hope I'm wrong, but I'll cover your bets on this one.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 02, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Thomas:

"Under cross-examination by Caddell, King said he thought the first gunshots he heard came from agents shooting cult members' dogs, not from inside the building." JBT's should understand that shooting our dogs may well be considered the start of a gun fight. If I see my dog(s) go down, I'm not going to assume that they will be stopping there, and, why would I?

[/quote]

If someone shoots my dogs, they've started a war.

Bruce
 
In every state I've lived in, shooting a person's dog or cat is "destruction of private property". That's why you can't just draw down on a "stray" dog in your trash can in most areas. If it turns out to be owned, you can be sued for restitution. After all, it is really the owners fault.

Now a dog attacking a person, say a child, is a different matter. That's more than a mere nuisance.

So, these agents were, by the standards I'm used to, at least guilty of a misdemeanor, depending on the value of the dog(s). What does Tehas say about it?
 
Instead of blaming the individual agents for this I think the blame should be directed at their bosses. Why did they feel the need to do it this way? Considering they had the media there I can only assume that someone farther up the food chain at ATF wanted some free PR.

I thought they way ATF did that whole thing was just a bit idiotic. I am on a warrants team and if I thought a warrant we were serving was going to meet resistance like this I would wait down the street and arrest the guy when he came out to get his morining paper, go to the store, etc (I have actually done this in the past). We have also used "tricks" to get the person out of the house to avoid confrontations. You have to be creative when serving some warrants as to avoid problems such as this. I would rather avoid shooting someone or getting myself shot. 99% percent of the warrants we serve we do the old fashion way, ring the doorbell, ask for the person, and then arrest them.
 
"A five-member jury will act only as an advisory panel to the judge, who will deliver the verdict. Separately, Smith will consider the question of whether agents shot at Davidians during the siege's fiery end."

"Survivors and relatives of the more than 80 Davidians who died in the raid and the fire are suing the government for $675 million."

Amendment #7 "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

I hope this is not true that the Jury is there for advisory only..... If this is the case, then the trial is a sham....




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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
mrat;
I hate to bring this up but I will.A unlawful order carried out makes all just as guilty.The "I was following orders"defense is a defense that was not accepted in 46 and will not be accepted now.

I attended a meeting a few years back.The speaker was a federal officer that was at waco and quit after.He told this story about how the feds acted.
A young lady made it out of the fire and was grabbed by agents and hancuffed.The burns where so bad that most of the bones where showing in her hands.She died a couple hours later in the hosptal still handcuffed.
This kind of respect for human beings is of the lowest grade I have ever heard off.I do not want to start a flame war here so I will not go into my personal opinion of the agents involved there.I just pray that they are not represenative of all of the agents.

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beemerb:
A unlawful order carried out makes all just as guilty.The "I was following orders"defense is a defense that was not accepted in 46 and will not be accepted now.
[/quote]

beemerb,

You are dead on the money.

Until the courts start holding INDIVIDUALS resposible for acting on illegal orders LEOs are going to look bad. We never hear about the LEO who tells a supervisor not only no, but *%(#! no will I do this or that, but I am sure it happens. Their carrers are toast, but they can sleep at night.

Lon, the Lone Gunman, from Ruby Ridge just got a pass on obeying an illegal order.

Until LEOs stand up and find and follow their concscience, they are indeed, as another member posted, just "soldiers of the King."

William
 
Not in the LEO, I wouldn't know this to be Gospel.

I've been told, and have heard that LEO, specifically feqr (dread) actions against religious groups, becasue they consider them fanatical.
Could this be because the groups believe, and know they have the God given right to self-defense by any means necessary, and the LEO agencies know this?
And that this absolute conviction is what scares the crap out of those who are challenging them?

The Davidians had reason to believe they were going to be the subject of persecution, at the hands of their government.It's been said that they self-fulfilled this belief by self extermination.
I've also heard the suicide by cop proposition. I ain't buying into that one here. Too damn much activity on the part of government to allude to the notion that they(Davidians) used them(cops) to kill themselves. It don't wash.

But then, I also believe that near 100% here at TFL are rational enough to see the BS that occured at Waco. All I can say is, if I were a government agent, and that kind of crap was going on around me, I'd be finding some other means of employment, perhaps open a gun store :) :).

I dearly wish I were on the Jury of this one, actually I wish I had been a Juror on the first go around. Ever hear of a hung Jury??

There will be hell to pay for this course of corruption, and coverup by the many government agencies involved. From the field level ATF f()ckup, to the FBI level f()ckup, to the Justice Dept, to the Oral Office. It's all a stinking cesspoll of crap. All should burn(no pun intended) for the damn thing.

Best Regards,
Don
 
westex, it was a 6 member jury, but is now 5. For personal reasons one of the jurors was dismissed. The federal judge is overseeing this case. He is not required to have a jury, but due to the sensitivity of the case he wanted it to appear as impartial as possible and he wants to know how a citizen would interpret the findings. He is not required to do what the jury says, but will take it under advisement. It will not look good if he and jury come to different conclusions.

sensop, I believe that shooting a dog in Texas is as it is in Oklahoma, killing of a domesticated animal. It was to help with additional charges against a cattle thief originally and is a felony. If the dog is a threat where it may cause death or serious bodily injury then it can be shot in self defense.

mrat, the reason the raid proceeded was that they were ordered to. The warrant was issued under interesting circumstances, at least one judge turned down the request. The judge who finally did issue the warrant was not happy with it completely and decided not to issue an extension. The warrant was set to expire if it was not served and the judge would not have reissued it. It contains things that were supposedly include to show a history of illegal activity, but included things that had already been investigated and shown to have no merit.

Donny, the original jury found some of the defendants guilty, but during the sentencing phase recommended light sentences. Due to the contributory effect of the govt raid the jury felt as though the govt should accept some of the responsibility for what happened. The judge, the SAME judge that is hearing the civil trial, ignored the jury's sentencing guidelines and gave the max penalties to the defendants. After the trial the jury foreman told reporters that had they known the judge was going to do that, that the Davidians would have been found not guilty of all charges.

The judge was lied to by the govt agents during the original trial. He did not know it until two years ago about evidence the FBI had. The Texas Rangers turned over a bunch of evidence that the FBI told the judge they did not have. Well, the FBI didn't, they gave it to the TR's to hold for them. The FBI tried to keep the Rangers from turning it over and the judge is suspicious. IMHO if the jury finds against the govt, the judge can find against them also and still save his career with the govt because of the juries decision.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Did the ATF consult with any behaviorial experts before the raid?[/quote]

Glenn, what does this have to do with the illegality of the raid?

How would you react to the breaking and entering (2nd floor window? :rolleyes: ) to serve you with a warrent based on unfounded and trumped-up charges!?

Don't let your intellect get in the way of common sense, or constitutional correctness.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 02, 2000).]
 
Heck yes the 'Behavioral experts' were involved. The Psych War was in full force for days! Remember the loudspeakers playing heavy metal music and the screams of tortured animals?

------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
Sigh - you missed my point.

The ATF wanted to conduct the raid for publicity.

If one had asked behaviorial experts before the raid - you would expect resistance from these sort of folk. Drug dealers who are heavily armed won't resist.

So, DUH - before an operation you get expert advice. Such advice would have stopped a PR raid.

As for you, Cougar, you know not of what you speak. The behaviorial experts argued that the
psych war as you called it, would be ineffective and the negotiation strategy employed was ineffective. The tactical folks wanted that stupid stuff.

Also, I said BEFORE and not AFTER - duh!

So what I was commenting on was the incompetence of the ATF for not understanding what they were up against.

As far as the illegality of the raid - that is a different issue. I was asking a question about the history of the raid. Which the 1st Amend. let's me DO!

I'm always impressed the the ability of some to jump to conclusions.
 
...jump...jump...jump...>SPLAT<

Glad you're impressed! :D

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If one had asked behaviorial experts before the raid - you would expect resistance from these sort of folk. Drug dealers who are heavily armed won't resist.[/quote]

So what do you mean by this?



------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Beemerb and William,
So how is a street level LEO supposed to deal with orders? Call an attorney to present the case to the Supreme Court to find out if an order is legal? I am not being a smarta$$, I just think it is very easy to say something like that when you are sitting comfortably in your home. In this particular case the the agents were ordered to serve a warrant, how should the peon line agents handled it? Should every single agent there serving the warrant read the warrant and research it to see if everything in it was true and legal? In my opinion if this warrant was illegal the responsibility lies with the agents who got the warrant and the judged who signed the warrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top