Can someone please educate me about Waco and Ruby Ridge?

[Art Eatman]

telewinz, as commented before, Weaver got a court notice to appear. The date was in error. It showed he should appear in March (?) although the correct date was in February (?). (I'm not sure about the specific months, but it was that sort of clerical error.

Now, Weaver did indeed show up on what he thought was the proper date. My first question, then, is that if his case was so important to the BATF, why did they not arrest him at that time? He was in the courthouse!

The next question is why was there the surveillance of him for many months--almost a year, I've read--at what has been reported as many tens of thousands of dollars worth of man-hours? There were even confrontations on public roads between Weaver and BATF agents--and no arrests nor efforts thereto.

It is the existence of facts--and these are indeed facts and not conjecture--of this sort which make me believe that none of the deaths need have happened at all. I question the judgement of the federal people involved. When I read the narrative of all of the actions of the BATF agents in the many months prior to the shooting of the federal marshall, taken from their own testimony, it seems like something from Kafka.

Regardless of any law, if you push even a wussie long enough he will turn on you. When the pushing has little or no merit in a real-world situation, and is done under the cover of "the law", one worries about both those writing the law and those enforcing it.

To me, that's more important than the arguable details of the final denouement.

Art

 

[Tamara]

The next question is why was there the surveillance of him for many months--almost a year

With ANG RF-4C's, no less. My tax dollars at work.



(Good question here: since no drug charges were ever manufac... er, levelled at Weaver, how the hell did they get .mil assets to help in the raid? I guess posse comitatus don't mean squat if you don't want it to anymore. )

 

[Hkmp5sd]

reinserting info...

Weaver got a court notice to appear. The date was in error. It showed he should appear in March (?) although the correct date was in February (?). (I'm not sure about the specific months, but it was that sort of clerical error.

From the official US Gov'ment "Department of Justice Ruby Ridge Report"

When Weaver was arraigned on the weapons charges in January 1991, he was told that his trial would commence on February 19, 1991. Two weeks later, the court clerk notified the parties that the trial date had been changed to February 20, 1991. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Probation Office sent Weaver a letter which incorrectly referenced his trial date as March 20, 1991. After Weaver failed to appear for trial on February 20, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Three weeks later, on March 14, a federal grand jury indicted Weaver for his failure to appear for trial. We found that: the government, especially the USAO, was unnecessarily rigid in its approach to the issues created by the erroneous letter; that the USAO improvidently sought an indictment before March 20, 1991;

 

[telewinz]

Don, I think you are close....

What the government sub-committee says happened DOES NOT MEAN that is what happened, but remember their conclusions are based on sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals, and ALL Evidence is cross-examined and can be challenged! An author of a book is not sworn to be trueful, his material is not cross-examined nor are his "facts or conclusions" required to be based on documentation. Books are only required to make a profit.

This is our main difference (I think). In any other legal preceding, a good book might raise public interest but it can't be cross-examined. But since we are talking about WACO and Ruby Ridge its OK to replace our legal system with the conclusions of a book(s)! It cannot or should not be permitted that a person (or government) be judged by a jury of librarians or authors.

I concede that the government report is less than 100% accurate BUT that is an opinion. I have no un-contested facts to support my Opinion and niether do the authors. Case in point, the drawing made by Lon Horiuchi, did he confress that he drew the picture and how do we KNOW when it was drawn and what did he mean by the drawing? I can hear it now, well are you stupid, it's crystal clear, he's bragging about killing Mrs. Weaver! Yet there are plenty of people out there that think it's crystal clear that aliens from outer space are here observing us and giving us technology for our secret weapons. Many books have been written on this subject and are believed!

Can you say you KNOW for a fact that Horiuchi intended to kill Vicki? Could have, might have, wanted to does not mean he did. Even an author cannot say he knows what was going on in Horiuchi's mind. Do I concede that Horiuchi MAY have MURDERED Vicki? Yes I do but I can't prove it and therefore we cannot bring him to justice. Wrongful death does not = murder. Is it possible/probable that most of the evidence presented in the (better) books and the posters here on THR (yes Tamara) are accurate? Of course! But they can't prove it! Thats a BIG difference and also why I don't believe Aliens landed at area 51, or kidnapped people, or Santa Clause doesn't live at the North Pole. No one can prove it! And in life and death matters I prefere to go with our only legal system, imperfect as it is.

BTW; Would someone please PM Tamara and relay to her that it is not and was not my intent in anyway anger her. She made a great many good points and maybe anyone else would have caved-in, I can't change my mind based on the popularity polls on a subject. It should not be that important that I do so nor that we agree with each other on any subject.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Case in point, the drawing made by Lon Horiuchi, did he confress that he drew the picture and how do we KNOW when it was drawn and what did he mean by the drawing?

Guess we need to have a notarized, sworn on the bible, video taped while drawing on live TV, handwriting analysis and fingerprinted drawing before we can conclude it just might be real.

If that level of verification for evidence were needed by courts, no one would be convicted of anything.

 

[telewinz]

If you intend to hang a man LEGALLY via a court of law, yes.

 

[griz]

How about this telewinz?

During congressional testimony the rules of engagement for Ruby Ridge were discussed. For the initial sniper episode the rules of engagement were changed to read, “any adult on the property with a weapon should be shotâ€. That is not an exact quote but very close. I can look it up if you are interested in the precise wording. After the sniper did the damage the rules of engagement were reverted back to the normal self defense rules instead of shoot on sight rules. The testimony was not about the validity of the rules, but it focused on who approved them. Mr. Potts signed the cover sheet of the document that contained the revised rules but denied “approving†what he signed.

I saw this live on television myself. I did not tape it, nor did I see any DNA test to prove that it was Larry Potts himself, but I hope that you can believe easily proven facts.

So in your eyes does issuing a shoot to kill order in violation of the rights of the victims, indeed in violation of the constitution, rise to proof of a serious government mistake?

And to prove how misleading your “official†testimony can be, you said this:
“Sworn testimony states that the agents were chased by ARMED members of the Weaver clan.â€

The only thing quoted so far says:
“During the surveillance mission, the Weaver dog discovered the marshals and began to bark. The marshals retreated with the dog, Harris, Randy Weaver and his son, Sammy Weaver, and other family members in pursuit.â€

That is misleading for a couple reasons. The Marshals knew they were armed before they arrived, it makes it sound like they ran a long ways with an armed band chasing them, and it puts the worst face on a possibly benign response, IE the dog barked and the people WHO LIVED THERE came over to see what was up. At any rate, it’s obvious that Sammy Weaver and the dog discontinued the “pursuit†when the Marshals shot and killed them.

 

[goon]

According to some accounts I have read, the ceds manufactured the charges in both cases.
I have read that they went after Weaver for a shotgun that he legally modified that they re-modified, and that they went after Koresh for Boyes .55 Cal. AT rifles. In both cases, all we got was the word of the gov't, and that is most likely all we ever will get
The bottom line as I see it is this.
Right or wrong, the feds were after Weaver and Koresh.
They rolled into Ruby Ridge and Waco and pretty much just shot the hell out of the place. They killed Weaver's wife and son when they were there for him. They killed a hell of alot of people in Waco when they were there to arrest Koresh.
What the hell is that?
Also, I have been gassed with CS before, and it is quite unpleasant until your body adjusts to it. Even then, I don't think you could hold out for hours when being gassed. That is why you wear a mask when you are around it.
The feds pumped that stuff into the Davidians' compound with no regard for the innocents inside. They knew it would take a long time for the masks that the Davidians were using to get clogged up. They also knew that a mask won't seal properly on a child and even some small adults.
It is also my understanding that CS can kill people with weakened respiratory systems and is quite dangerous to a child.
So the feds pumped the stuff into a building full of a bunch of helpless children, knowing what the results would be.
That gives me a warm fuzzy feeling about the government.

It is true that if Koresh had been any kind of man, he would have evacuated the women and children. He and the others who chose to fight it out could have then fought it out with the feds if that is how they wanted to check out.
But that doesn't mitigate what the government did.

 

[John/az]

Telewinz,

It's not that you angered her, it's that you are so thick, and trying to reason with thick people is an extremely frustrating experience.

While you appear to have the air of reasonableness, your rhetoric has many on this thread noting the stubborn ignorance you exude.

Because of the proven evidence of government corruption and perjury by it's own agents who hold positions of trust, government document accuracy and veracity are suspect.

I will not enumerate this evidence, as it has been presented multiple times in this thread.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Can you say you KNOW for a fact that Horiuchi intended to kill Vicki?

Works for me. Horiuchi, at the time, was a skilled and experienced sniper.
Shot taken, shot placement good.

A professional does not take, or at least should not take, such a shot without intent and knowledge of the target.

Sam

 

[cordex]

What the government sub-committee says happened DOES NOT MEAN that is what happened, but remember their conclusions are based on sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals, and ALL Evidence is cross-examined and can be challenged!

I'd love to say that the gov't sub-committee report makes the federal employees that are in question "as innocent as OJ", but at least OJ was acquitted by a jury of relatively unbiased citizens selected by chance and a joint effort between his defense attorneys and the prosecution - instead of a group their fellow federal employees who analyzed testimony given by a group of their fellow federal employees.
So not even as innocent as the Juice.

Odd that you dismiss two jury trials - who base their opinions on "sworn eyewittness accounts, evidence gathered by professionals" and cross-examined testimony - yet accept an opinion in full when it comes from someone who pulls a federal paycheck.

You'd laugh if someone on this thread posted sworn testimony from, for instance, Randy Weaver which stated that he had no weapons on the property, would you not? Especially if he or his friends were responsible for removing all of the evidence from the scene (say, through burning and bulldozing it). But if he worked for Uncle Sam .... hmmm....

I'd never suggest that federal investigative committees are always less reliable than non-governmental, independant investigators, however I'd be sticking my head in the sand right next to you if I claimed that they were as almost unerringly reliable as you insist.

 

[atek3]

methylene chloride isn't flammable, I don't think anyone here said it was. However, it is quite poisonous and decomposes under heat to give phosgene, hydrogen chloride, and carbon monoxide, all of which are VERY poisonous. However, it was the fine powdery CS itself that was the flammable agent. Which is why the conflageration consumed the building in a matter of minutes. And when CS burns it gives of Hydrogen cyanide. So lets see, we've got HCN, HCl, CO, and C(O)Cl2, in the air in the burning house, and people are surprise most of the people didn't leave. They spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases before eventually being incinerated. Nice.

atek3

 

[telewinz]

atek3...

Do you know if the expert wittnesses were federal employees? If you do what were their names and who testified on what evidence? When did the different government agencies stop the infighting and start covering each others hind end? The FBI hasn't gotten along with the ATF for decades. The infighting has long been documented and because of the infighting, the Department of Homeland Security was created.

I am not willing to assume (as you and others are) that being a Federal, State, or local government employee is proof positive that he or she is dishonest. Have you hear of "whistle blower" protection. It exists in the government sector to protect those who testify against their employer, that protection seldom exists in the private sector if at all. I had to pass a background check to get my job to PROVE I was and am a stable, law abiding citizen. Good thought/speak wasn't enough.

No disrespect, but your assumptions prove my point of view. We have to have responsible testimony and proven evidence to obtain the most accurate conclusion possible.

"Spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases" ?

An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure.

Additionally, the location of the bodies of the Davidians indicates that few of the Davidians actually attempted to escape the building. Many of the bodies were huddled together in locations in the center of the building. Few of the bodies were located at points of exit from the building, and the cause of death of several of the bodies at exit points were self-inflicted gunshot wounds or gunshots from very close range.

One of those who escaped the fire left the residence almost 21 minutes after the breakout of the first fire. Clearly, some means of escape from the residence existed for a significant period of time after the fire broke out.

GRIZ... the rules of engagement were indeed change, thats why Weaver was justly awarded 3.5 million dollars.

Special Counsel John C. Danforth today delivered to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder his Final Report Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco, Texas.

This Report unequivocally reaffirms the conclusions contained in the Special Counsel's Interim Report of July 21, 2000.

Specifically:


Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds on April 19, 1993.
Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.

 

[goon]

And when CS burns it gives of Hydrogen cyanide. So lets see, we've got HCN, HCl, CO, and C(O)Cl2, in the air in the burning house, and people are surprise most of the people didn't leave. They spent their last moments choking on smoke and war gases before eventually being incinerated. Nice.


As I said, warm fuzzy feelings.
The real irony is the fact that there are those in the government who feel that we are the bigger threat.
For some odd reason, a 57 year old Vietnam vet with a Winchester scares the hell out of them, but that doesn't.
Just something to think about...

An important question, however, is whether the Davidians might have been overcome by smoke and prevented from leaving the residence. The autopsies of the Davidians indicate that deaths from smoke inhalation or asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning accounted for only half of the Davidians who died in the residence. The other causes of death were gunshot wounds, burns, or other trauma. Thus, even after the fires began to consume the structure, at least half of the Davidians were not so affected by the smoke and fumes from the fire that they were physically unable to leave the structure.


Not really suprising.
You have the choice between choking or burning to death or putting a bullet in your own head.
Not a choice I would like to have to make.
I would like to think that as a guy who is almost a Christian (I do believe in God), I would not end my own life, but I cannot fault those who made such a hard choice.
It is easy to sit here and pass judgement on those who aren't here to give their points of view.

No matter how you put it, no one had to die there or at Ruby Ridge.
It amounted to an all-you-can-eat joyride for a bunch of armed federal agents with too much ammo that watched Robo-Cop too many times.
Whatever went wrong, there was no need for the mass carnage.
This is the United States of America, a land of justice and tolerance.
This isn't the former USSR.
There has to be accountability.

Another thing to consider.
Even a mediocre rifleman could knock off at least one of the enemy before getting shot himself.
There were only something like four casualties for the feds at Waco, weren't there?
Why?
Evil people who were at least armed with AR-15s...
Hell, didn't they have a few Barret .50 BMGs as well?
Why didn't the Davidians do more damage?
That has always puzzled me.

 

[C.R.Sam]

The FBI hasn't gotten along with the ATF for decades.

Even if so; in this case they were in concert and thereby had a vested interest in backing each other's stories. "Hang together or hang seperately."

Also, seems that I read in gvt release that at least one of the Fed casualties was due to friendly fire.

Interesting that one of the weapons displayed at the hearings appeared in good enough condition to be on a gun shop's rack. No indication of having been in a fire.

Sam

 

[Intune]

“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.â€

I was 16 years old when I found out that this oath doesn’t mean crap to some lying sacks of bull dung employed by the federal government. In court. Not that the feds have the market cornered on lying, they’ve just perfected it and taken it to a level where it is now considered a fine art. You wanna believe ‘em go right ahead.

I knew something drastic was going to happen at Waco as soon as the tired mantra “terrible things are happening to the children†began. The vaunted alphabet agencies had their lunch handed to them by a few men, women and children. This defiance and failure to properly surrender in a timely manner was NOT going to stand. Embarrassment and seething anger combined to make rational thought one of the early victims.

You trust them all you want and find your comfort in their “sworn†testimony. I only trust those who have earned it. Everything else is taken with a grain of salt. Particularly when someone “swears†it’s true.

 

[griz]

Well I can see you have made up your mind that whatever mistakes the Feds made were the right mistakes and the poor fools who challenged them deserved what they got. You’re not the first person to equate government report with gospel truth, and you won’t be the last.

Did you believe the first report the government issued the last time the turret of a battleship blew up? How about the second report that was accepted as more accurate?

 

[Stickjockey]

Just a quick note RE: Lon Horiuchi. Let's assume he was aiming for Harris and mistakenly hit Vicki Weaver instead. If one of us, or any other everyday pistol-packin' peon, finds themselves in a situation where lethal force is justified and mistakenly hits an innocent bystander, wouldn't we be guilty of Negligent Homicide? And if so, how is it that Mr. Horiuchi isn't?

 

[Duncan Idaho]

And Duncan...get a life, I'm not responsible for my governments actions and I still don't feel they are part of the EVIL EMPIRE.

A non sequitur is the best you can do?

 

[telewinz]

Again the Government's report continues to be the "best" (but imperfect) evidence available. Niether side can state their information is "Gospel" or is beyond reproach.

San Jose Mercury News, September 12, 1999
Signs are good that the inquiry will be focused, balanced and to the direct questions of whether government agents are culpable for crimes and whether they left a trail of deceit that undermines the credibility of the law. By selecting former Sen. John Danforth as the investigator of government conduct in the Branch Davidian inferno, Attorney General Janet Reno has tried as well as we can think possible to get the Waco thing onto a high road.

The St. Louis lawyer and Episcopal priest, who left the U.S. Senate after a long career as a Republican officeholder, brings to this endeavor a sterling personal reputation, a record of professional integrity and the political skills to manage this probe.

He already has set a well-considered tone for the inquiry into the conduct of government agents during and after the April 19, 1993, attack and subsequent fire at the Branch Davidian redoubt. Calling the matters under his charge as special investigator "the dark questions," Danforth was careful to enumerate his task as to determine:

Did federal agents kill people?
Did the government cover up its actions?
Note, please, that Danforth does not intend to take side trips back into the why and what of government decisions during the 51 days of the siege, which began as a weapons violations pursuit and ended with about 80 people dead in the compound of the religious group. Danforth has been careful to explain in public that the probe is of possible "bad acts" not of "bad judgment."

The early discipline is important for a variety of reasons. Among the most important is that the Danforth probe sets out to get to the bottom of the credibility crater that federal law enforcement now occupies because it has lied about Waco. Diversions from this central question are outside the interest of focusing on a just finding that the American people can believe. Danforth, with the ways of Washington's scandal-prolongers well understood, set his boundaries smartly. He also hired on a Democratic-appointed U.S. attorney, Edward Dowd Jr., as deputy.

It is heartening, too, that the chairmen of both congressional judiciary committees have shown courtesy and respect to the Danforth probe. This respect, of course, will not sway all the partisan hound dogs who want to go another round of gotcha with the Clinton administration in general and Reno in particular. For the moment, however, signs are good that the Danforth inquiry will be focused, balanced and to the direct questions of whether government agents are culpable for crimes in Waco and whether they left a trail of deceit that undermines the credibility of the law.

Reuters, July 14, 2000
By Marcus Kabel
WACO, Texas (Reuters) - In a clear victory for the U.S. government, an advisory jury in a $675 million lawsuit by the Branch Davidians found on Friday that federal agents were not to blame for the deaths of about 80 sect members in the 1993 Waco siege and fire.

The five-member jury, whose verdict is only a guideline for U.S. District Judge Walter Smith, took just over two hours to reach a decision that Davidian lawyers conceded would settle for most Americans a seven-year debate over who was at fault in the Waco conflagration.

``I think this verdict for most of the American people is the final word. What they will take away from this is that five people sat on a jury for four weeks and they found the government not guilty,'' Michael Caddell, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, told reporters.

The lawsuit filed against the U.S. government charged that federal agents were at least partly responsible for a 51-day armed standoff at the Davidian compound outside Waco in central Texas and a blaze that consumed the building after an FBI tank and tear gas assault.

The suit was filed by surviving Branch Davidians and relatives of the dead.

FBI Director Louis Freeh welcomed the verdict, saying there had been ``a lot of speculation, misinformation and second-guessing'' about the case.

``The significance of the jury's findings to the courageous federal law enforcement officers who have had to absorb unproven allegations and public criticisms for all these years cannot be overstated,'' Freeh said in a statement. ``An enormous burden has been lifted from them and their families.''

 

[goon]

I don't know who was at fault at Ruby Ridge and I don't know who was at fault at Waco.
Whether the accused parties were really guilty or not is not really the issue.
The issue is that the government has a responsibility to treat its citizens like people. This would include not shooting their teenage sons and their wives over a $200 tax and a peice of paper.
The government had the power to be patient and end both situations with no bloodshed, or to arrest the guys they were after without causing any standoffs at all.
They chose to charge in shooting instead.
Innocent people died.
Big suprise.
Guess they didn't know about how when you have alot of bullets flying around, people tend to get hit with them.

 

[swampsniper]

When we first saw what was building up at Waco, we should all have loaded up our ready packs and started driving. Next time, maybe we will.No violent intent, just make sure things are done the proper way.
ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS THAT GOOD MEN DO NOTHING

 

[seeker_two]

I wish we could have (& I did try to go out there), but the Feds had the roads blocked off 5 miles from the compound. They wouldn't let anyone--including the media--closer than that.

After a little pondering, I may have even spotted McVeigh there too...

 

[Tamara]

Gee, my favorite part of the congressional hearings on Waco.. (the first ones, that is. It was such a non-event that there were a couple, plus a Justice Dept. "independant investigation" in '99 by Clinton golfing buddy Danforth) was when Rep. Zeliff pointed out that the Clinton administration sent more Bradleys and CEV's to Waco than they did to Mogadishu, and Reno tried to counter by saying that we shouldn't think of them as "military vehicles", they were more "like a good rent-a-car".


Hey, who said the following regarding the '95 hearings: "We know what this was all about. This was an attack on the ATF. This planned hearing was simply some red meat to some of those extreme right forces." Was that A) Chuck Schumer in an interview or B) some poster in this thread?

What amazes me is that someone can blithely quote from the '99 Waco investigation without wondering why there even was an investigation re-opened into Waco six years later, and then bindly trust its veracity when the head of the investigation was picked by Reno (former Senator Danforth) who then picked as his own chief investigator someone who was currently under federal investigation (Ed Dowd). But hey, the government said it, it must be true.

 

[swampsniper]

seeker, if there had been enough of us there would have been little they could do. I sat there praying, glued to the TV, and then the smoke started rolling. Never again for me.