Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
best reread what i wrote then. I specificallly said "Now I see how it's easy for you to say and believe the crap that you've said on this thread". I didn't say you were right or wrong, I gave my opinion that your view is crap.
As a 42 year old man who served 6 years as a US Marine and an Air Traffic Controller, along with years of studying gun laws and abuse of law enforcement power, I'm well qualified. You might get there if you can break out of your 'government does no wrong' bubble.
|
I wasn't going to argue this, but it is wearing on me.
If you disagreed with Walter (ignoring the sarcasm) you should simply explain where he is going wrong. Instead you address what he wrote as 'crap' while providing nothing of substance in return.
The simple truth is that while the FBI lost it's collective mind during this incident, there is a lot more to the story which puts randy, his family, and the events that transpired into a far darker color of gray than you portray in your post.
You suggest that the only thing Randy did illegal was to sell those shotguns and that he didn't deserve to be shot at (which is likely the truth, but still...). what about these incidents:
1: In 1985 Randy Weaver came up on the Secret Services radar for allegedly making threats against the President. Definately Illegal, though he was never charged.
2: After Randy Weaver failed to appear in court (I will concede that he did not deliberately miss his trial) he refused to surrender to US Marshals and the armed standoff began, which makes him guilty of resisting arrest, use of a firearm in commission of a felony, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc.
3: Since Randy Weaver and his family took up fighting positions whenever a vehicle would approach, his family was fully involved in the standoff and were guilty of aiding and abetting, at the very least.
4: Randy's son was not shot out of the blue, but rather after the standoff had already developed and his family had essentially been 'put on notice' that Randy was going to be arrested. He had reason to believe federal agents might be in the area, and should not have aggressed on them after they put down the dog that attacked them. And he certainly should not have shot at the officers, which really does make for a good self defense shooting.
5: Horiuchi didn't murder Vicki Weaver in cold blood. He is a moron and should be held criminally culpable for his idiocy, but I think it is pretty clear he was shooting at Kevin Harris, especially considering that the fated bullet first passed through Kevin Harris, then through a door before hitting Vicki, who was concealed behind the door.
Horiuchi's actions, as well as the FBI conduct of the incident were contemptible, but call a spade a spade and don't build Randy Weaver up to be some mythic hero, or tear Horiuchi down as someone who deliberately shot and killed a woman who was just 'holding a baby' rather than someone who was aiding Weavers efforts to evade lawful arrest. How did Randy not break the law by engaging in an armed standoff with the Police and FBI?
Second, you quote your life experience as somehow qualifying you for...something though I'm not really sure what it was as you never presented an argument other than saying Randy didn't do anything illegal (other than the shotgun thing). I abhor trotting out the life experience/credentials trump card, and I feel that doing so in a discussion is typically the precursor to an appeal to authority fallacy, as this seems to be.
But since you mentioned it, how exactly do your years of experience in an air traffic control tower qualify you to speak with authority on the Ruby Ridge incident? And in particular, how does it better qualify you than Walter, who has at least six years of law enforcement experience; the kind you get from actually being law enforcement?
I agree with you most of the time here on TFP. I also feel that Ruby Ridge should have resulted in criminal charges against several of the agents involved, Huriuchi in particular. However, the Weaver family was not by any means free of culpability and rather than discuss that with Walter when he decided to play devils advocate you went straight to calling his assertions crap and pulling out your life experience and laying it on the table.