Posted on 11/04/2006 12:16:33 PM PST by happinesswithoutpeace
As the Justice Department’s chief civil rights prosecutor, Deval Patrick made the controversial decision not to criminally prosecute an FBI sniper who shot and killed an unarmed woman as she held her infant daughter in her arms during a 1992 standoff in Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
The incident, in which U.S. Marshall William F. Degan of Quincy and the wife and son of white separatist Randy Weaver were killed during an 11-day standoff, is cited by experts as the spark that started the anti-government militia movement that exploded after the standoff in Waco, Texas, less than a year later. 1994, Patrick, the Democratic candidate for governor who was then assistant attorney general, concluded there was insufficient basis to prosecute FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for shooting and killing 43-year-old Vicki Weaver. Horiuchi had testified that he opened fire on the woman’s husband and his friend, Kevin Harris, when he thought they were about to fire on an FBI helicopter.
Patrick made the recommendation despite a report by a task force assembled by Patrick’s boss, Attorney General Janet Reno, that found numerous problems with the FBI’s handling of the standoff, and called the protocol used by the FBI’s Hostage Rescue unconstitutional under the circumstances. The report referred the case to Patrick’s department to decide whether to charge Horiuchi. Aides to Patrick said he was unavailable for comment because he was preparing for last night’s debate. Former Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin called the incident “a tragic one that occurred during the final months of the first Bush administration.”
“The Justice Department believed the critical element of willfulness necessary for a criminal civil rights prosecution could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt,” Marlin said in a statement to the Herald yesterday. “Such willfulness, or knowing, intentional use of unreasonable force could not be made out against the FBI agent.”
Patrick’s assessment, he noted, was“reaffirmed by a separate criminal investigative team.”
In 1995, however, a Senate subcommittee headed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) found “simply no justification” for the shot Horiuchi took that killed Vicki Weaver and “missed the 10-month-old baby in her arms by less than two feet.”
“Horiuchi should have known that as he fired blind through the cabin door, he was shooting into an area which could well have contained Vicki Weaver and her two younger daughters,” states the report, which took no position on whether Horiuchi should have been prosecuted.
The decision not to prosecute was ripped by both conservative and liberal groups. “It was obscene,” said author James Bovard, an outspoken critic of federal officials’ handling of the case. “There was no need for the excessive force the FBI used in gunning down a mother holding her baby. ACLU Legislative Counsel Timothy Edgar said the incident was “the result of overzealous - and unchecked - federal power.”
Dueling experts testified at the trial that the gun was/was not legal. We should remind everyone that the Government stooge pestered Randy for over a year and kept raising the price to modify the gun. The law is not clear. In any case the murders of Vicky and the baby were committed by a bunch of government employees out of control.
'I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
>>>I think someone from the government will be along to remind everyone that Randy Weaver was a felon, and the none of this would have happened if he hadn't sawed off that shotgun barrel.<<<
The barrel was "legal". The overall length of the shotgun was slightly under the "legal" limit. Weaver became a "felon" when he gave in to the insistence of the undercover federal mole to make the stock shorter. Weaver was railroaded by a rouge, overzealous, government agency.
Let's keep this all in perspective. There is nothing unconstitutional about owning a sawed-off shotgun. However, the federal law that ban's sawed-off shotguns is unconstitutional: it is tyranny.
"One way is by the amount of freedom they allow. So, if the American character isn't actively/aggressively shaped by govt -- then it is allowed to flourish under the freedoms provided by the Constitution."
First, the Constitution does not "provide" freedoms. Never has, never will. Freedom is provided by our Creator and ALWAYS LIMITED by government for many reasons (excuses, mainly). Our Constitution absolutely and specifically limits GOVERNMENTAL authority, not freedom. Our freedoms and liberties are only limited by the bounds set by the EQUAL freedoms and liberites of other individuals, and are to be PROTECTED by government. This is a CRUCIAL difference between the United States of America (as it was founded) and the rest of the world at that time. Up to that point, you would have been correct. However, the Constitution for the United States put a whole new face on government, one which the PEOPLE of the rest of the world admired, but their governments abhorred. Now we have become, in practical terms, just like the rest of the world, and that works very much to the detriment of the average American. Our leadership, so-called, gives lip service to the principles of the Constitution, while using it to wipe their nasty a$$es. And this refers to both halves of the ruling party.
I don't disagree at all. In fact, I consider that post a pre-emtive warning to watch out for the inevitable fallacies we will be presented with in an effort to mollify anyone who asks inconvenient questions.
We're talking past each other here -- but we haven't become like "the rest of the world."
Very nicely put.
Good reason for the 2nd amendment.
“The Justice Department believed the critical element of willfulness necessary for a criminal civil rights prosecution could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt,” Marlin said in a statement to the Herald yesterday. “Such willfulness, or knowing, intentional use of unreasonable force could not be made out against the FBI agent.”
“Horiuchi should have known that as he fired blind through the cabin door, he was shooting into an area which could well have contained Vicki Weaver and her two younger daughters,” states the report, which took no position on whether Horiuchi should have been prosecuted.
All of these statements sound ridiculous in light of the fact that Vicki Weaver was standing in the front door, with her baby in her arms, holding it open for Kevin Harris who was running as fast as he could from an outbuilding to the house. Vicki Weaver's husband was inside the house out of sight.
Nice characterization of a young boy who was walking through the woods close to his own home, with his dog, hunting when all of a sudden his dog was shot dead from a concealed position by a man in camoflage. I would have reacted the same way he did with the exception that I would have taken cover first.
http://www.centerforintelligencestudies.com/cfisarchive.html
For this reason, both the Congress and the Executive Branch expect the
Bureau to provide a sterling example for American law enforcement
nation-wide. The fact that the FBI has in recent years failed to do so
has provoked widespread anger on Capitol Hill, and muted threats to
terminate the FBI's police-agent program.
One incident that sparked particular outrage was a sham-conference held
at the FBI Academy in 1997. Ostensibly billed as a seminar devoted to
"Integrity in Law Enforcement," it was in fact a retirement party for
former Deputy Director Larry Potts.
More than 140 senior FBI officials were flown to Quantico at taxpayer
expense for the festivities; and while each of the 140 invited guests
made their appearance at the party, only 5 attended the lunch-hour
lecture on law enforcement ethics. The fact that this lecture was thrown
together on the eve of the party led the FBI's Office of Professional
Responsibility to conclude it was "a sham, intended to be used as
justification to allow financial reimbursement to [senior officials] to
travel to a peer's retirement function."
Consider well that on some styles of shotgun barrels, the method the BATF uses to measure length isn't the method that some other people might use. I don't know what particular type of barrel Randy Weaver is supposed to have been dealing with, but I wouldn't be surprised if the piece of metal comprising the barrel had an overall length of 18" or more, even though the portion the BATF measures was slightly less. It's interesting to note that Randy Weaver was never actually convicted of manufacturing or possessing a short-barreled shotgun. I wonder why?
"but we haven't become like 'the rest of the world.'"
Only in degree, at best. Else how do you explain all the assaults on the Second Amendment (VERY few countries have such a specific guarantee --NOT GRANTING-- of the natural right to self-protection); the Fourth Amendment (search and siezure-all the no-warrant, no-knock, kick down the door raids for NO legitimate/constitutional rationale); the Fifth Amendment (the eminent domain part, Kelo, et al) and total violation/ignoring of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? About the only specific "Thou shalt not" NOT violated is the Third Amendment (and with all the video surveillence cameras in use now, there's no "NEED" to quarter troops in every home... we're all now on Candid Camera, everywhere).
The Second Amendment Issue is tricky. I've been thinking about it alot lately and have only snippets of thoughts, ideas so far.
The videotaping etc. is not as clear cut as you may think, since many of the cameras are privately owned/operated. The camera at your local ATM, for instance.
A very smart person once said to me, years ago, that cable television transformed America. Now, the internet is doing the same thing.
I have fairly little heartburn about PRIVATE video surveillence cameras, such as those found in banks or high-risk stores, such as 7/11s. There is clear purpose for them and you know going in that you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Cameras operated by government agencies in public places are very much a concern, however. I cannot fault putting cameras in and around nuclear weapons bunkers, for example, but they are NOT tolerable on public streets or highways. Whether or not I have something to hide is utterly beside the point. NO GOVERNMENT AGENT has any legitimate authority to monitor the comings and goings of the citizenry for any reason. To monitor the comings and goings of a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, for specific reasons, with a valid and SPECIFIC COURT ORDER or warrant, is another kettle of fish. BUT cameras which are just mounted any old where are NOT authorized, nor should they be.
With regard to the Second Amendment, it is pretty specific: "...[S]hall not be infringed" is fairly clear language. LOCAL government might reasonably say that certain TYPES of weapons must not be discharged within certain parameters or must be stored in such a way as to prevent or minimize any accidental discharge or damage to the neighbors. For example, unless FedGov or other enemy tanks were coming down my block, I'd prefer my neighbor go out to the country to practice with his TOW missiles or LAAWS rockets. It's only common courtesy, after all. I'd also like it if he kept them in some sort of underground bunker so as to prevent damage to my house, if HE has a house fire or something. I would surely do the same. On the other hand, if my neighbor had such toys, I'd sure be over helping him play with them often!
Insofar as simple possession, bear in mind that the second amendment does not GRANT a right at all; it only requires government to respect and leave alone a PRE-EXISTING right, one which should be exercised by the population a whole lot more than it is. The specific inclusion of the Second Amendment was to remind people, specifically the government, that We, The People, maintained a close hold on the reset button (the CTRL-ALT-DEL button) of government, to be used at our SOLE discretion, when government gets too far out of hand and our "servants" show too much interest in becoming our masters.
The ONLY "weapons" I would not want to see in ANYONE'S hands are the so-called WMDs. Actually, except for your basic nukes, these are primarily terror weapons or area denial weapons, not capable of destruction at all; only large scale killing of people caught unprotected in the right circumstances (or wrong, depending). These are the sort of things that even governments should not have available to them.
I hope this helps you sort out your ambivalence about the Second Amendment.
it was never the marshals - it was the fbi....and because of the fbi, the marshals have taken the heat over this.....take my word for it (or not) but the marshals were up there with a federal warrant doing what they were supposed to....and no matter what you think, that kid was walking around with a weapon....but of course, if he were -never mind....nothing I can say will change any of ya'lls opinion....but let me tell you - Billy Deagan was a highly decorated US Marine.....and he was the most decorated deputy US Marshal in the history of the USMS.....he's got two great kids....he went to do the job he was supposed to (and yes, there was a federal warrant out for these folks)....and that is the last time I'm responding to any of these comments and the last time I'll respond to all the trashing I've been hit with over the past two days.....
"I also don't doubt that there's a large unorganized militia out there, that is considerably better equipped than it might otherwise have been, due to Waco and Ruby Ridge."
Now just what would make you think some foolish thought like that? ;)
01
Careful observation at gun shows. ;-)
That "kid" had every RIGHT to be carrying a weapon on his own property. Who did NOT have a right to be even there were the marshals. Especially sneaking and peeking like that, then shooting the dog to keep it from giving them away. THEN shooting the "kid" in the back. The marshals deserve every bit of shame and disgrace they got. And I say that as a retired Marine who hates to see other Marines die foolishly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.