Yet Another Outrageous Act From The Chief Nitwit

On Aug 18, 3:01*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:36:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
in the case of Ruby Ridge

Yeah, so I guess that FBI sniper who blew apart the mother's head
while she was holding her baby and looking at all the FBI outside
their cabin had it coming right? And her teen son too? You know
jack**** about what led up to this, or the gun law entrapment that the
Feds used as a pretext, or the drunken junket the FBI maintained for
months so DC flies could come out to Idaho and flirt at the local
cafe. I guess collateral damage doesn't count.

And I guess you're real certain the Feds would have accepted their
surrender early on? Since the Feds started shooting first you must
have some special source. If State and local cops were not there the
Feds might have killed them all. They wanted a big show, taking down
some ****ed up Vet who talked White supremacist crap. Instead they got
to kill his wife and son.

I know damn little about Waco, but your reasoning per Ruby Ridge is
very weak. What I do know from Utah days is that you don't corner
these people over little ****, and that if you have too Its better to
have more local law enforcement talkers than shooters around, and I'd
keep half trained, hung over FBI and BATF boy wonders back in their
motel rooms where they can wait for the TV cameras.

Dave

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Lawlessness, what an excellent idea. It worked great the last
time the Mormons were run out of Illinois.

Of course you must be referring to the fact that Mormons were murdered
and run out of Southern Illinois and Missouri because, among other
things they were anti-slavery.

LOL !! Is that what you taught you at BYU ?

Mormons were run out of Nauvoo because they were corrupt,
avaricious, amoral and relentless. And now the creepy *******s
are back, buying up Hancock County for a Mormon theme park
and trying to make it a dry county. I wish the good citizens
of Hancock County would follow your good advice and not let
niceties like the rule of law get in the way of a little
"local discretion".

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Aug 18, 3:01*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:36:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
in the case of Ruby Ridge

Yeah, so I guess that FBI sniper who blew apart the mother's head
while she was holding her baby and looking at all the FBI outside
their cabin had it coming right? And her teen son too? You know
jack**** about what led up to this, or the gun law entrapment that the
Feds used as a pretext, or the drunken junket the FBI maintained for
months so DC flies could come out to Idaho and flirt at the local
cafe.

Wrong. I know a fair bit about it. For example, his sawing off that
shotgun, whether technically legal or not - whether 18.1" or 17.5", was
a pretty clear "**** you." IAC, had he showed up for his court date, no
one, FBI or otherwise, would have been up at his cabin.

I guess collateral damage doesn't count.

If some innocent neighbor had been shot, that would be one thing, but
his wife, kids, whathisname "roommate"/sidekick/whatever knew what was
up insofar as his general activity and the adults chose to be there (and
his wife chose to let the kids be there or was a part of the decision).
And no, I don't think certain FBI agents acted professionally in the
least (hence my comment certain of them being allowed to play with
guns), but they didn't just go pick Weaver and crew out at random and go
light 'em up.

And I guess you're real certain the Feds would have accepted their
surrender early on? Since the Feds started shooting first you must
have some special source.

Ah, you were there, then - were you with Weaver or the FBI?

If State and local cops were not there the Feds might have killed them all.

Yeah, and they might have given them tea, scones, and a couple of
billion in small, unmarked bills, too...and both are equally likely,
IMO.

They wanted a big show, taking down some ****ed up Vet who talked
White supremacist crap. Instead they got to kill his wife and son.

Yeah, hardly a day goes by without drunken federal agents shooting up
white supremacists and their families...that's probably why there's
hardly any of them around...

I know damn little about Waco, but your reasoning per Ruby Ridge is
very weak. What I do know from Utah days is that you don't corner
these people over little ****, and that if you have too Its better to
have more local law enforcement talkers than shooters around

Well, sure - it's not fair to expect these kinds of loonies conform to
the rule of law and public order like plain old-fashioned criminals...

, and I'd
keep half trained, hung over FBI and BATF boy wonders back in their
motel rooms where they can wait for the TV cameras.

I'd keep half-trained agents back at the training center, and those that
didn't meet the highest standards well away from such events, but hey,
that's just me...

HTH,
R

Dave

On Aug 18, 7:14*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:

LOL !! Is that what you taught you at BYU ?

Mormons were run out of Nauvoo because they were corrupt,
avaricious, amoral and relentless. And now the creepy *******s
are back, buying up Hancock County for a Mormon theme park
and trying to make it a dry county. I wish the good citizens
of Hancock County would follow your good advice and not let
niceties like the rule of law get in the way of a little
"local discretion".

--
Ken Fortenberry

It is a fact that Joseph was an anti-slavery frontier candidate for
President. It is a fact that Brigham Young did not allow slave holding
Mormons to settle in Utah. It is a fact that the Blacks who came into
the Valley were free. It is a fact that Blacks were long denied the
Mormon priesthoods. It is a fact that the Governor of Missouri issued
an order to "exterminate" the Mormons. It is a fact that Illinois mobs
murdered Mormons and burned the city of Nauvoo. One does not have to
be a Mormon to read the history and come to understand that the
actions of the Illinois and Missouri mobs, their State governments and
by the late 1850s, the Federal government constituted a persecution
that comes as close to a pogrom as we have seen in the United States.

You are conflating the Mormon Church, the LDS church, which eschews
polygamy, with break away polygamists, who I do not support, but do
feel should not be hounded because of their religious beliefs and
domestic arrangements. If you want to argue that allegations of
individual sexual abuse should be investigated, fine. But mass seizure
of hundreds of children on the basis of their religious affiliation is
outrageous, and unconstitutional. Think about it: why didn't the
government seize all the children of the worst child abusing parishes
of Boston? Pack em off to foster homes and interrogate them?

The full power of government is awesome, and especially in matters of
family and religion it needs to be used very carefully. That's some
of what I learned at BYU and from working for the State of Utah. I
still believe it.

Dave

On Aug 18, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Wrong. *I know a fair bit about it. *For example, his sawing off that
shotgun, whether technically legal or not - whether 18.1" or 17.5", was
a pretty clear "**** you." *IAC, had he showed up for his court date, no
one, FBI or otherwise, would have been up at his cabin.


Well you do know more than most. But you don't seem to know that there
was no way he, Weaver, could have known that he was supposed to be in
court, that the government set him up by offering money for a sawed
off shotgun, that the government plan was to blackmail Weaver into
being an informant on Aryan Nations activities, which it turns out
Weaver had nothing to do with. And that little item as to the
shotgun's length is not trivial. And saying "**** you" to the U.S.
government is not a capital crime last time I checked.

Weaver was a rascist veteran with PTSD, who got caught up in a drunken
FBI/BATF cluster**** that got out of control. And that brings me back
to my whole point with you, and Fortenberry, which is not against the
rule of law but is that the law is a blunt instrument and in the real
world, the law works better if it is applied carefully and gently when
it comes to people and groups whose religous, political or family
beliefs are different than the norm. You don't send in the tactical
squad to a domestic complaint.

Dave

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


Your years at BYU

Ignorant, bigoted drivel snipped.


Ken, you ignorant sl . . . . Ah, never mind, I see Dave set you straight.


Russell

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:17:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Wrong. *I know a fair bit about it. *For example, his sawing off that
shotgun, whether technically legal or not - whether 18.1" or 17.5", was
a pretty clear "**** you." *IAC, had he showed up for his court date, no
one, FBI or otherwise, would have been up at his cabin.


Well you do know more than most. But you don't seem to know that there
was no way he, Weaver, could have known that he was supposed to be in
court, that the government set him up by offering money for a sawed
off shotgun, that the government plan was to blackmail Weaver into
being an informant on Aryan Nations activities, which it turns out
Weaver had nothing to do with. And that little item as to the
shotgun's length is not trivial. And saying "**** you" to the U.S.
government is not a capital crime last time I checked.

Um, "set him up?" Please. If someone offered the great majority of
law-abiding folks money for a sawed-off shotgun (or to saw off a shotgun
provided to them or to participate in any other such activity), they'd
tell them "no way." We're not talking about a crime of passion or some
minor malum prohibitum violation (for example, buying a 20-year-old
friend a drink or buying a few joints worth of weed), we're talking
about someone doing something they knew full well was, at the minimum, a
potentially serious offense and doing it for people that he at least
believed to be, again at minimum, not likely to want such a weapon for
legally acceptable reasons. IOW, he knew he was screwing around with
dangerous stuff and did it anyway. It's like a coke dealer claiming he
is pure as the driven snow because the cops set him up on a crack deal.
It's not like the feds simply picked the name of some innocent lamb at
random from the telephone book and then went up there and lit things up.
Again, however, this doesn't completely absolve law enforcement for any
and all actions, it simply suggests that Weaver had a large amount of
responsibility for his situation insofar as law enforcement coming after
him and that LE had reasonable probable cause to treat the situation
with all due seriousness.

Weaver was a rascist veteran with PTSD, who got caught up in a drunken
FBI/BATF cluster**** that got out of control. And that brings me back
to my whole point with you, and Fortenberry, which is not against the
rule of law but is that the law is a blunt instrument and in the real
world, the law works better if it is applied carefully and gently when
it comes to people and groups whose religous, political or family
beliefs are different than the norm.

Uh...what? Are you seriously suggesting that law enforcement needs to
mollycoddle such people even when it is likely that they are committing
serious crimes that could constitute a direct threat to public safety?
We're not talking about some Paleros killing a goat in the suburbs,
we're talking about loonies with serious firepower and an expressed
willingness to use it.

You don't send in the tactical squad to a domestic complaint.

I beg to differ. If the folks involved are known to be Weaveresque
loonies with serious firepower readily available, you don't send in
Barney and his bullet to "nip it in the bud!"...

TC,
R
Dave

On Aug 18, 10:20*pm, wrote:

There you have it . . . the last word. Ive said my piece. Thanx for
keeping it civil.
Dave

wrote:
You don't send in the tactical
squad to a domestic complaint.

Dave

uh...perhaps you aren't familiar with the current law enforcement
policies and the procedures employed in responding to "domestic
violence" complaints. it's all tactical, storm trooper stuff nowadays...

jeff

On Aug 18, 10:17 pm, wrote:

rule of law but is that the law is a blunt instrument and in the real
world, the law works better if it is applied carefully and gently when
it comes to people and groups whose religous, political or family
beliefs are different than the norm. You don't send in the tactical
squad to a domestic complaint.

I'm not taking sides in the above episodes (though from the little I
know I tend to agree that the gov't actions were not appropriate), but
if the below was happening to me, you'd probably read about me in the
papers and be having this discussion about me:

http://media.www.dailyillini.com/med...-3090501.shtml

Jon.