----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Ruby Ridge..
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you saying that the report of the official > > investigation was false, or > > are you just interpreting it in a far different > > manner than I do? > > > > http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm > > > > As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent > > with SOP for Houston drug > > enforcement. > > > > Dan M. > > Just from reading the introduction "the FBI's Hostage > Rescue Team . . . instituted a shoot on sight policy . > . .." That's what I was referring to. Rogers explained his initial thoughts about the Rules of Engagement: In this particular situation, after hearing the description of what had taken place, specifically the fire-fight, the loss of a marshal, it was clear to me that there was a shooting situation taking place at this location. It appeared to me that it would have been irresponsible for me to send my agents into the situation without at least giving them a set of rules within the greater framework of the standard FBI rules, that would allow them to defend themselves. With that in mind, I proposed that the rules be that if any adult is seen with a weapon in the vicinity of where this fire-fight took place, of the Weaver cabin, that this individual could be the subject of deadly force... [A]ny child is going to come under standard FBI rules, meaning that if an FBI agent is threatened with death or some other innocent is threatened with death by a child, then clearly that agent could use a weapon to shoot the child... that's the way it's stated, but quite frankly, we try to prevent ourselves from being put in positions where children can threaten us and where we would have to use deadly force. [FN532] When asked if he had considered the possibility that an adult might be seen with a weapon slung on his shoulder or carried in a nonoffensive way, Rogers replied: I went down a bit and it was specifically giving permission to shoot armed adults. This was after an agent got killed in a fire fight. <quote> Yes, it was considered, and it's always my knowledge that my sniper observers and my other team members are clearly going to make a judgmental call as to whether to employ deadly force, and based upon the training, based upon the experience of these men, I know that they have absolutely the best judgment when it comes to use of deadly force. [FN533] Rogers acknowledged that the Rules of Engagement he proposed specified that any adult with a weapon observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin or in the firefight area "could and should be the subject of deadly force." [FN534] According to Rogers he discussed this rule with FBI Assistant Director Larry Potts who concurred fully. [FN535] [G.J.] [FN536] Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules of Engagement as providing that: Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules of Engagement as providing that: Any adult with a weapon who was observed in the vicinity of Randall Weaver's cabin or the fire fight area, COULD be the subject of deadly force. All efforts should be made to avoid any confrontation with children, but if such a confrontation became unavoidable, that faced with the threat of death or grievous bodily harm, the standard FBI use of deadly force policy would be in effect. [FN537] <end quote> I would agree that, even after an agent was killed in a firefight, this is excessive. I think that some way to address the possibility of a weapon being present in a non-threatening position should have been in the orders. But, that is not the same as a shoot to kill order. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l