Re: [CTRL] Killing without Consequences
-Caveat Lector- This story tells the sad tail of the lack of justice in our justice system these days. The federal police have a heavy hand and apparently can continue to use it indiscriminately. This whole issue makes me sick, and don't forget old trigger finger Horiuchi was at Waco too. On Fri, 15 June 2001, Peat wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman57.html";> size=3>http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman57.html size=3>June 16, 2001Killing without Consequencesby David > Dietemanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";> size=3>[EMAIL PROTECTED]Recently, the federal > Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 6-5, that thestate of Idaho could > prosecute federal sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi formanslaughter in the killing > of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge.Horiuchi shot Mrs. Weaver through the head > at 200 yards with a 30-06 sniperrifle. She had a baby in her > arms.After Mrs. Weaver was killed, federal agents taunted the surviving > familymembers.Federal agents, one must recall, were there to arrest > Randy Weaver for whatthe Washington Post refers to as “relatively minor > weapons charges.”Indeed. Weaver was charged with sawing one-half of an > inch off the length ofa shotgun. At this point, one must question the >Post’s > choice of words:“relative” as compared to what? The “weapons >charge” which > ultimately led tothe death of Vicki Weaver is objectively minor, unless the > word “minor” isto lose part of its meaning. (And so we see how the > mainstream mediainsidiously sanitizes the news, giving perhaps half of the > truth).Did I mention that Weaver sawed the hideously evil half-inch off > the lengthof the shotgun at the request of a federal informant in the hire > of theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?Weaver, by the way, > had failed to appear in court because he had been giventhe wrong date for > his hearing.That justifies killing? Apparently it does in the eyes of > some people, whoperhaps cannot imagine any human conduct which should not be > subjected tostate control. In other words, there are some people whose > notion of libertyis being allowed to do what the government tells you to do > – and if youdisobey, you die.And now the state of Idaho has decided > that it will not exercise its rightto prosecute Lon Horiuchi.Killing > without consequences.Did some federal lackey threaten to take away > Idaho’s highway funds? Isthere a cushy federal agency job in >somebody’s > future? So far, no one istalking.The Washington Times adds that > Boundary County Prosecutor BrettBenson, in a brief statement issued > yesterday by his office, saidAgent Lon T. Horiuchi, a member of the FBI's > hostage rescue team,would not be tried in an Idaho court for the Aug. 22, > 1992, death ofMrs. Weaver. The statement gave no reason for the > decision.This is more than a bit odd. After the state expends no small > sum of moneyto take the case to a federal Court of Appeals, they decide to > drop thecase.Disturbingly, one of the five judges who would deny > Idaho the right toprosecute the sniper for the killing, Judge Michael Daly > Hawkins, called theruling a “grave disservice” to federal law >enforcement > authorities “who knewuntil now that if they performed their duties within > the bounds of reasonand without malice they would be protected...and not > subject to endlessjudicial second-guessing.”What exactly is >“within > the bounds of reason” about shooting a woman with ababy in the head from >200 > yards? Are we to believe that the governmenttrained this sniper to kill from > such a distance, and yet he could not tell,or did not have sufficient > optical devices to discern, that his target was awoman with a > baby?The majority opinion from the Ninth Circuit found that the >sniper’s > shootingwas “more akin to recklessness than reasonable doubt.” Do we >want > toencourage reckless behavior by men with sniper rifles? If they work for > thegovernment, apparently so.As the Washington Times reports of the > Ruby Ridge killing,Acting under modified rules of engagement by FBI > supervisors saying thesharpshooters “could and should” shoot any >armed male, > Mr. Horiuchi wasattempting to hit Weaver friend Kevin Harris when he shot > Mrs. Weaver, 42,as she stood behind a cabin door. The same bullet also > struck Mr. Harris ashe ran behind the door.Ah, he couldn’t see what > was behind the door – that is the excuse.But of course, if any private > citizen were to shoot at someone inself-defense, but hit someone else, you > can be certain that private citizenwould face prosecution. That is because > his private killing is not“official.” In short, those who work for >the > government can kill – they canviolate the government’s >constitutional duty > to safeguard the lives of thecitizens – and face no consequences. Well, >they > might not get a promotion.The point the minority judges miss is that the > decision to kill – mostcertainly the decision to kill a woman holding a > baby, e
[CTRL] Killing without Consequences
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman57.htmlJune 16, 2001Killing without Consequencesby David Dieteman[EMAIL PROTECTED]Recently, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 6-5, that thestate of Idaho could prosecute federal sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi formanslaughter in the killing of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge.Horiuchi shot Mrs. Weaver through the head at 200 yards with a 30-06 sniperrifle. She had a baby in her arms.After Mrs. Weaver was killed, federal agents taunted the surviving familymembers.Federal agents, one must recall, were there to arrest Randy Weaver for whatthe Washington Post refers to as “relatively minor weapons charges.”Indeed. Weaver was charged with sawing one-half of an inch off the length ofa shotgun. At this point, one must question the Post’s choice of words:“relative” as compared to what? The “weapons charge” which ultimately led tothe death of Vicki Weaver is objectively minor, unless the word “minor” isto lose part of its meaning. (And so we see how the mainstream mediainsidiously sanitizes the news, giving perhaps half of the truth).Did I mention that Weaver sawed the hideously evil half-inch off the lengthof the shotgun at the request of a federal informant in the hire of theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?Weaver, by the way, had failed to appear in court because he had been giventhe wrong date for his hearing.That justifies killing? Apparently it does in the eyes of some people, whoperhaps cannot imagine any human conduct which should not be subjected tostate control. In other words, there are some people whose notion of libertyis being allowed to do what the government tells you to do – and if youdisobey, you die.And now the state of Idaho has decided that it will not exercise its rightto prosecute Lon Horiuchi.Killing without consequences.Did some federal lackey threaten to take away Idaho’s highway funds? Isthere a cushy federal agency job in somebody’s future? So far, no one istalking.The Washington Times adds that Boundary County Prosecutor BrettBenson, in a brief statement issued yesterday by his office, saidAgent Lon T. Horiuchi, a member of the FBI's hostage rescue team,would not be tried in an Idaho court for the Aug. 22, 1992, death ofMrs. Weaver. The statement gave no reason for the decision.This is more than a bit odd. After the state expends no small sum of moneyto take the case to a federal Court of Appeals, they decide to drop thecase.Disturbingly, one of the five judges who would deny Idaho the right toprosecute the sniper for the killing, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, called theruling a “grave disservice” to federal law enforcement authorities “who knewuntil now that if they performed their duties within the bounds of reasonand without malice they would be protected...and not subject to endlessjudicial second-guessing.”What exactly is “within the bounds of reason” about shooting a woman with ababy in the head from 200 yards? Are we to believe that the governmenttrained this sniper to kill from such a distance, and yet he could not tell,or did not have sufficient optical devices to discern, that his target was awoman with a baby?The majority opinion from the Ninth Circuit found that the sniper’s shootingwas “more akin to recklessness than reasonable doubt.” Do we want toencourage reckless behavior by men with sniper rifles? If they work for thegovernment, apparently so.As the Washington Times reports of the Ruby Ridge killing,Acting under modified rules of engagement by FBI supervisors saying thesharpshooters “could and should” shoot any armed male, Mr. Horiuchi wasattempting to hit Weaver friend Kevin Harris when he shot Mrs. Weaver, 42,as she stood behind a cabin door. The same bullet also struck Mr. Harris ashe ran behind the door.Ah, he couldn’t see what was behind the door – that is the excuse.But of course, if any private citizen were to shoot at someone inself-defense, but hit someone else, you can be certain that private citizenwould face prosecution. That is because his private killing is not“official.” In short, those who work for the government can kill – they canviolate the government’s constitutional duty to safeguard the lives of thecitizens – and face no consequences. Well, they might not get a promotion.The point the minority judges miss is that the decision to kill – mostcertainly the decision to kill a woman holding a baby, even if she waskilled because she was behind a door and not the intended target – mustalways and everywhere be subject to second guessing.The alternative is to allow the government to create more men like TimMcVeigh – who was, of course, trained to kill by the government – who killwithout remorse.The state of Idaho owes the world an explanation. Since the JusticeDepartment spent $3.1 million in tax dollars to settle one lawsuit stemmingfrom Ruby Ridge in 1995, perhaps someone believed that justice had alreadybeen served.But if that is t
