You’re assuming that a surprise tactical operation was justified in the first place! I think that’s the whole problem with the government’s actions, for me and many here.
The ATF felt one was justified, had started training at Ft. Hood and they made documented decisions to move the date up because of the pending release of The Sinful Messiah by the Trib.
The original raid of course. The entire world knew about the seige.
Later, in what may well be the single most egregious example of kicking your customers in the dick, a gun manufacturer named HS Precision printed advertisements with an endorsement from said sniper, Lon Horiuchi.
I’m thinking that they weren’t thinking, unless they really wanted to make sure that they alienated a large portion of their target market.
Texas neither requires or has gun registration. Other than fully automatic weapons that would require federal, most of the weapons were not legally required to be registered.
Or they just could have arrested him while he was out jogging, as he was seen doing quite often.
Koresh was a nutcase who probably needed to be put in prison. But law enforcements handling of the whole situation was terrible.
After the cops got killed and wounded in the first raid, the siegers had no intention of letting the Davidians get out alive.
The compound was surrounded by military and police. The had all roads in closed . They had tanks and heavy equipment. Nobody was getting in.
What makes you think any government action is justified? But just for argument’s sake…
In both cases, government launched a surprise invasion, the government shot and killed one or more dogs on the premises, people fearing for their life then responded to the gun fire in self-defense, one or more government agents died as a result, and at that point both operations became a shoot first, ask questions later, act of vengeance.
In both cases, completely innocent men, women and children were murdered by the government.
Whether the government’s actions were legal or not is irrelevant, when the law is not based on justice.
Whether the government’s actions were justified or not is a good question. In my humble opinion, any act of violence that kills innocent casualties is an act of murder, an initiation of force, and thus unjustified.
Note: 3-year-old zombie thread.
Dan Shielding,
Greetings and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. I hope you’ll enjoy your stay here and while away many hours in our various fora.
Note, however, that this thread is almost 3 years old. Should you see something like this in the future it is highly unlikely to provoke another ongoing discussion. Far better to start a new thread on the subject that attempt to revive an older one where many of the participants may no longer be around.
Jonathan Chance
Moderator
Great Debates
Let’s say I kill you and your next of kin wants me arrested. Are you saying that the government action to arrest me isn’t justified?
Sometimes Zombies are very interesting. I read the thread with out realizing it was old. What a great debate.
I guess Weaver could have been charged with resisting arrest.
It’s interesting to look back on these two events, contrasting how the government handled them with how it handled Cliven Bundy (the deadbeat rancher) and the standoff with tax frauds Ed and Elaine Brown.
In the former case (Bundy), the government tiptoed around the crazies to such an extent that they’re willing to let someone get away with criminal behavior.
In the latter, the feds held back, kept an eye on them, and arrested them when a low-consequence situation presented itself.
If Ruby Ridge and Waco hadn’t already happened, either of these new cases would IMHO have ended badly. It’s a good sign that the feds can learn from their mistakes.
In absolutely no case is it justifiable to respond to a government police action, whether or not you believe it’s justified, by firing on government officials.
Even if you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong up to that point, you are now a traitor and a murderer and you deserve every bit of what’s coming to you.
Well that’s just factually untrue on multiple levels. To be a “murderer” you must have unlawfully killed somebody. There are scenario conceivable where it would not be unlawful to resist police action with force.
To be a traitor, you’d have to fit the definition in the constitution (in the US).
None of those are satisfied by the fact pattern posited.
He had two outstanding warrants for failure to appear, and he’d already been charged with selling illegal firearms. The latter might have been entrapment, though (he sawed a shotgun barrel shorter than the legal limit for a federal informant).
Unless, you know, they are from a different government than yours.
What, even if you miss?