Don't you love it? The Second Amendment either supports "militias" or "militias" are wackos. You can't have it both ways.

sigmoid freud wrote:

Well now, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols weren't exactly Goddamn UnAmerican Liberal Commies or Raghead Muslim Jihadis, were they?

Not that I agree with their methods but, remember, Tim McVeigh did what he did in response to, and after the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents.

Ruby Ridge is the more glaring, of the two, IMHO. Without a search warrant, government agents trespass on a guys property to spy on him. The son's dog goes nuts so dad, son and dad's friend follow dog to see what is the matter. The agents, afraid the dog will give away their trespass, shoot the boy's dog.

Now, imagine you're on your property, and you see some scary stranger in cammo, who doesn't identifty himself as a law enforcement officer, shoot your dog..... The boy did what I personally would have done, being in fear of my life, and returned fire and shot the agent.

Later, after more agents return, they come up with their rules of engagement. These rules state they'll only fire at armed threats. After this, a sniper shoots and kills the wife, while she's holding the baby and unarmed....

The sniper, as he should be, was indicted for manslaughter prior to the statue of limitations for the crime running out, but the government, being all-powerful, had the case moved out of local court to federal court and then dismissed the charges based "sovereign Immunity".

For those that don't know, means the government can do ANYTHING they want, and get away with it. The law simply means "the government can do no wrong".

A year later, the same goons slaughter a bunch of fundy wack-jobs in a similar fashion to how many jews were killed in Germany some 50 years prior. They burn them alive....

Tim McVeigh was a wack-job, and obviously what he did was wrong, but I can still see why he was pretty pissed off....

Last edited by ptah13 (2009-03-14 00:41:24)

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Later, after more agents return, they come up with their rules of engagement. These rules state they'll only fire at armed threats. After this, a sniper shoots and kills the wife, while she's holding the baby and unarmed....

I seem to recall that the shooter was not targeting the wife.  He was targeting one of the armed men and fired at him as he was entering the cabin.  The bullet missed him and hit the wife who was standing inside the cabin. 

Not defending the shooter's judgment.  I just get tired of hearing this story told to make it sound like the shooter intentionally shot a woman holding a baby.

Well, that's the shooters story and he is sticking to it.

Of course, funny that the prosecutor who indicted him didn't see it  that way. I'd be saying the same thing the agent is, too, if I found out the vague silhouette I recklessly shot was a woman holding a baby.

Obviously the prosecutor agrees the agent's version of events is total bullshit and the government must also agree, since they refused to even risk a trial...

Personally, I think the guy deserves to be in prison. But, hey, let's just take the word of everyone who kills someone else and only put the guys on trial who admit to guilt up front....

For the longest time Conservatism was wrongly represented by the Republican party...  Now that people have had their eyes opened to what Republicanism is, the Libertarians are finally becoming a force....  I think it's great that Libertarianism has suddenly become a "threat"....  It means that America is reconsidering what we've become and we are going back to our roots....  I think it's great watching former Republicans like Andrew Breitbart admit to a failed system and convert to Libertarianism....  I love watching the U.K. adopt a Libertarian party http://lpuk.org/ and I love watching Libertarian themed books suddenly become best sellers..........    Thankfully I'm Conservative because I was raised that way...  I had one set of grandparents that were members of the John Birch Society...  I had another set of grandparents that were Reaganites and both of my parents taught me Conservative values outside of the realm of the Republican party...  They taught me that it should be embarrassing to accept welfare or take advantage of welfare programs...  They taught me to take care of myself....  They taught me the failures of collective bargaining (i.e. fucking over your employer).....  What they taught me was not to be the problem and how to be the solution....  The best way to improve yourself and your situation is to quit being a sniveling, whining, pathetic, victimized, worthless, non-contributing, liberal minded douchebag and to take care of yourself.....  Seriously, as adults people should be able to take care of themselves and their families..........  If I had children and had to depend on contributions from other tax payers to support and raise them I would feel lower than snake shit and would be unable to show my face in public.....  I don't see how this concept is so difficult for people to grasp, how did being an under-producing, under-achieving, leeching, self-absorbed, child-like individual suddenly become socially acceptable?  The only philosophy that does not screw over a large part of the population is Individualism and the only political stance that properly represents Individualism are the Libertarians...

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Later, after more agents return, they come up with their rules of engagement. These rules state they'll only fire at armed threats. After this, a sniper shoots and kills the wife, while she's holding the baby and unarmed....

I seem to recall that the shooter was not targeting the wife.  He was targeting one of the armed men and fired at him as he was entering the cabin.  The bullet missed him and hit the wife who was standing inside the cabin. 

Not defending the shooter's judgment.  I just get tired of hearing this story told to make it sound like the shooter intentionally shot a woman holding a baby.

Well, that's the shooters story and he is sticking to it.

Yes.  Of course he could have been a federal agent who was predisposed to shoot unarmed women holding babies because, well, that's just his thing.  I kind of find that unlikely.  People who are predisposed to believe this was the case really make me wonder...

ptah13 wrote:

Of course, funny that the prosecutor who indicted him didn't see it  that way.

Yes, it's always funny how prosecutors always seem to want to paint the worse picture of the person they are trying to convict.  It's almost like they consider it their job to do so.

ptah13 wrote:

I'd be saying the same thing the agent is, too, if I found out the vague silhouette I recklessly shot was a woman holding a baby.

I guess my question to you ptah is why you are predisposed to think differently?

By the way, I'm 100% a liberal...   http://lpuk.org/pages/take-the-test.php

Dirckman wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Tim McVeigh was a wack-job, and obviously what he did was wrong, but I can still see why he was pretty pissed off....

Other than 9-11, the worst terrorist attack in our history was done by rightist anarchist militia Posse Comitatus types, not by hippies and anti-Vietnam war leftists, who also could have had a grievance against the government for harassment and unjust prosecution. Yes, they too did some terrorism, but nothing on the level of those you try to defend.

Libertarianism sounds wonderful, until you thoroughly explore the agenda. It's marketed as freedom for individuals. It's really about freedom for corporations, freedom from workplace safety requirements, pollution controls, product liability, unions, and other bothersome things that interfere with profit.

I don't believe you fully realize the entire range of Libertarian thought...  Libertarianism is like atheism in that there are not set rules or beliefs other than one basic premise...  With atheism, it's that there is no god, with Libertarianism it's that individual thought and belief are more important than the collective good..  One faction of Libertarian thought goes as far as disregarding the concept of the free market.... Your simplistic description of Libertarianism only describes a small part of the entire gamut of Libertarian belief....

See, that part isn't included in the "discussion points" they are provided, Dirck...

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

I guess my question to you ptah is why you are predisposed to think differently?

Again, if you can just explain how the bullet got in the house, shot the wife in the head, then came back and lodged itself into the person rushing in the house, well then your point will be made.

I just re-read the account in Wikipedia since my memory isn't the best.  The story given is that a valid target under the rules of engagement at the time (one of the men carrying a rifle) was running into the house.  The agent shot into the doorway trying to hit him.  The bullet hit the wife who was behind the door the target had just passed through.  The bullet went through her and hit the guy he was trying to hit.  If that isn't the testimony then please correct me as I'm going on poor memory and Wikipedia.  It doesn't say anything about Chuck Norris being involved so I think it's probably a clean article.

ptah13 wrote:

I guess you could try and claim the friend ran in, then the wife entered the doorway after, getting between the guy and the sniper. Why she would do this when they were rushing into the house after being fired at outside is a little hard to wrap your mind around but hey, knock yourself out.

Not hard at all.  The wife was behind the door and caught a bullet in the head.  The bullet continued on to hit the guy with the gun.  This scenario make sense if the wife, hearing shots and the man running to the door, opened it for him and then proceeded to shut it behind him.  Sequence of events if you still don't see it:
- Shots fired at the man outside the cabin.
- Man starts pelting for the cabin door.
- Woman hears him coming and opens the door.
- Man jumps through door into cabin.
- As woman shuts door after him the sniper shoots.
- Bullet hits and goes through the closing door.
- Bullet hits and passes through the woman who was closing the door.
- Bullet hits man who at this point was past the woman and the door.

ptah13 wrote:

If you don't think someone being indicted, then having the feds move the case and dismiss it is a little telling, well, I guess I'm not surprised.

Do you really believe that everyone who is indicted goes to trial or cops a plea?  These things get dropped all the time. 

ptah13 wrote:

Funny how not only did all the occupants of Ruby Ridge walk free, but they also won millions in the lawsuits. Seems the prosecutor, the subsequent judges and juries representing the lawsuits and even the feds, who didn't take a chance in criminal court, don't put a lot of water in the agents story.

Nothing you said above calls the shooter's story into question.  Believe it or not, one can (and should) find the shooter's actions wrongful, believe the the feds were out of line and that they owed Weaver a big settlement without also believing that the shooter's story was a lie.  He shouldn't have taken the shot.  Period.  You don't shoot at a retreating gunman when innocents are likely to be down range (as is the case when the guy is retreating through an open door into a cabin with non-combatants in it.

ptah13 wrote:

Funny that you try and turn me saying the agent murdered a woman by his criminal recklessness into a claim that I'm saying the agent got up that morning with the intent to shoot at women and children. Nice attempt and warping my claim into something you can dispute.

OK then, what exactly were you trying to convey when you said "After this, a sniper shoots and kills the wife, while she's holding the baby and unarmed"?  Usually when someone says that a sniper shot someone they aren't trying to describe an accident or reckless shooting.  Your wording painted him as a cold blooded murderer.  I was replying to what you said.

ptah13 wrote:

Again, seems everyone that matters agrees this guy was criminal. If not, the feds would have let him exonerate himself in federal court.

I guess the person who decided not to charge him isn't "someone that matters".  Interesting reasoning, though.  You see a lack of desire to be prosecuted to be an indication of guilt.  Me, I prefer not to be criminally charged and have to go to court when I can avoid it.  Even when I'm innocent.

ptah13 wrote:

Also, to claim that all people who shoot someone get indicted for manslaughter is laughable.

I'm pretty sure I never said that so you can stop laughing. 

ptah13 wrote:

Police/feds shoot people under questionable circumstances all the time and there isn't an indictment, so to claim that this is automatic for prosecutors is laughable.

Again, where did I say it was automatic?

ptah13 wrote:

Oh and I'm not at all defending Tim McVeigh

Good God.  Did I accuse you of that?

ptah13 wrote:

With that being said, the sniper deserved to go to jail for the crime, instead of having Janet Reno use a "get out of jail free" card on the guy.

You can certainly argue that and I won't fault you for doing so.  The only thing I took issue with was your cavalierly stating that he shot and killed an unarmed woman holding a baby as if she was standing in the open, he drew a bead on her and fired.  That's what it sounds like to someone who doesn't know the circumstances of the shooting.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-03-14 03:08:15)

tojo2000 wrote:

It's amazing watching how the more Dirckman finds himself exposed to libertarianism his words per post increases while the lucidity decreases.  I figure at this rate he'll be one of those guys who gets hauled off to jail for believing some dope that tells him he doesn't have to pay taxes.

For someone who claims he lives among the self-reliant, his state spends quite a bit on social programs.

Zookeeper wrote:

a lucid, point-by-point response.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with all the circumstances involved and, based on your reply, your statements are pretty close to how I see things, except for a few points...

First, the idea that the sniper targeted the guy with the gun, then took the shot after he not only made it through the door, but behind the woman.

I find it more believeable that the sniper saw a figure in the door, assumed they were armed and shot. They had already cut the power to the house, at this point, so how, I wonder, would it be possible for him to even see the guy once he was so far into the house that he was beyond the wife? It stands to reason that the shades/curtains would be closed, at this point, otherwise snipers could have been picking them off at will. With that being the case, you go close all your shades then stand 100 yards out from your house and have someone go 5 feet inside and tell me what you can see of them....

Again, it makes more sense that sniper saw a figure and took a shot, hence why charges were filed.

I'd feel better about your "charges are dropped all the time" if it was the local prosecutor doing the dropping. Instead, the feds purposefully had the case moved to federal court as that was the only way to get the charges dropped....

Again, I realize the sniper account is as you enumerated above ("I shot at the guy and the wife got in the way"), but based on the lack of power, the lighting involved and the physics, it makes more sense that he saw a figure in the doorway, assumed it was the guy who just ran inside and took a shot. That's how the prosecutor saw it, it is obviously what the feds were afraid happened, it is how the later civil courts saw it and so I'm going to go with their opinion over yours.

No offense.... Again, your points are good. Good enough that I have to wonder if you're related to the dude or something (j/k).

Last, but certainly not least, it is the bigger picture that pisses me off. The wife getting shot is one small aspect of the whole problem. The government arguably entraps the guy into sawing off some shotguns, they trespass on his property, then shoot his son's dog. The son, enraged, returns fire and shoots the camo-wearing attacker (who had not identified himself as a LEO), then, while in full retreat, gets shot in the back. Subsequently the wife gets killed, as well.

Again, this is why the Ruby Ridge incident upsets me way more than Waco. At least, with Waco, you had a lot more reason for that all to go down. Weaver wasn't breaking any laws until the government enticed him to do so, which was a big part of him getting off scott-free.

Even if we assume everything you believe about the sniper shooting the wife is true, the incident was way-fucked by the feds the second they trespassed on his property, but even moreso when they shot the kids dog.... As far as I'm concerned, the Weavers were fully within their rights to defend their dog and property against unknown armed assailants. Personally, I think the guy who shot the kid in the back deserved jail, too.

We can argue about this all day but the civil courts and local prosecutor, again, agree with how I see things. You are entitled to your opinion, of course...

Oh, and someone else said I was "defending Tim McVeigh". Didn't mean to make it sound like you did.

tojo2000 wrote:

It's amazing watching how the more Dirckman finds himself exposed to libertarianism his words per post increases while the lucidity decreases.  I figure at this rate he'll be one of those guys who gets hauled off to jail for believing some dope that tells him he doesn't have to pay taxes.

I pay my taxes in full every year which is a better record than several members of the Obama cabinet have....  I may bitch about taxes, and despise where that money is spent, but at least I pay them.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

For someone who claims he lives among the self-reliant, his state spends quite a bit on social programs.

You'll see that in any state with a high per-capita Native American population and SD is the highest per-capita in the United States...

The how about West Virginia, poor, white, religious, conservative, backwards and welfare dependent.

It's the South, what else can I say?

ptah13 wrote:

You're likely to earn a stern reprimand from blojo and some piss porn from the pegging Jesus.

I've been trying to be equal opportunity about pissporning political trolling.  I've even pissporned myself for it.

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

a lucid, point-by-point response.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with all the circumstances involved and, based on your reply, your statements are pretty close to how I see things, except for a few points...

First, the idea that the sniper targeted the guy with the gun, then took the shot after he not only made it through the door, but behind the woman.

First off, keep in mind that this happened fast and that the target was moving fast to get away from the shooter.  The sequence of target running to door, woman opening door, target running through door and woman shutting door probably took less than two or three seconds tops with most of that time being taken by the actual running to the door.  Correct me if I'm recalling this incorrectly but the target was not running with his back to the shooter (occupying the space between the shooter and the door) when he ran from the shed back to the cabin.  As the man ran to the door the shooter had to follow his target laterally.  As I recall the target stopped traversing across the shooter's field of fire only once he made it to the door and entered.  So the shooter was unable to steady and target the man accurately until the man was entering the cabin.  In that very short time the man entered and the woman shut (or began to shut) the door.  I don't find that scenario hard to believe though I agree that the shooter should have held his fire as soon as the target was in a doorway given that the chances of hitting someone else down-range went way up at that point.

ptah13 wrote:

I find it more believeable that the sniper saw a figure in the door, assumed they were armed and shot.

Here is where the root of our difference lies: you find it more believable that the FBI agent is lying while I give him the benefit of the doubt.  I think you find it more believable because you are predisposed against the agent from the start since the Feds were already guilty of criminal mismanagement of the entire situation. 

ptah13 wrote:

Again, it makes more sense that sniper saw a figure and took a shot, hence why charges were filed.

Charges could reasonably be filed based on the shooter's own accounting of what happened.  He shouldn't have taken the shot given the circumstances he himself described.  So the fact that charges were filed doesn't cast doubt on the shooter's account as far as I'm concerned.

ptah13 wrote:

I'd feel better about your "charges are dropped all the time" if it was the local prosecutor doing the dropping. Instead, the feds purposefully had the case moved to federal court as that was the only way to get the charges dropped...

Can't argue with you there.  Still, the fact remains that being indicted doesn't prove the shooter's account is a lie nor does the fact that it didn't end up going to trial proves the shooter's account was a lie.  Regardless, your words miss-characterized the event.  Again, that was what I took issue with you on.

ptah13 wrote:

Again, I realize the sniper account is as you enumerated above ("I shot at the guy and the wife got in the way"), but based on the lack of power, the lighting involved and the physics, it makes more sense that he saw a figure in the doorway, assumed it was the guy who just ran inside and took a shot.

The lack of power, the lighting involved and the physics do not argue against the shooter's story being true.  There's no reason to believe that what he said happened did not in fact happen.  Lack of power doesn't argue against it.  Poor lighting doesn't argue against it.  Physics don't argue against it.  You are just predisposed to disbelieve him and given a reasonable alternative explanation you completely discount the shooter's story in favor of the one that condemns him.  I think he should be condemned regardless in that he simply shouldn't have taken that shot.  Assuming everything he said was true he still shouldn't have taken that shot.

ptah13 wrote:

Last, but certainly not least, it is the bigger picture that pisses me off. The wife getting shot is one small aspect of the whole problem. The government arguably entraps the guy into sawing off some shotguns, they trespass on his property, then shoot his son's dog. The son, enraged, returns fire and shoots the camo-wearing attacker (who had not identified himself as a LEO), then, while in full retreat, gets shot in the back. Subsequently the wife gets killed, as well.

Again, this is why the Ruby Ridge incident upsets me way more than Waco. At least, with Waco, you had a lot more reason for that all to go down. Weaver wasn't breaking any laws until the government enticed him to do so, which was a big part of him getting off scott-free.

Even if we assume everything you believe about the sniper shooting the wife is true, the incident was way-fucked by the feds the second they trespassed on his property, but even moreso when they shot the kids dog.... As far as I'm concerned, the Weavers were fully within their rights to defend their dog and property against unknown armed assailants. Personally, I think the guy who shot the kid in the back deserved jail, too.

I'm with you up to that last point.  The guy that shot the kid was returning fire.  He shouldn't have been there but he was there because his superiors put him there.  His reason for shooting the dog was reasonable given people he had been told were armed and hostile were being lead to him by the dog.  When he shot the kid he was returning fire.  The whole situation was one massive fuck-up but if I had been in that agent's shoes I suspect I would have taken the same actions.

ptah13 wrote:

We can argue about this all day but the civil courts and local prosecutor, again, agree with how I see things. You are entitled to your opinion, of course...

And the opinion I stated was that you miss-characterized the shooting in the post I initially replied to.  And you did.

Oh, and this is getting entirely too civil, so, fuck you.

tojo2000 wrote:

I'm afraid the other day I was sick and cranky and I was probably more insulting than usual because I was using you as a proxy.  Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's myopic to sing the praises of your own personal responsibility when you were given one of the greatest head starts this world has to offer.

I find Dirck entertaining and he is a nice guy but this is probably Pearls Before Swine.

You have to have an epiphany in your life to come to the realization that you are talking about Tojo.  The game still works for him.  Wait awhile after the rug has been pulled out from underneath him and see which way he rolls.  I am betting he'll hold to the past rather than look to the future, but I have been surprised in my projections before.

Dmtdust wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

I'm afraid the other day I was sick and cranky and I was probably more insulting than usual because I was using you as a proxy.  Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's myopic to sing the praises of your own personal responsibility when you were given one of the greatest head starts this world has to offer.

I find Dirck entertaining and he is a nice guy but this is probably Pearls Before Swine.

You have to have an epiphany in your life to come to the realization that you are talking about Tojo.  The game still works for him.  Wait awhile after the rug has been pulled out from underneath him and see which way he rolls.  I am betting he'll hold to the past rather than look to the future, but I have been surprised in my projections before.

I agree with you.  I like Dirck, but he doesn't seem to realize how fortunate he is to come from the background that he came from.  He grew up pretty priviledged, with good parents, which did give him a head start.  Not everyone is so fortunate.  Should a person be doomed to failure because of where he's from, or do we as a society want to give people the tools to help themselves?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

You're likely to earn a stern reprimand from blojo and some piss porn from the pegging Jesus.

I've been trying to be equal opportunity about pissporning political trolling.  I've even pissporned myself for it.

I appreciate it.

I must admit, you have been pretty "fair and balanced".

Keep up the good work!

headkicker_girl wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

I'm afraid the other day I was sick and cranky and I was probably more insulting than usual because I was using you as a proxy.  Of course, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's myopic to sing the praises of your own personal responsibility when you were given one of the greatest head starts this world has to offer.

I find Dirck entertaining and he is a nice guy but this is probably Pearls Before Swine.

You have to have an epiphany in your life to come to the realization that you are talking about Tojo.  The game still works for him.  Wait awhile after the rug has been pulled out from underneath him and see which way he rolls.  I am betting he'll hold to the past rather than look to the future, but I have been surprised in my projections before.

I agree with you.  I like Dirck, but he doesn't seem to realize how fortunate he is to come from the background that he came from.  He grew up pretty priviledged, with good parents, which did give him a head start.  Not everyone is so fortunate.  Should a person be doomed to failure because of where he's from, or do we as a society want to give people the tools to help themselves?

Wait?? Is that what DMT was saying?

If that is the case, I'm way-confused.

On a side note, I believe in free college or trade school for those that can't afford it. I believe everyone should eat (even though those damn Democrats in Malibu make it illegal to give the homeless a sandwich). People already get free health care (which is why I think it is funny that the left claims they don't).

Aside from that, don't spend my money on anything else welfare related. If someone is able to work, but not willing to work for McDonalds, then they shouldn't receive anything free. If someone is able to work, but not willing to pick veggies in the fields, then they shouldn't get free stuff. Nobody should be allowed to just pop out 10 kids and sit on their asses and claim, "it is because my parents were poor and uneducated so it's not my fault".

This is the largest "not my fault" society on the face of the planet. Dirck sees massive swaths of people who just sit on their asses drinking cheap beer and trading their food stamps for cigarettes, all on his dime, and it makes him sick.

People need to be responsible for themselves, sorry.

Dirck -- a society of individualists cannot work.  It's antithetical to the idea of a society, which is a group of people who choose to live together for the common good and who all have competing wants, interests and desires.  Everyone has to give up something in order to be part of society.

Dirckman wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Dirck -- a society of individualists cannot work.  It's antithetical to the idea of a society, which is a group of people who choose to live together for the common good and who all have competing wants, interests and desires.  Everyone has to give up something in order to be part of society.

That's very true.....  The argument is how much you give up, to whom, and who decides...

A very reasonable statement from someone who just painted a picture of laying on his deathbed and realizing that all of his life was dictated by social and political authorities.

Dirckman wrote:

By the way, I'm 100% a liberal...   http://lpuk.org/pages/take-the-test.php

Thank you
You scored 60%
You are moderately liberal.

Well, that's a bit surprising. Good thing I generally stay out of these threads. I must be confused.

As much as I support health insurance/care for the weakest and smallest and poorest, I am so weary of all the crap I see in a huge, centralized government run system like the school district I work for. There is SO much waste, so much inefficiency, and so many times parents just take advantage of things because they can. And I don't blame the parents, I blame a system that should know better.

Take the playgrounds, for instance. Did you guys know that LAUSD paved over every fucking playground in the district a few years ago? Now kids, especially city kids whose parents work all the time and don't donate organic hemp playground equipment etc etc, get to play on blacktop that stretches for almost an acre, with no green plants, no trees, nada. Many of these elementary schools have adopted "safety rules" as a result, whereby kids are-get this-not allowed to RUN during recess because it's "dangerous". So they walk, march, really, around this crappy blacktop that looks depressing in the winter and holds rain puddles they're not allowed to splash in, of course, and that boils in the summer, making it about as appealing as a Costco parking lot in say, phoenix, for kids who can't even go outside in their neighborhoods for fear of drugs and gangs.

I decided, with a couple of friends, to start a nonprofit where we could get some celebrities, some bleeding heart liberals like myself, to put in some fucking grass and trees in some of these inner city schools. And we're getting some funds together-but the biggest problem is not lack of donors or people who want to get involved or the schools-it's the fucking UNIONS who were created by LAUSD to say, manage the concrete/blacktop in these playgrounds.

The cost of putting in a tree, if I were to do it and hire some folks outside Home Depot to jackhammer the blacktop and stick the damn tree in and even hire someone to water it once a week, is maybe, tops, $1200 per year (maintenance included.) But to have the UNION do it, for LAUSD, we got a quote of 10,000 dollars per tree. Not including the tree. Because you can't hire someone outside the system, they can fucking charge whatever the fuck they want.

It's pathetic. Having been a social worker too (I know, I'm off the charts, I didn't even take the damn test because I'd probably break it) I know it's not the poor and the disadvantaged who are the problem. It's the fat bureaucrats who make money off the their backs in a government bureaucracy where there is zero accountability,. zero sense, zero impetus to serve anyone but themselves.

I don't know what the solution is, and I'm not "stocking ammo" because I believe in things like community, and social responsibility, but there has got to be another way. Gigantic, centralized paper pushers are just making it all worse.

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Oh, and this is getting entirely too civil, so, fuck you.

You're so sexy when you are angry!!!

I'm not angry.  It's just that civility is so boring...

ptah13 wrote:

I saw some history channel shit on this (or maybe it was A&E, I don't know). From the way they described the positioning... Say the house is the center of a clock with the door facing 3 o'clock, the sniper was in about the 4:30 position... Doesn't really fit with gun runs in and woman just steps in the way. Couple that with the fact that there was someone behind the friend (Randy Weaver) who had yet to make it into the house. Why, then, would she be closing the door in her husbands face? Marital problems, perhaps?

Ah!  Now my poor memory comes into play.  I had thought that weaver was already in when the shot was taken.  Why did the shooter fire into the doorway when Weaver was still outside in plain view?  Or was he hiding behind the shed waiting for an opening?  This isn't how I recall it...

However, if she opened the door for him and was behind the open door then there is no contradiction if the friend ran in past her if the door was open, say, half way and she was behind it holding the door.  It depends on the angle of the door to the shooter and I'm not clear on that.  Diagrams are needed now to really get some clarity.

ptah13 wrote:

It makes more sense that target runs in house, Randy breaks for the house and wife steps into doorway, perhaps to hold the door open for Randy, and the sniper just sees a silhouette in the doorway and shoots, hitting wife and friend behind wife.

"Makes more sense" to you is not the same as evidence that the story the agent told is untrue.  If his account is plausible then you need actual evidence to contradict his accounting of what happened. 

ptah13 wrote:

Your theory keeps referring to the collateral damage "downrange", but the problem with that is, the bullet hit wife first, guy behind wife 2nd. I wouldn't say word one about it if they shot the guy and the wife got hit behind. In that case, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You're either not reading what I'm writing or I'm just not being clear.  My remarks about "downrange" were that one should not shoot at a fleeing suspect when you don't know what is down range or when there is a liklihood that innocents are down range.  I wasn't saying that the wife was down range, only that he should not have fired because he didn't know what was down range.  Strictly speaking, Weaver's wife was "down range" of the doorway if she was just inside and behind the door.  Not down range of the man he was shooting at but rather down range of the area he was shooting into (the doorway).

ptah13 wrote:

Based on series of events (friend enters house, randy heads for house, wife gets shot in doorway, wounding friend BEHIND wife), the opinion of the prosecutor makes way more sense than, "the guy was running and I was targeting him and he ran in the house, made a semi-circle behind the wife just as I was firing". I'm sure you believe that and I'm sure most LEO's and federal agents say, "oh yeah, that makes good sense", but a huge portion of us don't think that's exactly what happened.

Because you are predisposed against the feds and by extension the shooter.  I'm predisposed to believe the agent in the absence of actual evidence that contradicts his account. 

ptah13 wrote:

Of course, how do I know that the agent that was killed wasn't his best buddy and the guy was eager to shoot anyone on the property. I don't know that and if it were the case, I wouldn't be real surprised, hence why I characterized the agent as joyfully sniping the wife holding the baby. I agree that this portion of my opinion is bereft of facts or evidence.

Indeed.  Besides being nothing but empty speculation it shows a clear prejudice against the agent.  No wonder his account is wildly unlikely to you.  You already have your mind made up that he's the bad guy.  And bad guys are to be disbelieved until proven truthful. 

ptah13 wrote:

I'm glad that you feel that the agent made a full and truthful account of what occurred.

Lacking evidence to the contrary I give him the benefit of the doubt.  And lacking evidence to the contrary you go the opposite direction.  It seems that in your eyes he's guilty until proven innocent.

ptah13 wrote:

I didn't come into my research on the subject predisposed to the idea that the agent was lying. I came to that conclusion after being exposed to all the facts in the case and seeing, for myself, the agent give his side of the story. He seemed callous, cold and untruthful in his response...

Not much of a response can be given to such a subjective observation...

ptah13 wrote:

We might agree that, being in the same situation, we'd fire back at the teenage boy but I don't think I would once he was in full retreat to the cabin.

Define "full retreat".  How long after his last shot fired was he hit?  How far had he run before he was hit?  What was the visibility between the two combatants?  You have clearly studied this while I have gained what information I recall passively.  Did the agent run after him shooting?  Or did he stand his ground while firing multiple shots at the boy seconds after he turned and ran?  Would the fact that he had just shot your partner really have been irrelevant to your decision on whether or not to shoot?

ptah13 wrote:

...they HAD to know the boy was only defending his dog, family and property.

How were the agents briefed?  Were they told "OK, you will be going up against a boy who will only be defending his dog, family and property."  I don't know the exact wording of what the agents were told but I suspect somewhere in the verbiage were words to the affect that the occupants of the cabin were considered armed, dangerous, and anti-government.  The agent's partner had just been killed.  When a cop's partner is shot by a suspect and the suspect flees what is the cop supposed to do?  Conclude "well, he's in full retreat, he's no longer a threat, so I might as well let him go"?

ptah13 wrote:

It would be totally different if the guys were yelling "FBI" or "ATF" or whatever...

So, you would have been OK with the boy being shot in the back as he fled if the agents had been yelling "FBI" or "ATF" or whatever?

ptah13 wrote:

Either way, I'm sure we are in for some more of it, knowing how the left feels about folks who, in times of trouble, turn to their Bibles and guns.

Well, if ever there was a family who fit that description it was the Weavers...

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, if ever there was a family who fit that description it was the Weavers...

We are never going to come to an agreement as I won't agree that my feelings about the agent are based on some preconceived notion about said agent.

You are obviously entitled to blindly believe anything any LEO says as the Gospel, and that is your right... Again, until I saw the show showing the location of the shooter and him being interviewed, I had no opinion on his guilt or innocence.

I won't lie, I live in Indianapolis where our police corruption and brutality are famous. We had a pack of drunk off-duty cops nearly beat a man to death, in front of thousands of witnesses (location: our main bar drag on the busiest night of the week), because one of the cops hit on the mans girlfriend (while they were in a car waiting at a stop light) and the man dared say anything against them.

My best friend, and about 20 others, while having a block party, personally witnessed a suspect of a taco bell robbery, while fleeing police, crash his car into a tree in my friends' neighbors front yard, breaking 3 bones in his leg. The man gets out of the car, hopping on one leg, and stands there surrendering, with both hands in the air. The first officer on the scene pulls up, gets out of his car and puts 12 rounds into the man, killing him instantly. The Taco Bell robber had no weapon, and over 15 people testified at the review board to the exact same story, and still the police officer was cleared of any wrongdoing and was returned to the street.

Two of the cops who beat the man in the first story, a few years later, were in a bar playing pool with this couple (whom they did not know). Apparently, the wife thought the cops were jerks and, as the couple were leaving, said something to the husband about it, which was overheard by one of the cops. The cops followed the couple to their car and beat the living daylights out of both the man and the woman (broke the womans nose, beat the man really bad). Of course, when bystanders came they were all threatened with arrest if they didn't leave. When the on-duty cops came, the couple were arrested for "resisting arrest".

And then, of course, there is the Michael Taylor incident...

This is a nationally-covered case where a man was arrested wearing nothing but short running shorts, and a pair of sneakers. He was handcuffed (BEHIND his back, this is important) and seatbelted into the back of a police cruiser. Now here is where the story gets confusing. The police claim that Taylor had hidden a .38 caliber revolver in his shoe, retrieved it (while handcuffed behind his back and wearing a seat belt, all without the officers noticing) and killed himself.

Later, the FBI (and, in all fairness, a private eye hired by local black ministers) concluded Taylor killed himself. What my link doesn't tell is that 38 different FBI agents tried to recreate what Taylor had to do to not only retrieve the gun, but also get the angle of shot taken, and none of them could do both...

Also, the police say they searched him, but didn't notice the .38 hidden in shoe.... Unless he was a size 6 wearing a size 12 shoe, I don't see how this is possible, either. Maybe a .22, but a .38?

Of course, the Taylor family sued (because all police shootings are reviewed by the local "give the police a get out of jail free card" board, so no charges are ever filed) and won and the city did not appeal...

Aside from that I also remember the Kmart shoplifter shooting. A man shoplifts from a local Kmart and is pursued around the building by the off-duty cop who is working Kmart security... A few moments later, after running behind the building, you hear a shot fired. THe man is found dead, unarmed, with a head shot. The officer claimed that the man swung a 2x4 at him and the gun "accidently discharged". Again, I'd have no real problem with this but the entry point of the shot was the top of the head, then the bullet went out the bottom of the mans chin and into his chest. Again, the physics of this one don't match the story, unless the man was on all 4's swing a 2x4 with one hand with his head tucked into his chest...

I might note that Taylor, the shoplifter and the Taco Bell guy laded with lead are all black and all the shooters were white.

Most of these incidents took place in a short span from the mid 80's to early 90's. Shortly after, a black sheriff was elected and another black man was appointed chief of our police department. Suddenly, the incidents came to a quick halt. The problem is, the same white bigoted cops still roam the streets.

So, to say I'm jaded against LEO's is an accurate statement. I've personally seen white cops beat a handcuffed, drunk, helpless and homeless black man nearly to death (with night sticks) because he dared insult one of the officers. So, yeah, I have a tendency to not believe EVERYTHING every LEO says because they are so "noble".

With that being said, I don't feel the same about federal LEO's as I do about the local guys. Feds are better screened, trained and managed. If it's a local incident, my skepticism glasses are on from minute one, but for the feds (FBI, ATF), I don't usually form an opinion till I get the facts. I had no opinion on the sniper until I saw the show on the history channel and got the details.

But, yeah, I have a problem with police, in general. Thank god I'm white or, with my mouth, I would have been executed by these goons a long time ago.

ptah13 wrote:

(Massive tsunami of words)

You win.  I drowned trying to read that one...

(Doesn't just a tiny bit of you die inside when you spend that much time crafting a long and lovingly crafted reply only to hear the person you were replying to didn't bother reading it?)

Last edited by Zookeeper (2009-03-15 19:42:56)